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

3. Although one may have equal love for their partners, do you think the partners would have equal love for each other. More often than not, a relationship in where there are more than 2 partners often has one partner not knowing about the other, which is adultery, or better known as cheating. This cheating if ever found would surely bring turmoil to every relationship involved, and potentially sabotage everything; making romantic love for more than 2 partners impossible. 5. Romantic love can be lost over time. I do not simply think that love just shrivels down until it is microscopic; it disappears. For romantic relationships that have ended decades ago; do you think both individuals could look at each other, say that they love each other, and truly mean it? 7. Attraction to others and monogamy are two entirely separate ideals. Attraction to multiple peoples physical appearances is undeniable. All humans find more than one person good looking. However, the idea of romantic love is far more than just skin deep. As we stated, a romantic relationship is "passionate, intimate love between people." Thinking someone is good looking doesn't take away that a a passionate, intimate connection is needed in order to love someone. 8. Could you picture a society today without monogamous relationships transforming into families that fill up every town?
It's possible to romantically love more than one person at once

3. Just because a romantic love is being shared amongst multiple people doesn't make it an lesser than that of a single couple. The love is not divided into parts so small that it cannot be called love. Each love shared with an individual is their own, separate thing. The only variable on how powerful a love can be between two people are personalities of the two people together. 4. I agree to this premise 5. This is true. However, is a romantic love that is once had ever truly lost? It maybe an ex-lover, but that person still has shared some intimate and passionate moments with another, making their love for each other grow. Even if a couple has broken up and, and moved on, is that love still not there? 7. I disagree. As human beings, our nature is to find a mate in order to reproduce. It isn't to find your one true love and create a family with them. It is simply to reproduce and create offspring, no matter the number of people. If monogamy is really the correct way of life, why do we find ourselves attracted to different people everyday? 8. I will agree that monogamy has shaped the society we live in today, but it is not the natural way of how life is supposed to be.
It's possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. I agree to our definition of romantic love, which is a "passionate, intimate love between people." 3. I agree to the premise you've presented. Although there is no restriction given to the amount of people involved in a romantic relationship it is only a distraction to have multiple romantic love interests. It cannot be true love without a commitment between partners to only have each other . 4. I agree to this premise. Physical contact is not needed in order to have romantic love with an individual. However, there must be some sort of passion between individuals in order for a romantic love to exist. 5. I agree to this premise. This does not mean someone is unable to forget about a previous lover of the past. 7. I would say that the idea of monogamy hasn't been embedded into our society by others. Instead, monogamy is a naturally occurring idea that is in our nature as human beings. 8. Ever since we were small children we have had dreams of growing up and having a family on our own. Having a family is from the idea of monogamy. Being with one person and raising a family together are concrete ideals throughout human history, and I think the world would be very different today if monogamy didn't exist. 9. Therefore, it isn't possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non-Controversial: Premise 1 is just an agreement to the definition we have established for romantic love. Controversial: Premise 3 reflects on the idea of having multiple partners. In a case where that is true I feel as if you are never really concentrating on one person, thus never making a passionate connection associated with having a romantic relationship. Even if the relationship was physical too, it would simply be a hookup. Premises 4 and 5 have to do with instances where the partners are no longer physically together, and the love they shared can still be there or not. Premises 7 and 9 conflict with my opponents view on monogamy.
It's possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. Romantic love is strictly a passionate, intimate love between people. 2. In this debate we are strictly talking about romantic love, and nothing that can be confused with it, such as platonic love. 3. There is never a given restriction on the number of people one can romantically love. 4. Also, there is no need of physical contact in order for a romantic love to be present between people. Having intercourse or even seeing their mate is not needed in order for someone to have romantic love. 5. Romantic love can exist past death. The death of a partner doesn't mean the love for them also dies. 6. If a widow were to ever move onto someone else, she would have both the love of the one she widowed and her new mate. 7. Monogamy is instilled in our society, so it is only natural to abide by societies rules. 8. Likewise is the idea of adultery; it is only viewed at as bad because it is the societal norm. 9. Just because of these norms instilled in us from birth, we look at ideas of having multiple romantic partners to be immoral. However, it is in our nature as human beings to have multiple romantic partners over our lifetimes. 10. Therefore, anyone is capable of loving more than one person at once Non-Controversial: Premise 1 is a definition for the debated topic and premise 2 is a clarification. Controversial: Premise 3 is an observation made by looking at the definition of romantic love. Premises 4, 5, and 6 all pertain to the distance between partners. Even if there is no physical contact made with your partner a romantic love can still exist past physical relations. Premises 7, 8, and 9 are all my feelings on the idea of trying to make romantic love into monogamous relationships.
It's possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. I still agree to our definition of romantic love, which is a "passionate, intimate love between people." 3.. There is no restriction given to the amount of people involved in a romantic relationship, but a romantic connection cannot be made unless there are only 2 people. If there are any additional partners it would over complicate the entire relationship, which in most cases would then end abruptly. 4. Physical contact isn't needed for a romantic connection, but most definitely enhances any romantic connections that have already been established. 5. Love for a deceased partner can last a very long time, but not forever. That love can fade over time.The widowed partner can make a choice to hold onto that lost love forever or to leave it behind for a new one 6. Once a couple has broken up the decision has been made to no longer pursue a romantic relationship. Unless started again, the romanticism of the relationship is done and it becomes strictly platonic. 7 and 8. I agree with both premises presented for the most part. I only disagree with the notion that humans aren't cut out for monogamous relationships. If anything I would say that it is the ideal relationship to have. Liking the idea of monogamy is subjective to each person. After all of the premises presented to me I would change sides of the argument if I had the opportunity. My opponent provided many premises that I have seen and experienced in my own life to know that it is possible to have a romantic relationship with more than one person at once.
This joke is unfair.

Q:What came first the chicken or the egg? This joke is unfair because. Definition for unfair is =not following the rules of a game or sport. =unkind, inconsiderate, or unreasonable. https://www.google.com... 1. The person who asks the question can manipulate the answer. 2. Different answer will produce different effects of laughter let out by the listener. 3. Not everyone can get this joke. 4. This joke has no warrant for everyone to laugh just because of the funny answer.
This joke is unfair.

So i think i have the answer to the riddle what came first the chicken or the egg.....so here i go: Q:What came first the chicken or the egg? A:The egg,because dinosaurs laid eggs long before the chicken came around. I say it is totally fair the egg came first,but some people say the answer is unfair because the question is: what came first the chicken or the chicken egg. so what's your opinion?
No to legalizing prostitution

The Con's point has certain flaws in them. It has to be considered that most children in the prostitution industry are forced to be there. (1) No child in their sane minds would give up a normal life and turn to prostitution. Problems such as human trafficking and domestic violence which turns the children into runaways or force them into the streets is not going to solved whether if prostitution itself is legal or not. This would be the topic of another debate, not this one. It is correct that legalisation of prostitution will not terminate anything (abuse, rape, violence and etc.), like I have pointed out before. However, legalising prostitution will mean that prostitutes can now go to the police/law departments for such crimes without worrying that they will be arrested as well. If it was illegal, no prostitutes will dare go to the police in fear of being arrested, and their customers will have no fear abusing them, as they cannot tell anyone. This does not make their situation better. If prostitution is to be stopped, problems like poverty, human trafficking and domestic abuse have to stop first. Without these problems stopping, prostitution is going to continue on no matter if it is legal or not, just like how it has been since ancient times. (2) Given that it being legal is more beneficial and safe to everyone, my point still stands. Sources: 1) http://arkofhopeforchildren.org... 2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
No to legalizing prostitution

That is some interesting points, however, there is still chances that children will sell their body for money, even though there is an age limit. Even though they might enjoy it in the start, it is not certain that they will continue enjoying it and when they then want to stop, they probably do not have anything to do with their lives because they chose to sell their body instead of educating themselves. It should not be like that. They should care a bit more about their bodies and just because it gets legalized it does not mean that the costumers will stop abusing them. They can still threaten them as well as murders and rapists do to their victims. As good as people are at lying today, there is no way anybody can trust each other.
No to legalizing prostitution

Prostitution should not be legalized and here is why: Prostitutes nowadays might think this is what they want, but sooner or later they will be finding themselves at a place, where they do not want to be. Some people, mostly girls, wants to give up on their EDUCATION to become a prostitute, if it gets legalized, which everybody knows is not what they should. They should stay in school, get an education and stay on a path they can use for something. Some of the prostitutes out there does not even WANT TO be a prostitute, they are just doing it to earn money because they cannot get any better job. Do they world really want that? Do the world want prostitution to be legalized if the prostitutes might not be able to live a normal life after?
An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

Before I proceed to my first point, I must apologise for not noticing that you wanted me to started, hopefully I haven't made too much of a bad impression on you, with my attention to detail. Nevertheless, I will proceed with my argument. The reason that I believe an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent entity exists because it explains a lot about how the Universe was created. By my understanding, the Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from an explosion from one, single point. I understand that evidence, such as red-shift and cosmic microwave background radiation backs up the Big Bang theory but what you should keep in mind is, that the Big Bang theory does not provide a valid explanation, nor any evidence for the single point, which expanded to become the universe we know today. Where did that hot, dense point come from? And where did the cause of that come from? If you can give me an answer, I'll probably ask you "where did THAT come from?". It's like if you want to ask for, say a loan; you ask one person, and he/she tells you, "OK, let me just ask this other guy for money to give you, he also has to ask this other guy for money because he doesn't have money either; I'd ask him myself I knew him" Assuming that there is an infinite number of people, who have to ask the person who is more closer to the person with the money, would you ever get that loan? So, why do I strongly believe that God exists? He is transcendent from his creation; not bound by any of the realms he created- be it time, space or matter. The idea is that he is eternal, having no beginning and no end. I think it should be seen as a miracle that one planet, in our solar system, had a planet that can sustain life. Given the number of particles in the universe, wouldn't the chances of a sustainable planet, with an environment suited to humans- created by luck, be slim? I don't want to completely disprove the Big Bang theory because it pretty much fits the description in the Quran: "And it is We who have built the universe with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (Quran 51:47). The idea of the universe expanding came hundreds of years before "the first academic to propose the Big Bang theory", Georges Lemaitre was even born! In a time where the only astronomy you'd get is gazing at the night-sky, the Final Prophet, who was illiterate, wrote about the universe expanding, but there's a difference- God is expanding the universe. I know it might seem illogical to you, to believe that the universe came from a "magic man in the sky", I don't blame you. Though, it wouldn't be fair if religious people start hating you for not believing in God- after all, there is no solid evidence for God's existence- but, at the same time, there is no solid evidence to DISPROVE God's existence.
An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

For reference, see the section "Rounds" of my Round 1 argument. This is because, it is entirely up to Pro to prove the existence of an OOO god, while Con must merely rebutt said arguments. (Don't worry -- I'll do more than this. ) Hence, I need arguments to refute. Regardless, don't hold it against Pro.2C0B: "I am a Muslim, who worships none other than the one and only God, whom we call 'Allah'. " Cool.2C0C: "I'm new to this website and will use the best of my debating skills to hopefully convince you that there is one God, who has created us all. "That is what you will attempt to do. :P2C0D: "I'm no physicist but I hope that it won't take a lot for me to win this debate. "That depends on what evidence you want to use.2C0E: "I respect your faith and do not wish to condemn you for your beliefs, what you believe is 100% up to you and I would also appreciate it if you express your views with respect, as well. "Yes, of course.
An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

I am a Muslim, who worships none other than the one and only God, whom we call 'Allah'. I'm new to this website and will use the best of my debating skills to hopefully convince you that there is one God, who has created us all. I'm no physicist but I hope that it won't take a lot for me to win this debate. I respect your faith and do not wish to condemn you for your beliefs, what you believe is 100% up to you and I would also appreciate it if you express your views with respect, as well.
An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

Pro will write only "I pass this round, at no penalty, as agreed. "Definitions:Omnipotent: "having unlimited power; able to do anything," [1]. Omniscient: "knowing everything," [2]. Omnibenevolent: "all-loving, or infinitely good," [3]. To Exist: "to have objective reality or being," [4]. The full resolution is thus:"An entity, having unlimited power, knowing everything, and being all-loving, has objective reality. "BOP:Pro has the Burden of Proof (BOP) to prove that at least one omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (OOO) entity can exist and does exist. Con has no BOP except to disprove Pro's arguments, as will be reinforced later, if necessary. References:[1] google. com/search? q=definition+omnipotent[2] google. com/search? q=definition+omniscient[3] en. wiktionary. org/wiki/omnibenevolent[4] google. com/search? q=definition+exist
I am the best debater on Debate.org

Nice... Let's conclude my side of Round 3. It's not Christmas, actually. Some other people celebrate Kwanzaa or Hanukkah. If I say, "Happy Holidays!" this includes Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Christmas, and other celebrations that I have not mentioned. Am. Okay, I'll agree with the definition. I believe that you have mixed up your argument in a way that I do not understand, but I suppose that you are saying that I am not a debater. Well, look at now, the present. You stated in your first argument that I am not a debater, and now you're saying that I am a debater. Wow. Nice. I regularly engage into debates, so yes, I AM a debater. I debate. You stated that "am" in your definition and in mine is: A person who is debating. Yes, I AM debating. I AM a debater. This destroys your arguments. I believe that you are forfeiting this debate, placing a desperate card, or trying to lure me into a complicated trap. Hmm..... You stated that "if no one is in front of you, you are number one." There is many people in front of me, like Sieben, Mongoose, Mongeese, theLwerd, RoyLatham and more. They are (in the present) better than me. Now, on to refuting your "Questions and Answers." Q. Win Ratio? A. To this point, in the present, I have lost 6 debates. My win ratio counts. The present time. Since this is a debate about "Ethopia619", the present time will be when I am typing these arguments. Q. No argument Definitions is an argument. "You may have multiple accounts..." I do not have multiple accounts. If I did, I would have been banned a long time ago, but, I do not have multiple accounts. Debating I obviously am not just an internet account. Who types these arguments? Myself, though I cannot state my name because we should not share personal information. I do not conceal my skills. I go all out with all my strength, which is why I chose a Yami Yugi picture for my profile, to show that I will go all out, just like Atem (Yami Yugi). I do not hide my skills. I do not keep unseen talent. I show them of. I am not the best debater around debate.org. Please look at Yraelz's profile. It states that he is the best of the best. http://www.debate.org... ==> Conclusion I am not the best debater. I urge a con vote. I thank the readers and vardas0antras. Happy Holidays! Thank you. ~Yami Yugi P.S. My name does not matter in this debate, if you happen to watch Yugioh. I just happened to have the name, Yugi, in it. Ha ha.
I am the best debater on Debate.org

Well, it seems that I'm debating vardas0antras. Good luck! Let's begin: 1. Win Ratio Obviously, I am not as good as a debater compared to theLwerd <1>. My win ratio is about 64% <2>, while theLwerd's is about 94%. This shows that I am not the best debater on Debate.org. Following this route, I will point out that I lost 5 debates so far to this time record. If I were the best debater, I would be destroying everyone in my path and have a 100% win ratio, or something close to that. Like MasterET <3>. I know that "best" doesn't exactly mean something along the lines of winning, but look. I lost some of my debates, such as "Cyber Bullying Should be a Criminal Offence." <4> <1> http://www.debate.org... <2> http://www.debate.org... <3> http://www.debate.org... <4> http://www.debate.org... 2. Debating Let's talk about debating now. Please read <5> and <6>. There is a big difference between the two. In many opinions, losedotexe is a far better debater than myself. I even admit that. <5> http://www.debate.org... <6> http://www.debate.org... ==> Conclusion As you can possibly see, I am not the best debater on Debate.org. Well, I'd like to thank vardas0antras and the readers. Happy Holidays. Thank you. ~Yami Yugi
I am the best debater on Debate.org

Since I can't give any arguments Ill simply give some definitions. Content Definitions 1.Definitions I: This would be Ethopia619 referring to himself only. Am: In this case the word would be defined as to exist or to live. "BE (infinitive, subjunctive, imperative) AM (present 1st person singular) ARE (present 2nd person singular and all plural) IS (present 3rd person singular) WAS (past 1st and 3rd persons singular) WERE (past 2nd person singular, all plural; subjunctive) BEING (progressive & present participle; gerund) BEEN (perfect participle)." Dictionary.com The: Used to refer to a person, place or something unique. Best: It means simply superior Debater: Someone who regularly engages in debates. On: In Debate.org: This website "I declare that I am not the best debater in Debate.org. Let's duel!" Declare: "to manifest; reveal; show: Her attendance at the rally declared her political allegiance." "to state emphatically: He declared that the allegation was a lie." Dictionary.com "I am not": Im other words Ethopia619 is not presently " the best debater in Debate.org" "Let's duel!" Play a children's card game which is very popular among 12 years old. Thank you, V0Antras
For a grown man to step on a kitten is a morally neutral act

Thanks for the argument. Indeed, I expected to hear exactly this, because the carefully crafted definitions specifically deal with intent, and therefore omit accidents. However, I simply disagree with the assertion that I must show all acts of a man stepping on a kitten are morally good or bad. There is a critical bit of missing language needed to make your assertion reasonable. "For a grown man to step on a kitten is *sometimes* a morally neutral act." This is a classic set theory problem. Consider the following statements. (1) "A square is a rectangle." (2) "A rectangle is a square." The statement (1) is true, because every instance of a square meets the criteria of the rectangle. The statement (2) is false, because not every instance of a rectangle meets the criteria of a square. It's incorrect to say "a rectangle is a square", because the accepted meaning without qualifying language is that the statement holds for all cases, not just some cases. Our situation is like (2). Sometimes, a man stepping on a kitten is morally neutral. Sometimes, it's not. Therefore, the statement that the act is morally neutral is false. It would have been more clear to qualify this with "always, sometimes, never", but I've made the most reasonable interpretation based on the language we agreed upon.