BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

I am not trying to make this a comfortable situation nor am I trying to cover up the truth I am stating facts with this situation and this a fact that you seem to be lacking. My opponent is so stuck on the word affair when that has nothing to do with what I just said. 2) WE DONT CHOOSE WHO WE FALL FOR. Our hearts are the ones who choose who we love so, yes it might be hard to be in that situation but it happens. I have loved more than one person before but that was a long time ago. 3) How can you sit there and ask me if I was involved with someone and yet you have been ? Then you aren't any different from those who have been in love with two people. 4) what about those stories that are fictional. 6) Women can but there's no religion that allows women to do that . Plus women are too emotional for them to have many husbands. - To conclude we can't stay you can't love two people at the same time because it happens we love our families, not only that hut we don't choose who we love.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

In as much as my oppnet tries to make the situation much comfortable or appealing, its still not right to go into an affair with more than one person knowing fully well the consequences. Some experts expressed their opinion about loving one person romantically. 1: Helen Fisher, she stated that people have three mating drives: lust, romantic love and long term attachment. You can love one person and lust for another, also she said you can't feel romantic love for two people at the same time. 2: Now the term Romantic according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, it defines romantic as involving love between two people or making someone think of love suitable for romance. My opponent also mentioned that we can't help who we fall in love with, therefore it is acceptable to love more than one person, I totally get where she's coming from so i would love to know if she can be involve with more than one person romantically 3:As of today we see all over the television, the damages Of loving more than one person has cost, like i said most relationships got ruined because of the choices they made. Personally i went through the same thing of trying to love more than one person, as time goes by I realize that my long term relationship was falling apart because my attention was been divided and I didn't love the other person, i was just using him to get over my pains which is selfish. 4: televisions are not real stories because its only for entertainment 5: about the Islamic religion, the men only have more than one wife because they could handle it and besides after their first wife, the rest of them are just for popularity and family reasons like having more kids 6: Do you think a woman can have more than one husband? can she handle it emotionally, psychologically and mentally? i would leave you to answer that 7:Leading people on a part as confusing as love, can make one loose everything, i lost everything and had to start all over again that's why i stick to my point that loving more than one person is absolutely impossible. Non controversial: 1, 4 and 3 because they are based on facts and personal interview so you can't challenge a religion you don't practice or know about ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8: There's no way an individual can have romantic love for more than one person, it doesn't seem healthy for the person, psychologically it would affect you in a long run, because if the person is used to being with more than one person then in the future they wouldn't be able to cope, i am saying this not just justify my points but to also say that when someone claims to develop feelings for another person, they have to make sure they know what it is, theres a thin line between Lust, likeness and Love.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

Why do you keep saying Romans ? Either you need to reread or is that a co word that means something ? And people make mistakes you can't say that because the body is complicated we shouldn't jump in to a situation. Just like we know the body is complex but we make stupid decisions that we know will impact us either way. 1) Helen Fishers thought our long term attachment, lust and romantic love was based on loving someone and cheating. I didn't see anything about loving two people at the same time . 2) Honestly your definition of Lust doesn't really matter. Based on the fact that we both have different definitions of lust. Lust is defined as sexual desires that's something a lot of people can agree with because it is in the dictionary. A feeling of being hungry or sleepy is based off your feelings not the dictionary. So those feelings come to you naturally not the definition of lust. 3) Do you can't have two people that you have thought about building life with ? What about in Islam they have multiple wives and yet they have built a life with those women. Isn't that considered the same thing? - Personally of you can agree that you have faced a time where you have loved or so called thought you loved two people at once then guess what it isn't impossible.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

knowing fully well that the body is system is complicated, why go into something as delicate as love or even Romans. the heart loves but the mind controls both love and Romans 1: Few experts expressed their opinion about loving one person romantically, according to an anthropologist, Helen Fisher, she stated that people have three mating drives: lust, romantic love and long term attachment. 2: My opponent said lust is sexual desires, to me its a natural feeling just like been hungry or sleepy and you can learn to adjust to them. 3: When it comes to love, it's ultimately about the choice and ability to build something with someone. 4: Personally i went through the same thing of trying to love more than one person, as time goes by I realize that my long term relationship was falling apart because my attention was been divided and I didn't love the other person, i was just using him to get over my pains which is selfish. Leading people on a part as confusing as love, can make one loose everything, i lost everything and had to start all over again that's why i stick to my point that loving more than one person is absolutely impossible. ------------------------------------------------------------ Non-Controversial: number 4 because its based on personal experience
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1) The brain and heart is more complex an we might actually think, they are as complex and complicated as or emotions. Just because a person does not want to be attracted two too people doesn't mean that they wont be attracted to that person. 2) What about those who lose interest in their partner because they just lost touch. Does that mean their as a third person involved? 3) How isn't love a win win situation? Your telling me two people cant be in love and not be cheated on, yes there will be fights but that's natural. 4) You tend to forget that when I was in this situation I wasn't dating neither one of these guys so I wasn't really uncomfortable. ------------------------------------------------- Non-Controversial- Basically all because they are my options.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

At least my opponent agrees with me on my definitions but i Disagree with the fact that you can be involved with more than one person and why is that: 1:The mind has own way of working and so is the heart, the last thing a person would want to is to be attracted to more than one person knowing fully well how the body system works when it comes to making decisions. EX: Majority of the people who are single today, would tell you they walked away from their relationship because they wasn't satisfied and when you dig down into their story, then you will find out there was a third person in the picture, now that person might who they they had an affair with and when it became too confusing to the extent that they felt like someone was going to get hurt, walking away from everything seems like the only choice to them. 2: the amount of confusion and deceit increases, the worst thing someone would want to do is lie to them selves about the truth. 3: Love is not an easy game, its not a win win situation, its either you play someone or you get played. people might see this has been brave and taking risk but we all know there's always consequences mostly when we dare our selves into trying something we know its wrong ----------------------------------------------------- 4: Am so sure when my opponent was in that position, she wasn't to comfortable as she would be if she were to be involved with just one person, having to make a decision for just your self is not that difficult. I used an example and i strongly believe she can use one as well because am still not okay with the fact that its possible
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

2) I agree on both definitions 3) A strong desire of something is LUST? I would say lust is only to be considered sexual not just saying its a strong desire of something, you can desire someone to be in you life and it not be sexual. 4) I mean can't you love two people ? Why not ? Yes you can just lust someone but if you love two people meaning that you see your self in the future with both but to a certain extent then that is not LUST where as if you have sex with one and that all you guys do while you have deeper feelings for the other then that is different. 5) We all want of needs to be for filed so maybe loving two people is an act of selfishness but we are all selfish creatures weather we want to admit it not. We want our needs to be met at all cost with out really considering the feelings of others. 6) I've loved two people at once. Probably it wasn't the best thing to do but you can't help who you fall in love with. If that was possible I doubt we would fall for these jack asses in the world today.
is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1: Before my opponent jump at me, am going to start by defining the term Love and lust 2: strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties (Love) (2) : attraction based on sexual desire 3: A strong desire for something (Lust) 4: its impossible to love more than one person romantically because when it comes to the term love, people mistake it for a lot of things and LUST is the most popular one. Yes its possible to lust after someone you think matches your criteria but then again how long would that last 5: Claiming to love more than person is an act of selfishness because when something goes wrong on one end, they run to the other for comfort, loving one person romantically is hard because you have to put up with their flaws and you would want them to do the same as well -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6: Personally i cant love more than one person romantically, there's a limit when it comes to love, however, equally there's no way you can love more than person romantically, i agree with my opponent on that. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Non controversial: 1, 2 and 3 cannot be debated on because its just my opinion about the topic and the rest is just definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary Controversial: 4 , 5 and 6 can be argued on because its based on on my personal opinion
Bullying is a good and essential aspect of childhood and should not be abolished

Bullying may be natural but right? No. Rebuttal 1 Bullying builds a backbone and helps grow confidence Bullying does the exact opposite of this repeated pulling down on a persons ideas and work shatters any feeling of self worth and it makes people who are already insecure about themselves less secure if someone were to go up to a person every day for a year and tell them that they stink(bad example but I'm getting to the point) they would become more and more self conscious of how they smell they may smell just fine but they are being told they smell awful and this makes the other person feel lesser if the person being bullied says no I don't I showered this morning the bully automatically knows that they can get a rise out of this person, therefore the bully will say a different comment such as well it's not your body odor its your teeth and so on and all the while coming in with more and more comments shattering the others confidence.
Bullying is a good and essential aspect of childhood and should not be abolished

In schools, there is an effort to get rid of bullying as some kids have committed suicide as a result. I agree that extreme bullying and bullying in General should not be tolerated, however the focus should be on empowering students to face bullying, stand up for themselves and others, and develop a backbone. Unfortunately with the emphasis on the bully and getting rid of bullying so much kids lose important opportunities to defend themselves or be courageous in the face of peers. Being bullied can build Character.
Should children be allowed to watch anime

Definition of Child: a person of age 0-12 (that work for you?) Though I do enjoy anime, I must state that the majority of it is completely inappropriate. If I had watched anime as a child I would have been horrified by images of nudity, dirty jokes, fan service, and hearing words that I may repeat to my peers. Again, I know there are some series with little to no fan service, but these are few and far between. Take Sailor Moon, a classic, those skirts leave little to the imagination. Also, there is over exaggerated violence that could scar a child. Children are highly influenced by everything around them, and if they are to watch anime then perhaps they may commit violent acts. In conclusion to my opening statement, I must stress that anime is not appropriate for children.
There Should Be A Constitutional Amednment Banning Gay Marriage

I never said I was a corporation. I said that I am like a corporation. This still fits with the definition of constitution, which says, "nation, state, corporation, or the like..." "Corporation: 1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members" I am an association of cells, created by science, having a continuous existence even as individual cells die, only able to run with cooperation of said cells. I am like a corporation. Therefore, I can have a constitution. My constitution allows me to have whatever amendment I want. There should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, because mongeese desires such an amendment, and has approval from himself. The resolution remains affirmed. Vote PRO. That was great. I advise that you re-instate this debate again, but specify which constitution you want to debate about next time. Such a detail is of great importance to the debate!
There Should Be A Constitutional Amednment Banning Gay Marriage

Even though the human brain is compared to computers and cells behave like individual cities they are neither computers nor cities respectively and therefore are completely irrelevant. You may think you are like a corporation or find arguments in agreement with your statement, but you are not a corporation (Corporation: 1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. ) Therefore you cannot prove your argument. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://dictionary.reference.com...
There Should Be A Constitutional Amednment Banning Gay Marriage

Ah, but I am like a corporation! I am run by my brain, similar to a CEO or Board of Directors. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... My mouth imports resources to the stomach through the esophagus... http://en.wikipedia.org... ...so that the resources are broken down for either subsistence or work. This work is then used to either continue to gather resources or perform tasks to give mongeese the profit of happiness. My cells also behave like individual cities. http://www.biopic.co.uk... The human brain is often compared to computers. http://faculty.washington.edu... So, basically, I am like a corporation. Therefore, I can have a constitution to govern myself. Therefore, the resolution remains affirmed.
There Should Be A Constitutional Amednment Banning Gay Marriage

Resolved : There Should Be A Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage I negate the resolution My opponent, Mongeese has created his own constitution yet agreed with my definition of constitution. Though Mongeese listed that he is in fact a member of Debate.org he did not list that this would be Debate.org's constitution, only the constitution of Mongeese. In the definition of Constitution provided, it states, "the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed." http://dictionary.reference.com...... My opponent Mongeese, is neither a nation, state, or corporation. Despite the fact that my opponent states that the constitution governs Mongeese, he is neither of the aforementioned and therefore his constitution is irrelevant. In addition to this, a constitution, as previously defined also includes a simple set of principles which Mongeese has also failed to include. Thus, Mongeese's constitution cannot be amended to restrict gay marriage. Congratulations to Mongeese for his "ingenuity".
There Should Be A Constitutional Amednment Banning Gay Marriage

Thank you for starting this debate. I agree with all of my opponent's definitions, as proper conduct dictates. I will now write my own constitution: mongeese's Constitution: {Preamble: I am mongeese, and I write this constitution. This constitution governs mongeese. Article I In any case in which mongeese wishes to amend this Constitution, mongeese may amend this Constitution in any way that he so desires, so long as he has approval from himself. Amendments: 1. mongeese is part of Debate. org. 2. Gay marriage is banned. } There should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, because mongeese desires such an amendment, and has approval from himself. The resolution is affirmed.
There Should Be A Constitutional Amednment Banning Gay Marriage

Resolved : There Should Be A Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage I will argue that there should not be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Definitions : Should - must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): http://dictionary.reference.com... Constitutional - pertaining to the constitution Constitution - the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed. http://dictionary.reference.com... Amendment - an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc http://dictionary.reference.com... Banning - to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict http://dictionary.reference.com... Gay - a homosexual person, esp. a male. http://dictionary.reference.com... Marriage - to join in wedlock (Webster's New World) N.B. - any dictionary definition prior to 2005 will read to "unite as man and woman in holy matrimony" - or something to that affect. Later dictionaries will include multiple definitions. Pro argument first
Creation is true

Because of my opponent's forfeit I will continue to explain why creationism is not true. Evolution. Evolution is a series small, maybe even large, mutations and overtime these mutations lead to a new race in a species or even a new species. I don't know too much on this subject but for me it seems more logical than a superior made everything perfect the way it is now. Dinosaurs, is it hard for you creationists to find a reason how these creatures were on the Earth despite the evidence that they clearly existed and somehow the majority of them went extinct? I have researched possible answers of creationist community. Dinosaurs were existed at the same time as us! Your explanation to why they aren't here right now is because God didn't want them anymore. Good counter creationist but 6,000 years ago the human race had historians to record such sittings, plus millions of people to possibly see these creatures and how come not one little kid decided not to write down, 'I saw my first T-Rex today'? Now how did they the majority of dinosaurs go extinct? Did Noah not care for them when the flood happened? Was it a dino plague? It couldn't have been a meteor because the human race along with most species have been here since the beginning of time (6,000 years ago) with the dinosaurs. In more recent years a giant worn down crater than could have easily killed the dinosaur population has been discovered in Mexico. God really made the evidence of the killer of dinosaurs look nice. That's about it.... yea so I'm going to sleep now, buenos noches mis amigos! By the way if I offended you or your religion in anyway my bad, lo siento. Happy voting
Creation is true

Because of your forfeit and I have nothing to counter in this round I will give my thoughts to why God doesn't exist. As I mentioned before, where did God come from? I have done research and according to some passages from the Genesis and Bible say God created time and therefore always existed and never was created. You are discrediting yourself as well when you say life can only be produced by another living thing and then how can life be created? Your reason is because God created life. Well then what about God, is He alive? If He is, what living organism or being created him? Or should I believe that he came from nowhere and without cause he decided to build the universe? That logic seems idiotic to believe in. A being that we can not see, hear, touch, or any other kind of evidence that proves it's existence and you choose to believe it is there. Why do YOU believe in God? Were you raised into believing in him, traumatic event, passing of a loved one, YOU witnessed a miracle and had to believe? I was personally raised into believing, I went to a christian school. My old school had us pray everyday and as I grew older I came to a conclusion that God does not exist. I need evidence to believe in anything now, and not blindly be lead into believing a superior being created EVERYTHING yet have no trace of proof that he did. Now what is your proof? The proof you must provide can't be based on the "connections" you have had with God (it is not reliable), it has to be solid evidence. Now to his discriminating. More Africans became christian after countries colonized Africa. Since then white people (mainly) discriminated towards the blacks. For example The KKK, these were Christians that protested against black people's rights, they verbally and physically hurt Africans. How can God stand by and watch this happen? White Christians hurting black Christians? KKK said they are Christians, wouldn't God want to stop an organization like this? Exceeded my space to elaborate.
Creation is true

True, but we still don't know all of the causes quite yet. Like I said before we can only predict so much with the technology available along with intellect of creating theories of how it all started. Laws of physics and other theories are broken all the time, the cell theory will have to be adjusted once we discover the cause of how living things came to be. You restate the possibility of life is nearly impossible or simply impossible but what about God is he living? And where did this superior being come from? And his powers? His powers to make us, and the rest of the universe.