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

1. The topic is about romantic love, so including all the other kinds of love makes everything mixed up and not specific. 2. I agree. 3. Just because someone has sex outside of marriage does not make it bad. I agree that some religions are against sex before marriage and I can understand that, but if one is not religious, it does not make it wrong for them to do what they do. Everyone has their own beliefs. 4.It usually isn"t. In your example, the love between a child and their mother is considered incest and is illegal in many places. Not only that, many cultures frown upon it as well, being taboo. 5. If one does not trust each other, can they really be in love with each other? If trust is not involved, the relationship would not last very long. And I did not say they broke up because of being guilty. I gave many reasons as to why a relationship may not workout and how one can learn something from their old relationships and apply it to their new ones. 6. One can have sexual relations or feel lust towards someone they have never met before or do not love. For example, hiring a prostitute. Yes, it is illegal, but it is still happening and a perfect example. One hires a prostitute to help them with their sexual urges but that does not mean they love the person they hired. 7. Love one feels for a child is different from love for a spouse or lover or boy/girlfriend. A baby can actually live without their mother, they have their fathers as well. Not only that, they can have relatives or even be adopted. And just because one loves their children does not mean they love the other parent of that child. For example, the father could only be keeping the wife around to cook and clean and take care of the children. This shows that while they love their children, it does not mean they love the other parent of the children as well.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. Of course we are talking about love. I said, it is include all kind of loves, did not I mean, I include romantic love in there? 2. Exactly it is deeper. I also believe, a person should have a wide heart to loves someone like that and give his/her times as a much as he/she can. 3. Yes, there are many people in the world are having sex without married. But it is worst. The person who is believe in religion at this person would not sex and uses his common sense to not sex before married, because he knows sex is not allow without marry. Otherwise a woman can be pregnant only for one time of the sex. And the child born without married religion says, ‘’their unhallowed.’’ 4. Probably it does not mean that he is in love with more than one person. I used this example just because of you said, relationship between parents and children in not romantic. 5. Disagree with your example, because I do not believe they broke up because one of them are guilty. As an example is magnet, magnet’s both side would not be together at all. Same as a relationship of love, they broke up because both persons had a few fault. If they do not trust each other there is nothing can carry their relationship. 6. Yes, lust is not love but a person feels sexual feelings for another person when he/she fall in love with a person. And usually that sexual feeling is a love’s attraction. 7. Of course it is love. You take care for you children because of you love them. A baby cannot lives without his/her mother. When your wife stay with you in a same house and care for you. Obviously you would fall in love with them not because of you married them might be for your lovable children. And this love protects your good relationship with your wives.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. But we are not talking about love, like one loves friends or family. The love we are talking about is romantic, which is only reserved for lovers, boyfriend/girlfriends, and husband/wives. 2. I believe romantic love is much deeper than just someone"s emotions or preferences towards another person. I believe romantic love is when one cares for another person, cherishes them, and makes them feel loved, cared for, and special. 3. People of the same gender can be in love. And love does not mean one has to have sex, or be married to have sex. Yes, some people believe in saving sex until marriage but not everyone believes in that, many people have sex without being married every day. 4. That example, your cousin may be romantically in love with their mother, but that does not mean he is in love with more than one person. While I do accept that your example shows a son loving him mother more than parentally, I still believe it is not how it is often. Even so, the example shows how that person is only in love with the one person, not more than one. 5. Just because one does not forget their first love does not mean they still are in love with them. One can have fond memories about their first love, and it is because it is the most prominent part of their development and first acts of learning about everything personally. Just because one misses them or miss the way they interacted, does not mean they still love that person. One can miss them because they miss the good times but it doesn't have to be because they still love them, it can be because they want another relationship that holds those same types of interactions. For example, when one is in a relationship and the relationship is over, they always take something from that relationship, they always learn something from it. They take that information and put it towards any future relationships, such as knowing signs of abuse or when someone is guilty, or they care about you by little things they do. By experiencing these things first hand, one can learn to pick up signs, but that does not mean they still love the other person. 6. Attraction and lust are different from love. Attraction means you like the person for one reason or another, not that you are in love with them. And lust means you feel sexual feelings for the person, which is not what love is. Love can contain lust in some aspects but lust is not love. 7. I agree that if a man has two wives whom he loves, that it is a person loving more than one person at the same time. However, if he is only doing it because he "does not have any rights" to divorce them, than is that love? If he is only staying with them out of duty or honor or because he isn"t allowed to divorce them, is that really loving the other person? If you love them, why would you want to divorce?
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1.I disagree because I do not think love is an additional emotion. It is an automatic emotional addition (which is include all kind of loves. It is could be for parents too not only romantic love). Yes, there are so many people who do not love another parson as a husband/wife but it does not mean that they don"t have any feeling. Maybe each one has different feelings but everyone has an emotional feeling of love because people cannot be alive without love. 2.When a person’s emotion or taste affects toward for the person it is calls romantic love. 3.No I said, love is a natural relationship but it does not mean two different people"s sex. Yes, opposite gender but these couples can keep their distance and save their virginity until marriage. 4.A personal example is my cousin, who lost his father at age of two years. After his father died, he began to thinking his mother is his first and last lover. He is 42 years old now but still he did not get marry because he does not want to second woman in his life. He calls baby to his mother what is a word for boys to call their girlfriend. I think this relationship between the mother and son is not only paternally or parental love it also a romantic love too. Romantic love does not mean a love for boyfriend-girlfriend or husband-wife only. It also an imaginative of love what is usually means not arrive any physical activity. 5.The one that you first love it is the true feelings special for the person that you will never forget in your life. The love left you an imprint of place on your heart which will be there forever (Urban Dictionary). I disagree because clearly I explained why a parson cannot forget his ex-girlfriend. Missing each other, characteristics or their relationship is not it for first feeling of love? Unfortunately, still a person holds this feeling because first is unforgettable. 6.Yes a relationship with a person, it does not imply love but rest of the time another person cannot realize that hurt you a lot. If they have an attraction or lust for each other so is not it means, it is a feeling of love? 7.Yes it is more deep and intricate but when I person gets two wives and the wives got their own child. The person got those women married so he does not have any right to divorce them or stay away from them. So he has to take cares for both of his wives and children at the same time and love them for his self-interest as a husband or as a father.
Rent Control is Bad

Haha, I'm willing to go more rounds. 1) You can easily google San Francisco's case, but (http://www.sfbg.com...). I also read that most cities operate like this. However, that is not important for my argument; if hypothetically it isn't widespread in the US, then at the very least this is an amendment that would make rent control work. I am confused to your point about this being a lightly regulated housing policy rather than rent control. My definition of "rent control" comes from wikipedia, in which it includes both the extreme version as well as the modified version. If rent control is purely a static price for all houses for all of time, then I agree rent control is bad. I am instead advocating a constrained rent control that will solve my two problems: making sure the most people gets housing and not evicting the poor. Ok, I understand your rising cost point. It's that if I make 1 house today, I may want to make 2 houses tomorrow. In fact, due to demand I will need to make 2 houses tomorrow, which in turn increases labor demand and thus cost. Here are my two questions:a) Why would I need to make 2 houses tomorrow if I need to make 1 house today? Why would demand suddenly increase to two houses tomorrow, but only 1 house today? I understand population growth, but since population is expected to level off, then wouldn't rent control at least be viable in the future once population levels off?b) With the "no rent control to new buildings" amendment, is rising cost still a problem?3) Was this agreeing that the constrained rent control wouldn't hurt incentives, even if it still causes the maintainance problem? 4) The idea is that rent control prices rise a little bit each year (which is also what currently happens, but if it isn't, use this as an amendment), so it covers rising maintainance cost. The goal is that at the end of the day, the landlord only makes 100k. If maintainance cost goes up, then his renting price will also go up so he still makes 100k. If the demand raises 600%, then due to rent control he still only makes 100k, and so the poor still survive. This guide here outlines the various ways rent control rises somewhat each year to cover landlord costs: http://www.globalpropertyguide.com...5) I agree. I shouldn't have used comparative politics since it becomes a cherry picking game.
Rent Control is Bad

Please Do Not Score This DebateI clearly see now that my opponent's main goal is discussion, and not necessarily advocating CON for the resolution. In this spirit, and because I do believe the following encourages discussion over petty politicking, I ask audiences to not score this debate. In fact, I'd be willing to go another couple rounds if my opponent is willing and still curious, as I do find this discussion to be interesting. If he agrees, he can say so next round. If he does not, then I will reiterate that CON MUST stay silent next round in order to stay within 3 rounds of argumentation. I would then request that CON state exactly "As agreed, CON passes this round". 1) CON is going to have to substantiate his San Francisco point. It's possible that whatever San Francisco has is relatively business-friendly compared to the commonly accepted definition of rent control, and would look much more like a lightly regulated housing environment than what is commonly accepted as "rent control".On rising costs, the point is time frame. Let's say that "it cost[s] 10k to build a house today (hypothetically), then it should cost 10k to build another one tomorrow." I agree with CON here, but the point is when you decide to build 3 or 300 MORE HOUSES "tomorrow". Then, you hit upon a supply constraint, where there's not enough available labor at prevailing market rates for construction, so businesses would have to pay laborers more to do the work (since labor is scarce, the laborer can demand higher wages), or to entice other laborers to switch to construction.This is very different from building 3 more houses over 3 years...if demand is high, then those houses can't wait...they need to be built NOW, and that time pressure causes wages (which are a function of time anyway) to rise, which then causes costs to rise for homebuilders, which is fine because home prices are also rising. That's how demand works absent rent control or at least one aspect of how demand works.3) Ok. So you have your middle way (i.e. not rent control), and construction goes forward. All of the arguments about devolving rental conditions would still apply. Much of San Francisco housing is not very pretty to look at.4) "...if a landlord makes 100k a year in 1980, then despite demand, he will still make about 100k in 2013. He still makes a profit, so why would he sell?"This doesn't make sense. If a landlord makes 100k/year on property worth $2 million, then he earns 5% on his investment. With stricter maintenance laws, he may end up making only 50k/year, meaning he earns only 2.5%, whereas if he sold and then bought property in an area without those maintenance laws, he'd book 5% again. The landlord, who is a businessman, would sell.5) I am no expert on Sweden, but I would say the story is more complicated than just high tax = high success. Forbes tells a story of lowering taxes = success: http://www.forbes.com...
Rent Control is Bad

1) Rent control does not apply to new housing because they don't want to ruin the incentives to make new housing, but they want to protect the long-time poor residents. An example is San Francisco. But let's say you still don't believe that, then why don't I just propose this. Rent control doesn't apply to new housing, but rent control will eventually be established at new housing starting at the present market price. Please elaborate on the rising cost. Why do the cost rise? If it cost 10k to build a house today (hypothetically), then it should cost 10k to build another one tomorrow. Why does the cost rise? 3) The point is I'm designing a rent control that will work. Sort of a middle way. The objective is to protect the poor with rent control, while not reducing the number of people who would have had housing under the free-market. My proposal (which I believe is also currently happening) is that new buildings aren't immediately under rent control, thus there is no disincentive to make new buildings. 4) I don't understand why they would sell them. I am not saying they will not have a profit. I'm saying they will not have drastic increases in profit. For example, assuming no inflation exist, if a landlord makes 100k a year in 1980, then despite demand, he will still make about 100k in 2013. He still makes a profit, so why would he sell? 5) I'm basing this claim on Sweden. I don't have the econ knowledge to give you a mathematical proof, so I'm just relying on comparative politics. Sweden has higher economic innovation than the US (http://www.swedishwire.com...) and has high taxes. If they work, why wouldn't the US? Conclusion: I still don't understand why my amendments to rent control wouldn't work. RIght now the main difference stems from your claim of rising cost. Please explain this concept more, but conceptually and practically, not mathematically or with graphs. I don't understand this concept because cost should only rise due to inflation, since construction may cost more, but since my proposed rent control adjust due to inflation (which also currently happens), I don't see why rising cost would be a problem.
Rent Control is Bad

I thank CON for the swift reply.1) There's some misunderstanding here. All of my comments here dealt with ongoing rent control. If there is rent control, then property prices will be low, which gives builders less incentive to build additional housing (since that's how they make money, by selling the property). Again, on marginal utility, what happens is that demand is always high under rent control, but prices don't rise to encourage more supply. A homebuilder would have to hire more workers or raise wages for existing workers in order to create more supply of housing, i.e. rising costs, i.e. marginal utility. However, with rent control, property prices don't rise to help alleviate these costs, so builders end up not building the housing units.Rent control is practiced on new housing depending upon the jurisdiction of the laws. I don't know why my opponent thinks otherwise. If he can't find any cases of rent control applying to new housing, it's probably because most people recognize that rent control does not work, and have since revoked such laws. Regardless, if rent control was implemented, there's no reason to think that new housing would be excluded, although as already stated, the main problem with rent control is that new housing wouldn't be built in the first place.3) CON isn't making sense here. If new housing isn't subject to rent control, then we aren't talking about rent control, aren't we?4) Regarding new laws mandating maintenance, the most likely result would be that landlords would sell property en masse, because the maintenance costs would kill the profitability of the property. This continues the chain of lower property prices, lower property taxes, underfunded schools, police, firemen, etc...5) Increasing income tax without the offsetting rise in property prices would be yet another drain on the economy. Also, increased taxes would generally discourage overall economic activity not necessarily related to housing.CON's solutions generally favor government involvement in economic activity, and just looking at entities like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security and Medicare and the gigantic debts that these entities have would strongly suggest that a private sector solution would be more effective. 6) LOL, I hope CON isn't "giving" me a win! =)Eliminating rent control stimulates development, and would cause the private sector to develop a "free-market" solution to CON's dilemma. In some places, this has led to smaller and smaller apartments, which while obviously not as good as large apartments, would at least give more families a relatively affordable place to live within the city. However, if rent control continues, inner cities would become blighted, as landlords don't maintain the buildings due to cost considerations. New housing wouldn't make it to market because builders can't make money building housing units. Poor people would still get the shaft, even those who live in the slum-like housing.
Rent Control is Bad

1) First, this is how I understood your first point. You are saying since costs rise with the times, as in it may cost a lot of money to make a building now compared to the past, or that people in the past made buildings under the assumption of no rent control (thus a potential for rising profit), there is little incentive to make houses now. Correct? Rent control, as is practiced in the US, does not apply to new housing. So there should be no disincentive to make new houses due to rising costs. But regardless, there is still an incentive to make profit. For example, although with rising cost you make need to wait longer under controlled rent to break even with your construction cost, you still have the potential of making profit once you pass that breaking even point. 2) Ok. 3) This is tied to #1, and if my counter in #1 is valid, then your point here is invalid since everyone would have housing, or at least have as much chances of housing as they would under free market. But I agree with your statement (everyone in housing>some people on streets). 4) Why not just impose maintenance laws, in which it is a crime for landlords to neglect their upkeep duties. On a moral level, I don't think landlords should upkeep housing because they think it will give them more money. They should do it altruistically. But since you claim they don't do that naturally, then a law can force them to. 5) Why not just increase income tax? If Sweden can survive on 50% taxation, I don't see why Americans can't, other than their ideology, which can be changed. 6) You don't have to answer this point, because it is a question that may hurt your chances of "winning." But if you don't care about that: To me, it seems like no rent control will gradually replace poor people with rich people in popular cities. I don't think that living in a city should be determined by how much money you have, since money is arbitrary. Do you think it is possible to avoid all the criticisms you laid out without forcing poor people out of popular cities that they lived in their entire lives? Conclusion: I think I have addressed all your points (number 6 is not a required point). While I agree that rent control itself may lead to trouble, I proposed modifications to rent control and a series of attached laws that would avoid the undesirable effects.