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

1.The love you have for someone who is alive is incomparable to the love you have for someone who is walking the Earth alongside you; it can even be argued that you love the person who"s dead more because it wasn"t a choice in moving on, it was forced. 2.If you are not over a past lover, most people wouldn"t move on to another lover in an attempt to find meaningful, long-lasting love. 3.In your premise three, you have just agreed with the argument I made that the love for the two people isn"t simultaneous because there is a grievance period. 4.I"m saying that if you loved someone in the past, the love you have for them changes, the form changes and when you fall in love again it is not the same kind of love you have for an ex. 5.Arguing with someone, giving them money and hanging out with them does not entail love and it doesn"t promise it either. 6.I don"t disagree with premise six, however what I"m saying is that situations like those are not concrete proof of multiple loves because most of the time those relationships are based purely on sex. 7.Sex does not automatically mean love, people have "sex buddies" and "friends with benefits" all the time; those are relationships that are based solely on sex, as is the relationship between a married man and his mistress.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time

1. Sometimes, this is where life and future can bring us to, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that if one of the partners dies and you fall in love with another person, still doesn’t mean that person who died must be alive in order to be considered in this context. If this is what you believe this does not mean that this include all the people. People do have different opinions for this case.2. There are some people that do not accept the death of their ex lovers. As I stated in previous premise, if this is what you believe, does not include all the society members. So, this is not the case. 3. The word eventually means period of time in which many things can happen. If one of the partners dies early than expected, eventually you will find another person to be in love with. This may take long time, probably years until you find the person you love. It is not about the timing, but the fact to find another person to fall in love with. 4. You are comparing past and present love between a couple? Past love, no matter how the experience was, it does leave an impression and also a memory. Present love can be a past love one day, too. 5. Polygamous relationships are true. As long as the man does share his love to all his wives, not only love but his opinion, problems, time and wealth, at this point he loves all of them equally. The perfect example of this is Sister Wives. 6. I do not justify cheating. Cheating is immoral, but for some others is not to be considered. It is common for many cultures to have couple mistress and there are still places in the world where this is widely accepted. 7. I have to disagree on your premise no.11. Having sex with your mistress does mean that you love her. The fact that you spend time, have a good time, makes you forget all about your problems means you do love her. So, there are other reasons beside just having sex with her. 8.Therefore, it is possible to love more than 1 person at the same time
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time

1.That is what I mean in the context of past and present love. 2.The love in which you have for your deceased lover is not the same love you will have for the next. 3.In addition, that would not be loving two people simultaneously because it is assumed that the person would have to be alive for it to be considered in this context. 4.If the person does not have to be alive, then it is assumed there is a grievance period that allows for a person to come to terms with the death of their lover and accept it. 5.By the time they move on to the next partner, the love they had for the deceased has changed into an incomparable form. 6.For your premise 2, again it is assumed that there is a grievance period; they aren"t just leaving one person and falling straight into the arms of another. 7.I disagree with your third premise, there is definitely a different type of love when it is in the present time and when you are looking back on the past loves you"ve experienced. 8.In reference to premise 4, just because you should do something doesn"t mean you will do it. 9.People who indulge in polygamy often have one person that they have a deeper connection and different kind of love with. 10.In reference to premise 5, I completely disagree. 11.When you cheat in a relationship it doesn"t automatically mean you love the other person you"re having sex with. 12.In fact, more often than not it"s just sex. 13.People don"t love their mistresses, they love the sex they have with their mistresses. 14.For premise 6, in order for the relationship to be open both partners have to agree to tolerate their partner having sex with other people. 15.Sometimes they set guidelines to insure that it is nothing but sex.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time

1. The definition of love was defined in premise no.1, which you have agreed on. A person can have strong desires for connection with more than 1 person, for example, it may happen that one of the partners die, so eventually the widow or widower will find another partner and may experience the same feelings as he or she had with the previous partner. Simultaneously, you have that same desire for 2 people at the same time. 2. Infinity love is never guaranteed to anyone. One of the partners cheats on you, as a matter of fact you decide to leave him/her. But the fact that you left him or her doesn’t mean that you don’t love him anymore. You are still in love with that person. Meanwhile, you meet someone else and you fall in love with this person. So, it is the same form of love. 3. Past or present love is still called love. It will never change the meaning, name, time or form of love. I mean, the feeling that you have for someone, not the past or present tense but term love. 4. Many religious believe in polygamy, and according to polygamy all wives must be treated and loved equally. If a man would love only one wife could get married to only her but not to another 2-3 more wives, so that is not the case. So they get married to more than 1 wife and they do share the same love to all of them equally. 5. Infidelity means to have sex with another person, beside your wife. Cheating on your wife doesn’t mean that your unhappy or unsatisfied sexually. It may happen that the partner is addicted to sex, that is why you feel love for your mistress too. 6. While your argument can be true, I still have to disagree. Not all partners in open relationships do agree on a romantic or intimate relationship with another person is tolerated. 7. Therefore, it is possible to love more than 1 person at the same time
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time

1.I agree 2.I agree, however I don"t think that you can have that same desire for connection with more than one person simultaneously. 3.The love someone has for their current partner and the love they have for an ex partner are two different forms of love. 4.In connection to the previous premise, love in the present implies a burning desire on the inside to be with that person and love in the past tense implies having a deep and constant care for a person without the desire to be with them romantically. 5.Agreed 6.Treating people equally doesn"t mean that you love them equally or even care for them at all beyond sex. 7.I disagree, the love a man has for his wife is incomparable to the love or deep like he will have for a mistress. 8.Assuming premise 6 was in connection to premise 5, I disagree because unless you are in an open relationship then acting upon feelings you have for someone other than your partner is definitely infidelity. 9.Therefore, you cannot romantically love more than one person at the same time.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time

Pros Love is a deep romantic feeling and sexual attachment to someone. Romantic love relationships usually implies an expression of one’s strong romantic love, or one’s deep and strong emotional desires to connect with another person intimately or romantically. A person can be in love with their current partner but also with his/her ex girlfriend/boyfriend. Polygamy is to be married to more than 1 spouse at the same time. In Islam, polygyny is allowed upon the condition that the husband treats all his wives equally. A married man can be in love with his wife and also with his new mysterious girl. Acting upon your feelings cannot be called infidelity. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. Non-Controversial: Premises: 1,2,4 and 5 are all non-controversial. Premises 1,2,4,5 are all definitions. Premise 5 is based on the Islamic religion and is followed by Muslims and is only referring to them. Controversial: Premises 3 is only a scenario and not necessarily the case in all romantic relationships. Premise 6 pertain to emotions and my feelings toward the subject.
The Roman Catholic Church has Become Weak

I'll make this short. 1. Pro assumed that all he has to do is to prove that the church had political powers before, then that's it the debate is over. He also assumed that only political power is the criterion for judging whether the church has weakened. This is not the case, however. Adaptability to changing time and growing membership are other factors which he failed to sufficiently rebut. 2. Pro failed to understand clearly this debate. It goes like saying, "hey the church had political powers before, but today it does not have it, so Shut up Con because I win." He set his own biased criterion which I challenged by giving 3 criteria (in previous round) 3. I was able to support my claim that the church has not weakened because it has survived in the changing time, it has increased its membership, and it still has influence on political sphere. With all the above reasons that I should win.
The Roman Catholic Church has Become Weak

Rebuttals:Pro thinks that by just proving that the Church had political powers in the middle ages that he will win this debate. He believes it is that easy. But the problem with that, however, is that no body is contending whether the church had political powers, because it is a fact that it had it before. The question is that whether losing political power today constitutes a weakening image of the church, to which I say, no.To rebut his overall argument, the parameters of this debate regarding weakness, in the name of fairness ,are the following:1. The current level of adaption to the changing times2. The current quantitative characteristics3. The current influence it has towards the political and social aspects.Pro tried to focus only on the (#3) political and social influence of the church. By doing so, he became blind and biased in this debate that instead of attacking a wider scope, he focused just on limited part of the debate. His argument can be summed up with this statement: The church does not have political powers unlike in the middle ages, so I win. But this not the case.In round 2, I have proven that the Church has survived in the changing time where others failed, its growing population is ever increasing which results to increase in influence, and that it still have political influence today. All these things point to one thing: The church has not weakened.
The Roman Catholic Church has Become Weak

Arguments Parameters must be set. This includes the period or time which will cover this debate. To use the time where the church has military control is very limited in scope and favoring my opponent’s side, otherwise, I could also use the time where the church was just starting and still weak and say that it has really become powerful. So with this, time frame must not be biased. I will argue that the Roman Catholic church has not become weak for the following points:1. The membership of Roman Catholic Church has increased a lot which means that its influence has also expanded. It has now approximately 1.2 billion members1. With that number, it is clear that its power and influence have increased, instead of weakened. With the growing population, Catholics are also increasing. Today, the Catholic Church has more vast influence with its members compared before where the membership was low. 2. Roman Catholic Church was very weak and hated before, but now it is respected by many. In the beginning Christians were persecuted because their belief was contrary of that in the Roman Empire. Until Emperor Constantine I legalized Christianity, the church was never in existent in such a way that it is today, thus rendering it weak before but strong today. The Church’s influence has become global and universal. It has a say on different issues and even influence them. Many political leaders and others who are in position listen to them to some extent. The Pope who is the leader of the Church is well respected and loved. Though he has no longer state power, it does not imply that his scope of influence has weakened. Power and influence do not pertain exclusively to political power which leaders of the Church have lost. Power could also be spiritual power which the Roman Catholic Church has become so powerful. It is clear that Roman Catholic Church has become strong compared to its early days because unlike before, it is now respected and loved, it has many members now which means an increase of influence, and though its political power has changed not vanished as compared when it is still in medieval times, its spiritual power has increased greatly while still having influence in political sphere. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Roman Catholic Church has Become Weak

I as Pro will be arguing that The Roman Catholic Church has become weak. First the following definitions need to be defined. Weak[1]- “1. Lacking physical strength, energy, or vigor; feeble. ” “3. Lacking firmness of character or strength of will. ”[1]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Church[2]- “2. often church” “c. “a congregation”[2]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The Roman Catholic Church has become weak in several ways. The Church has become weak physically, politically, and spiritually.1. The Catholic Church has become weak physically. The Catholic Church at one point in history used to be able to exercise force to protect their interests. This started back in the period of the Crusades in the 11th century. The Catholic Church would have military orders to uphold their causes[3]. The most well known military orders were the Templar Knights, Knights of Santiago, and the Hospitallers of St. John. The military orders fought against pagans and Muslims depending upon the Crusade. In today's time, the Catholic Church has been reduced to a dwindling number of military orders. Those military orders don't fight in wars or experience combat. Instead the military orders are symbolic. The Catholic Church is incapable of waging wars like the Northern Crusades, the Reconquista, and the Crusades for the Holy Land. Therefore, they have become physically weak compared to the Church's history. [3]. http://www.newadvent.org... 2. The Catholic Church has become weak politically. The Catholic Church has been rendered impotent in terms of their political influence. At one period of time, the Catholic Church was capable of coronations, excommunications, and Crusades. Coronations and blessings from the Catholic Church would allow sovereigns to be seen as legitimate. At one time in history, the Pope would be able to give a king respect by having a coronation. Or how a bishop would give the Catholic Church's blessing to a marriage of a king or queen. A good example of this would be how Pope Urban II excommunicated Philip I for his adulterous behavior[4]. If the Pope excommunicated someone of significance into today’s time it would be inconsequential. The Pope can not call for a crusade against the opponents of the church. Well perhaps, he can call for it but no one with power will respond. In the past, Kings and Princes would of rushed to the Pope's aid. But not anymore. The Catholic Church and the Pope weakened politically to a point of being acknowledged for token appreciation. [4]. http://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu... 3. The Catholic Church has become weak spiritually. The Catholic Church has shown that they are not able to stick to their beliefs. Instead they have been pressured into conforming to secular beliefs. An example of this would be how before the mid-century, all non-Catholics went to Hell according to Catholic Church[5]. This included other Christians as well. The Vatican II, in 1965 changed this doctrine. The Catholic Church reacts and does not create official stances any longer. Therefore they have become weak spiritually. [5]. http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Why grand theft auto 4 is better than 5 ( plot wise)

Well it seems my opponent is truely wrong and should be overthrown. Gta4 is better than five because 4 is simple easy and fun. The map isnt big and no exotic or fast cars are present. Why buy 5 if it cost so much? Wait till maybe 6 or when the economy is better. I dont believe our economy is ready for any buying since we are TOO MUCH IN DEPT As i repeat my opponent dosebt prove aanything
Why grand theft auto 4 is better than 5 ( plot wise)

Well it seems my opponent is truely wrong and should be overthrown. Gta4 is better than five because 4 is simple easy and fun. The map isnt big and no exotic or fast cars are present. Why buy 5 if it cost so much? Wait till maybe 6 or when the economy is better. I dont believe our economy is ready for any buying since we are TOO MUCH IN DEPT
Why grand theft auto 4 is better than 5 ( plot wise)

One of the biggest franchises in the gaming industry, grand theft auto. grand theft auto has sold millions of copies of their games to various people over the years. Their latest installment, Grand Theft Auto 5 launched a few weeks back. I own that game along with 4 and I find that the plot in 4 is more realistic and better than 5. 4 was about an Italian named , I forgot, who was trying to chase the "American dream". He tries to do good but bad just kept chasing his tail. The plot for 5 was about 3 people who become friends out of the blue, except for micheal and Trevor who knew eachother already. This is just odd. It seems as if Rockstar worked on the cars and environment and not the plot or character background. I found this hilarious about all the grad theft auto games. The civilians all look the same. If I kill a tall man with a suit, a few blocks later I see the same guy sitting opposite in a truck. Watchdogs will have a better plot and character stuff than grand theft auto though lol
We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will

In regard to philosophy, imagine a straight-line segment having two end points. Label one point Myth the other point Science. The distance between those points is Philosophy. For lack of a better term let's call this line segment our Philosophy Spectrum. Professor Bjorn Brembs is working on the science side of our Philosophy Spectrum to prove that “Free Will as an Evolved Brain Function” (. http://vimeo.com...). Professor Brembs' lecture is based on empirical research where he also defines a spectrum. On the left side of his spectrum is Deterministic, the right side is Stochastic, where the distance between those ends is the Free-Will zone. Professor Brembs is using the scientific method in trying to establish a Burden of Proof to settle all the competing philosophical views on “Free-Will. ” Perhaps, at the same time he may find the unconscious. Pro took on the challenge of the Burden of Proof that “We Probably Don’t Have Libertarian Free Will. ” It would seem Pro will need to wait until folks like Professor Brembs, complete their research, using the scientific method to come to an indisputable conclusion. Pro presented a long list of equations yet failed to establish a mathematical relationship of Free-Will as a function of those terms. Pro made a good effort in selecting parts from competing arguments by the scholars, to justify his argument using the Dialectic Method, where Con's focus is on the Scientific Method. For example, Pro went as far to diagnose the free-will of choice pertaining to suicide as some “biological predisposition,” not covering the power-of-myth by flying planes into buildings, becoming a suicide human bomb, or from the event of heroism, taking one's life to save others, etc. It is Pro's free-will selective approach to advance his argument, by filtering out those free-will cases that went against his position. He then used this selective diagnose argument to embrace his point of view to establish his version of truth. When dealing with science one needs to consider all empirical events within the scope of study. Filtering out events to favor a particular philosophy, one's career in experimental science will be short-lived. In closing, I find a constructive debate a learning experience that is more important than victory, more informative and memorable than a class lecture, better feedback than a test, the foundation to the scientific method, last but not least, the evolution of ideas. You do not find those dynamics in a static text book, where the text book are results from past debates and used as references or building blocks in future debates. And in saying that, I look forward to meeting Pro again on the debating floor. Thank you Pro, for the learning experience, from my own endeavor in reviewing many sources, including Pro's references, over the confusion of free-will in the quantum community. I now understand why Pro used the term “Probably” in the debate title, for he himself, is not sure.
We Probably Don't Have Libertarian Free Will

Structure:1. Acceptance2. Opening arguments3. Refutation/ new points4. Further refutation5. Refutation/ final thoughtsLibertarian free will: "Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature, the laws of physics and free from any predetermination by God."http://www.theopedia.com...Good luck to con :).
Zimbabwe should return to Rhodesia's form of government

Rhodesia was an unrecognized state that existed in Southern Africa from 1965 to 1979. The Rhodesian interim Constitution reserved power the the White Minority of the country. Therefore if the Rhodesian system was to be established, there would be no way to do so without oppressing black Africans. In addition Rhodesia had no fully established government, and was not recognized by any state or international organization. As Zimbabwe has an established system of government it would be a step backwards if Zimbabwe was to become Rhodesia again. A Cambridge university stated that Rhodesia actually has great Democratic potential. The only thing in the way is Mugabe. If Mugabe were to resign, be ousted or even die, Zimbabwe would have a political system in place that could become a fully functioning democracy easily. Therefore the solution fro Zimbabwe is not to return to the old Rhodesian system, but to remove Robert Mugabe from the presidency. [1] http://www.reclaimthejubilee.org... [2] http://journals.cambridge.org... [3] http://muse.jhu.edu...