BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

It is not a contradiction: A mistake isn't contradiction, when I assumed the implication of moral questions as and unto philosophical questions. I merely made a false assumption and corrected my false assumption and this does not necessitate contradiction. It was also not a contradiction if you view it as an amendment to the rules. What would be a contradiction would be to say something like you cannot ask moral questions, contradicting existing rules. However amending the rules to allow greater freedom in question asking ESPECIALLY in the form of clarification should be appreciated not questioned with suspicion. 0.Is it moral to have one's cake and eat it too? Definition is required as I don't understand the implications of the question. 1.May I attack random strangers at night? No 2.Is it moral to kill a human? If you are being attacked intentionally. 3.Would it be morally acceptable to kill an unborn (android with the capacity of sentience) baby? Believe the question is invalid(see the Chinese Room thought experiment) 4.May I sleep on my back? Depends on the reason of doing so. 5.Is it moral to kill people who do not agree with your standards? No. 6.Is it morally permissible to pee in the shower? If it accomplished something virtuous. 7.Would it have been morally permissible to kill Hitler before he was born, knowing that he was going to give rise to the massacre of many? NO. 8.Is it morally permissible to kill single celled organisms or other cellular/microscopic organisms? Does the single celled organism have the capacity for self-awareness? 9.Is it morally permissible to kill pets (dogs, cats, fish, hamsters)? If it accomplishs something virtuous. 10.May I ask 11 question in round 3 since you did not answer my previous last 2? No because I answered it as promised in the comments.
I will not contradict myself

"When I wrote moral I thought philosophical was implied."Actually philosophical questions would be questions in regard to the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.Moral questions are not necessarily pertaining to philosophy. So it was not implied as they are different kinds of questions."Philosophical moral and political are permissible." Wait... but, you said I may only ask political or moral questions! but then you said I may ask philosophical questions which would exceed the given limit.If you are allowing questions that exceed the already determined limits of conduct then you are contradicting that limit set up by yourself.One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.Anyhow... Second Questions:May I attack random strangers at night?Is it moral to kill a human?Would it be morally acceptable to kill an unborn (android with the capacity of sentience) baby?May I sleep on my back?Is it moral to kill people who do not agree with your standards?Is it morally permissible to pee in the shower?Would it have been morally permissible to kill Hitler before he was born, knowing that he was going to give rise to the massacre of many?Is it morally permissible to kill single celled organisms or other celluar/microscopic organisms?Is it morally permissible to kill pets (dogs, cats, fish, hamsters)?May I ask 11 question in round 3 since you did not answer my previous last 2?
I will not contradict myself

Philosophical yes. No paradox questions whatsoever and no religious questions. Philosophical moral and political are permissible. NO OTHERS SUCH AS(BUT NOT LIMITED TO) RELIGIOUS OR MATHMATICAL. When I wrote moral I thought philosophical was implied. First Questions: Is it moral to take your shirt of in public? Yes, I believe so. Is it morally permissible to kill an unborn (human) baby? No. Is it morally permissible to kill a plant or animal? Yes. Is you were stuck in a limozeen and had only a leg and an arm would you scarifice your life for a little child who needed your help? If possible. Yes as long as was able too. Is it morally permissible to kill an insect? As all insects are part of the kingdom animalia refer to question 3.
I will not contradict myself

Hello AshleyTrueLoveBefore I ask my questions I need some clarification:May I ask questions in regard to philosophical, religious, or other types of questions that are not paradox question or question that can be presumed to have no answer?First Questions:Is it moral to take your shirt of in public?Is it morally permissible to kill an unborn (human) baby?Is it morally permissible to kill a plant or animal?Is you were stuck in a limozeen and had only a leg and an arm would you scarifice your life for a little child who needed your help?Is it morally permissible to kill an insect?Is it morally permissible to kill a human being that is trying to kill you?Is it moral to have one's cake and eat it too?
I will not contradict myself

RULES: 1. You may only ask political or moral questions. 2.You may not ask paradox question or question that can be presumed to have no answer. 3.They must be able to be answered simply yes or no but Pro may decide to answer more complexly. 4.If I contradict my position, then I lose, if I don't you lose rather simple. 5.Post first questions in round one or automatic forfeit. 6.Its short argumentation time to keep us on our toes :) 7.Up to ten questions per round(less is allowed)
There is no God

To start my argument I would like to begin by saying that God is a self defeating construct that is full of paradoxes. First off, we have the concept of a perfect God creating anything. How can a flaw come from that which is perfect? By definition, there can be no flaws. Furthermore, if God exists, then who created God? And who created whoever created god? Who created them? Ad infinitum. If the claim is that God has always existed, then what did he do before he created everything, because by definition, he had an infinite time to do anything. A second point I will make is a perfect god would never need to create anything, if he is truly perfect he would be an absolute self contained system that requires nothing else. If he were truly perfect, then he would also lack any emotions that are present in the bible, such as wrath and envy which are only manifestations of either incompleteness or insecurity. A final point we have is Epicurus's argument: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
There is no God

Hello Riddick, I'm new(ish) here too. I look forward seeing your refutation, given this is something you're very good at. For fairness's sake, I'll assume the burden of proof to be shared here. So not only do I need to try and 'beat' your refutation, but I need to offer some good arguments for God's existence myself. For similar reasons I will not be offering an argument this round and accepting only, otherwise I get one more round than you. Enjoy life, Thrasymachus
Global Warming is Man-Made

==Clarification== I will be arguing that mankind IS the cause of global warming, my opponent will be arguing that mankind is NOT the main driver of modern climate change. My opponent, therefore, is arguing that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is incorrect. This is pretty straightforward. Abbreviations which might be used: AGW -- Anthropogenic global warming CR -- cosmic ray[s] TSI -- Total solar irradiation MWP -- Medieval Warm Period SSN -- Sun spot number PDO -- Pacific Decadal Oscillation LIA -- Little ice age ==Definitions== Global warming: The average increase in temperatures since the late 19th century. Man-Made: The literal definition is fairly obvious. In terms of this debate, man-made factors to climate change would be the emission of greenhouse gasses. Or, as the IPCC would describe man-made forcing, "changes in the concentrations of radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols)" [1]. Definitions are pretty common knowledge. Please, no trolling. ==Rules== 1. As stated above, no trolling 2. All arguments should be visible in the debate. However, sources can be posted on an external link. 3. A forfeit is a concession. If you PM me before you forfeit with a legitimate reason, I will discard this rule and ask voters to vote a tie. 4. The structure, rules, or definitions cannot be changed after you accept the debate (no semantics). However, if you wish to change the rules, or something else, for clarity, ask in the comments. 5. BOP is split evenly! ==Structure== R1: Acceptance R2: Present case. NO REBUTTALS R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and conclusion --> I have made this debate impossible to accept. I will directly challenge the person who is willing to accept this debate. Good luck! 1. http://www.grida.no...
Water is value than Diamonds

You have a pretty little point about your demand and supply, Frankly you and I know that with the absent of diamonds we can carry on live smoothly and be happier as much as we want, Unlike water which is our major basic need, With the absent of water you would probably be able to live for more than 48hrs. The point you're not understanding is that, Demand don't really determines value, But the benefits you gonna gain from it is what matter the most.
Water is value than Diamonds

Water is simply not as valuable as cut diamonds because of supply and demand. Water on average in the us is worth about 2500 liters for a dollar. A small. 3 carat diamond can set you back 162$ that's over a 1000% more valuable than water. If diamonds where what filled lakes and water had to be extracted from deep within the earth this would be a different discussion but as it stands water is less valuable than diamonds
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1.I totally disagree with premise 1 we all are adults we know exactly what we are doing before we make decisions. If that man truly loved her he would have not cheated on her or even put his self in that situation. No matter what the case may be in my eyes if you cheat on me you never loved me and if I forgive you will continue to do it and hurt me why would I put myself through that. 2. I agree with my partner definition of an romantic relationship. 3. With people being in Polygamous marriage I believe that these people truly dont love each other either. If you are willing to have other relations with another person why you are married to your soul mate you never loved them to begin with. 4. We are humans but that is not an excuse to act like an dog and or whore. You should have morals for yourself. If you believe that you should be with two be to be happy then by all means go right ahead. But to let you know you are not in love with either of them you just trying to make yourself believe that you are in love with them this is not a fairy tale. 5. I disagree on the definition of Polyamory because as I stated before you can try to prove to yourself and others you are in love with two people but there"s something that they are doing for you or you are seeing about them that you can not let either of them go 6. I believe if people want to be in open relationships they should just be single and have friends that are into dating each other and having sex from time to time. Because dragging someone into your little open relationship is wasting his or her time. My opponent still believes that it is possible to love to people at once but in my view I don't and if anyone in this world believes that they can love two people at once at crazy and are setting themselves up for failure because these relationships never work. I say if you want to expand your relations with others just be single and mess around instead of dragging people along with you. -Therefore anyone in this world believing that they can love two people in this world is insane and needs to stop trying to prove to themselves that they can love two people at once
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

well people put their relationship stories on TV maybe not completely true but its still based on life stories but meanwhile if you go to www.Pshchologytoday.com there's a study that says: 1: Empirical evidence clearly suggest that humans are capable of loving and having sex with more than one person at the same time [well my opponent can go on the website to prove it]. However I do not agree that a man cheating on his girlfriend means he was never in love with her, things happen 2: romantic relationship is a strong emotional connection between two or more people where both individual share the same kind of love and affection for one another. 3: People don"t have to be with one person. Polygamous marriage proved this. They also prove romantically loving more than one person at the same time. 4: Nothing is impossible. we are humans and am not trying to blame our actions on feelings but its fact. It is impossible to love two people equally it is however not impossible to love two people at once because no two people have the same personality and there can be one person who fits half the characteristics your want in a person and the other fit the other half, like i earlier on 5: Polyamory--- is the practice of having more than one open sexual, romantic relationship. Typically characterized as loving, poly-relationships don't just involve sex, but emotions as well. 6:Some couples who practice this may have an open marriage. Married or not, this arrangement may involve one or both partners having another exclusive relationship, in addition to their own primary relationship 7: i don't know if my opponent would understand my point;however, loving more than one person romantically is possible but not equally -------------------------------------------------------- therefore when you get in the middle situations like this, take proper precautions before you end up making wrong decisions and regretting it later on.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. Yes there are reality shows that are based on real life stories but we are talking relationship wise not people talking about their life stories 2. To be honest either way with me it is wrong. From either side there is no valid reason for an man or an women to cheat on their mate. If you want to be single and do whatever you want then leave them. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. 3. Yes equal rights do matter but I still disagree with people being able to have more than one lover 4.When you say people are able to go online and date is that when they are already in an relationship or single im confused but if they are in a relationship and online dating that is wrong why would you go and date someone then go behind their back and go date someone online that's not right at all 5. I'm not saying weighing your options is bad but its good to do that if you have not made it official with your significant other. That's just wasting their time and having again back at square one.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

Aside from premise 3 that my opponent agreed with me on, i think he shouldn't be saying because he is not with me, so there fore its not true. if he hasn't been in a situation like that, that doesn't mean it does not exist. 1 yes 50% of the television shows are just entertainment but then again, the other 50 percent is based on real life stories. 2: so what about our parents, they love more than one child, that doesn't mean its romantically but the heart is big enough to love more than one individuals. 3: how about religions that says a man can marry more than one wife, so women cant do that too? why is that when a man cheats, its considered not to be a big deal but when a woman cheats, its a huge problem So therefore equal rights matter, people should be allowed to have free will and feelings is one of them 4: online dating doesn't mean they having a romantic relationship, people try things so that they can have a lot of option, Someone may lack what you are looking for, so its not a crime to go out there and search for match... 5: Exercising ones sexuality is totally acceptable.... decisions comes later on and yes people would get hurt but its better to live happily ever after than sad for life
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. I do agree with my parent I am not with her because I do not believe people can be in love with two people at once it"s insane. 2. I do not agree with her example of the bachelor. That show is for entertainment, no one is really on there to love each other. And as she explained what the show was about its basically about a guy that has multiple choices of women and as the show goes on the women he feels less attracted to or connection to he eliminates them. This is basically lust because when it comes down to it and the guy is now with two women at the end and he has to choose he is not in love with either of these women he likes them he just chooses the one he believes he will be good with in the future. But as I stated before these shows are for entertainment after the show they get paid and go their separate ways. Besides what women in the world would fight for a man"s heart they have never met? I'm pretty sure you answer would be no one because they don't know anything about them all they know is they are about to get there 5 minutes of fame. 3. I actually do agree with m partner with premise 3 4. But for example look at it like this you have an girl and or guy that you have been dating for about an year and a couple of months and you have deep feelings for them then you meet another mate and you are attracted to them and you begin to talk to them for for 5 months but while you are still with the one you we"re with for an year and some change. Now you feel like you have a stronger connection with the new person and you don't want to be with the other one because he or she has not offered what you have been looking for in that relationship. Now you ask why would you leave the person you been with longer for the person you been with for a person you've been dating for 5 months because you are lusting over them. You are blind to the fact that you are not in love with them and you believe that you love them and leave the one you truly love and when it comes down to it you will be left alone because now you see you left the one you love for an booty call. This example would be an rule called the 80-20 because you will always be tempted to leave that good 80% that you know you have, thinking that you will get something better with the other 20% that you WANT. But as reality has proven, in most cases you will always end up having the 20% that you want and losing the 80% that you really need and that you already had.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1: i guess my opponent is with me on based on his first point, but then again people mistake lust or likeness for love. 2.The bachelor is an example of how someone can love more than one person at a time, now the romantic part comes into action when the bachelor is comfortable with ever girl that proves her self as a potential candidate , am not talking about one girl, its two or more As the season goes by, when majority of the girls are eliminated, then the bachelor starts to have feelings because he feels like he can concentrate on the ones he has connection with; moreover, when it gets down to the last two , its a big conflict because he might be in love with both of them, and they serve different purposes i mean like they are special in their own ways that he wouldn't want to pick the wrong person for a wife but at the end he has to pick the one that fits his description for a wife ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3: we cant help help who we fall in love with because we are humans but that's not an excuse to be involved with more than one person just to have fun or hurt their feelings, therefore when you get in the middle situations like this, take proper precautions before you end up making wrong decisions and regretting it later on. 4: my opponent can bring an example as well as i did.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. I do not agree with premise 1 people being in love with two different people at the same time because there is no possible way to love two people you can lust for someone and love someone which people in this generation don't understand. 2. I disagree with the point made that if you love two people it will make it easier to choose who you want to be with because if you loved the first person you wouldn't be in love with another person. 3. I disagree with premise three stating that we should not be held responsible or criticize about how we feel because its only in our human nature. If you are in love with somebody you would not want to put them in that situation. If you believe that you shouldn't be accountable of your action you should not be in a relationship. 4. I disagree with the topic, how can you love to people at once ? You can try as hard as you can and believe you are in love with two people you just making a fool of yourself and wasting people's time. People that are younger such as teens go through this phase because they are young and their mind is still developing they are going by physical features of their partners and not actually knowing them. 5. Therefore there is no possible way you can love two people at once. Controversial: I do not agree with any of the premises because as i stated above there is no possible way you can be romantically in love with two people at once. Non-Controversial: Are all invalid reason"s for people to be in love with two people.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1: First of all the topic says if is it possible to romantically love more than person at once. I agree with the statement. over the years we have seen the term love been used differently, it is possible for someone to love more than one person, I mean look around you, everyone has that special someone they have feelings for outside their relationship 2:I know my opponent is against this but then again if you look at it, romantically you love two people so that at the end you can easily choose who you want to be with; moreover, things happen and we can't help who we fall in love with so I personally think we should not be held responsible or criticized about how we feel cause its only in our human nature. 3: I know my opponent is against this but then again if you look at it, romantically you love two people so that at the end you can easily choose who you want to be with; moreover, things happen and we can't help who we fall in love with so I personally think we should not be held responsible or criticized about how we feel cause its only in our human nature. 4: Polyamory means having more than one open romantic relationship at a time, This is the Mariam Webster dictionary definition of polyamory 5: the practice of having more than one open sexual, romantic relationship. Typically characterized as loving, poly-relationships don't just involve sex, but emotions as well This practice of maintaining multiple significant, intimate relationships simultaneously encompass love, intimacy, commitment, friendship, affection, flirting, desire, sex, romance, eroticism .. Some couples who practice this may have an open marriage. Married or not, this arrangement may involve one or both partners having another exclusive relationship, in addition to their own primary relationship. Or it may be a matter of either partner having free range to have sexual relationships with others. controversial: 1, 2 and 3 is just me agreeing with the statement and how we cant help who we fall in love with, i mean its in the human nature and we can help it and my opponent can debate with me on that Non Controversial for 4 talks about polyamory and the research philosophers did to prove it. 5 is the basic definition of polyamory which are encompass love, intimacy, commitment, friendship, affection, flirting, desire, sex, romance, eroticism. all these adds up to my agreement so therefore it cant be argued on because its non controversal.