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

1.I agree Falling out of love may not happen as quickly as I stated it does, but Love is an emotion which science cannot always fully explore or comprehend. 2.I also agree that the complexity of love does not necessarily mean it is impossible to love more than one person, but if many people have so much trouble telling that they are in love with one person, trying to determine whether they love another at the same time would have to be at least nearly impossible. 3.I agree that there are many different reasons people cheat, but the fear of infidelity could simply mean that the person who is cheating knows what they are doing is wrong based on the morals of his or her community, not necessarily that person"s own, and there are many reasons a person might try to keep their affair a secret, that person just might want to avoid getting screwed over in divorce court, or that person just might not want people to know what he or she is doing. 4.If a person is feeling what they felt for their original partner for someone else, then that person"s feelings for their original partner have become unclear, and may be gone all together. That person is taking his or her feelings from his or her original partner and placing them on to someone else, rather than leeching his feelings off of his or her original partner. 5.Yes many acts can create the chemicals necessary to make love, but unless two people are together for a long period of time, those feelings that the person could get would never be able to fully develop, a person who cheated on his or her wife by "accident", would get those feelings for a short time, and then they would fade away, being overshadowed by that person"s true feelings of love for their original partner. If a person cheats for an extended period of time, they take the love they had for the original partner and move it onto their new one. 6.I agree with your statement.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1: I agree that love is a complex emotion but, while a person can fall in love quickly, it is scientifically proven that people do not fall out of love as quickly. It takes much longer for the brain to break away from that attachment. 2: I agree that it can be difficult to tell whether or not a person it truly in love. This however, does not mean that it is impossible to love more than one person. 3: People do not always have affairs because they have fallen out of love with their original partner. When people have affairs, they often kept a secret from their original partners out of fear of losing them because if their infidelity. This would suggest that the cheater desires to have both people his or her life. The cheater is capable of feeling strong emotions for both of their partners. 4: Going off of what I just stated, a person does not have to fall out of love to have an affair. A person could just simply begin to feel the emotions they feel for their original partner for someone else. 5: This is true that sex is not the only factor that in love. Sex is only one of many circumstances that can release the right chemicals create the feelings of love. My point was that during any type of bonding experience whether sex or something as simple as discussing your past, any release of chemicals that are known to make attachments will create feelings of love. 6: Furthermore, religious couples may not engage in sex but do participate is some type of bonding experiences that help their attachment to each other form. 7: As I have already stated, cheating does not necessarily result from lack of love. I agree that love is not the only factor involved in love but it is one of many. Saying that it is not would be denying the scientific evidence of how this can create an attachment between two people.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1.Love is a complex emotion, that people, can develop over time and slowly drift apart, or fall into or out of almost immediately. 2.Love being as complex as it is, it is hard for a lot of people to tell whether they are truly in love or not. 3.People generally have affairs because they have fallen out of love with their partners, people generally cheat by "accident", in both cases the person cheating only loves one person. 4.Just because a person does not love his or her partner while having an affair, does not mean that that person having the affair cannot go back to loving their original partner, that person just needs to stop loving his or her affair partner. 5.sex alone cannot be considered love. Even though various chemicals are released in the brain during intercourse with anyone. There would still be a far greater emotional connection between lovers that is just as, if not more important. 6.For certain religious people, sex before marriage is not alright, but many of those people still love there partners just as much as couples who do regularly have sex. 7.Therefore, because when people cheat, it is due to the lack of love for one of their partners, and because love is more than just sex, it is likely not possible to romantically love more than one person. Non Controversial: 1 and 2 are just about what love is, and state that it is a complex emotion. 3 states that the people in the situations I described both only loved one person, because the married person no longer loved his or her spouse, and the person who cheated did not do so romantically with the person he or she cheated with. Controversial: For number 4, it makes sense in context with number 3, but can be argued in different ways. For number 5 I stated that the emotional side of love is just as, if not more important, some may believe that the physical side has a lot more to do with love. for Number 6 I said that people who do not have sex before marriage love there partners just as much as those who do, if the physical side of love is more important than I stated it was, than this can be argued.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at once

1. Both parties agree that love can defined as intense feelings of affection for another person. 2. For a person to be romantically in love with someone, there must be both an emotional and physical connections within the relationship. 3. Love also produces a strong attachment and bond to another person. 4. Love creates feelings of need; which are similar to feelings people experience while being addicted or attached to something. 5. Feelings of addiction or attachment are produced strictly from chemicals that the body releases under certain circumstances. 6. Particularly after sexual intercourse, chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin are released. These chemicals are known to be key elements for the brain to create attachments. 7. In regards to this premise, the more times a couple has sexual intercourse, the more these chemicals are released which would make this bond even stronger. 8. Furthermore, if a person is in a monogamous relationship but cheats on their partner and has sex with someone outside of their relationship, the chemicals released would create a bond between these people. 9. This attachment made during sex is essentially love. 10. In addition, when a person cheats on their partner in a monogamous relationship, this does not mean that they love their original partner any less. 11. Therefore, due to the fact that love is based on chemicals that they body releases in a numerous amount of circumstances, a person is capable of romantically loving more than one person. Non-Controversial Premises: Premises 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are not controversial. Premises 1 and 2 define what romantic love is. Premises 3 and 4 emphasizes that love is a bond which is similar to an addiction. Premise 6 and 7 state the fact that sex releases chemicals that create the bond that people in love have. Controversial Premises: 5: If addiction and attachment are similar, then the chemicals that are released during an addiction are the same as those released when a person is attached to another person. 8: The chemicals that bonded the partners in a monogamous relationship are the same chemicals released when a person cheats. Therefore, the same bond is formed. 9: Love is a bond or attachment. If the chemicals released during sex create a bond, then a romantic love connection has been made. 10: When people cheat on their partners, they often are still in love with them but create a new romantic connection for other reasons. Creating this new love connection does not lessen their first love connection.
Marxist Dialectic Materialism is in complete opposition of Hegelian dialectic idealism

1. In 'Capital' Marx says he intends to use Hegelian dialectics but in revised form. He defends Hegel against those who view him as a "dead dog" and then says, "I openly avowed myself as the pupil of that mighty thinker." Marx credits Hegel with "being the first to present dialectic's form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner". [1] 2. Dialectical Materialism is entirely based on the material world. A study of inter-social interactions. For example, what constitutes a king? The crown? The scepter? Dialectical Materialism states that the process of dialectics is fluid, not a middle point or ending point. A study of the material world. The material world effects the mind, not vice-versa.[2] 3. For Marx, human history cannot be fitted into any neat a priori schema. He explicitly rejects the idea of Hegel's followers that history can be understood as a person apart, a metaphysical subject of which real human individuals are but the bearers.[3] 4. Dialectical Idealism is based entirely on the study of the world of ideas. Hegel states that someone's mind influences the material world. According to Hegel, if humans believed they could fly, they could. [4] 5. By definition alone, these two terms are opposite. It's a simple argument. I hope you will refute it. REFERENCES: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]https://www.marxists.org... [3]http://www.britannica.com... [4]http://www.crossroad.to...
Mitt Romney would make a bad president.

'Watch your conduct. '? ! His next statement proves what a ridiculous hypocrite he is and that he is typical of most other Conservatives. Get them to a place they don't like and they resort to just insulting their opponent. .. I fear that this means this debate has lost most of it's political meaning and has just turned into an argument. the difference between debating and arguing is that in a debate you try to make legitimate points in the name of trying to determine whose view is the most accurate. This 'debate' has dangerously close to sliding over to a brawl. POINTS! Finally we see some reasons from Con in regards to whether Romney will be a bad president or not. Unfortunately, NONE of them were unpacked and explained and therefore have little value or impact on the course of the debate. It is clear as to which side has put forward their case and owned the debate. PRO We have seen from Pro a clear logic and structured reasoning over the course of the debate. The points have stood as Con's rebuttal has consisted of senseless material and petty insults. All the points I have made in the second round stand and I urge you to to see who has made the better points. CON 'd*ck' That word will really hurt Con and rightly so. It says enough about his rebuttal tactics and more or less shows that he has given up.
Technology has taken over.

34 percent of the world is about 2.5 billion. I bet that's more people than you thought. And that 34% is mostly the USA, China and India because they have the 3 highest populations in the world. Anyway, I define technology as electric gadgets. And your "internet" argument is invalid, because I said TECHNOLOGY has taken over, not the internet. But it has though. And I was making the argument that it is used not how it should be and that people over relying on it. Such as people think Facebook is a good way to make friends. Its not because you will probably never see then in real life, unless you know them in real life of course. I think Facebook is dumb anyway. People who use that type of stuff all the time need to get a life. People also over rely on it because if we put all our history on it, and someone hacks it and destroys it or something like that, then its gone. That's why using other methods works better than technology. Some computer technology is terrible anyway. If your still in school, you should know what "smart" boards are. They never work. http://www.worldometers.info...
Technology has taken over.

Technology has taken over because all I see are people texting. Every time I go on a sidewalk or something like that, I get bumped a lot by people who are texting and not paying attention. Cell phones are a wonderful invention, but too many people are distracted by them. They should be just for calling. That's what they were intended for, but all these nerds had to put texting and stuff on it which is distracting and might endanger peoples lives like when people text and drive.Technology taking over means that people are relying on them too much. Such as not walking to the kitchen because you have a robot that takes care of that. The examples you have chosen shows that people are not using technology as it is intended to be used for (e.g. texting while driving) , and not that people are overrelying on it. Only 34% of the people in the world have access to the internet.[1] How is that technology taking over?Also, how do you define technology? If you define it as something that helps us do something easier or faster, then pencil, paper, wheels and stone tools are also technology.(the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems is one of the merriam-webster definitions[2]) This makes the debate impossible, because technology is too broad. If you define it as electric gadgets, then it would be refuted because people don't seem to rely on gadgets much. Think of all the blenders and puree machines that you have in your garage. If we only talk about computer technology, then the fact that only 34% of the people in the world can access the internet refutes your claim.[1]http://www.techandinnovationdaily.com...[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Technology has taken over.

Technology has taken over because all I see are people texting. Every time I go on a sidewalk or something like that, I get bumped a lot by people who are texting and not paying attention. Cell phones are a wonderful invention, but too many people are distracted by them. They should be just for calling. That's what they were intended for, but all these nerds had to put texting and stuff on it which is distracting and might endanger peoples lives like when people text and drive.
Objective Morality Cannot Exist Without the Presence of a Supreme Being or Deity

I do agree with you that different society are able to set socially subjective standards. That's exactly why my conclusion in R1 was "All human beings collectively can effectively set superior and objective standards of morality without any form of divine intervention". Obviously it does imply that collective interests of just a part of the population would not have such authority. Also do not misunderstand me, genocides perpetrated by Hitler & co where immoral actions according to Kant definition of objective morality. If everyone started acting like Hitler it would inevitably lead to extinction of the human race. Which is clearly against collective interest. The same would happen if there were 2 people left on earth. If both were to be killers everyone would die. Others simple examples. If everyone stole from its neighbours, there would be nobody left to gather food or produce commodities and everybody would just live in poverty and starve to death. If every race tried to enslave others there would be constant fighting. Now let's examine your extreme example : "If a world were to develop in which everybody agreed that rape and murder were perfectly acceptable at any time of day" Are you even sure this is possible ? In this world you are describing women would have to like and accept being raped !!! and men would need a reason to sacrifice their personal safety and begin to constantly murder each other. Besides, The human race doesn't have to agree on something. Objective morality defines right and wrong in the context of collective best interest (common good, common well being) . This can be very different from individual or collective choices. I believe this is solid evidence to show objective morality doesn't not come from a Deity. Anyway I had some "extremes" questions for you. : Let's assume that supreme being existed. How was he supposed to communicate to humans being his moral code ? And how could he prevent it from being biased by humans ? Also there are hundreds of religions on earth claiming that a superior being gave them the absolute truth. How can I possibly make the difference between God's law and an impostor law ?
Objective Morality Cannot Exist Without the Presence of a Supreme Being or Deity

The existence of a supreme being might be a sufficient but not a necessary condition to justify the existence of objective morality. Morality applies to human beings. Therefore what makes the difference between subjective and objective morality is the existence of others. Acknowledging that, there is no necessity to find any justification to objective morality beyond human beings.(If one person was completely isolated in the universe: Then his subjective morality would be the objective, universal morality) Besides, if the source of Objective morality was to be external to the human being, how could we explain the substantial overlapping between it and subjective morality ? Kant"s "supreme principle" of categorical imperative makes this connection between individual will and universal law rendering an hypothetical supreme being superfluous : "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." Objective morality is definitely an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. All human beings collectively can effectively set superior and objective standards of morality without any form of divine intervention. And this is what I"m going to defend.
Objective Morality Cannot Exist Without the Presence of a Supreme Being or Deity

The question of morality is one that is commonly debated within society. Homosexuality and abortion are but a few examples of commonly discussed moral issues. I would like to argue that without the institution of a God or at least some form of supreme deity with moral authority over us, there is no objective right or wrong and there is nothing wrong beyond the standards of society with any individual doing as he pleases. Therefore (according to subjective morality), a society based on anarchy should be perfectly acceptable to anyone, and is absolutely fine within the realms of morality. I am of course, reasonably against this form of morality, and believe that there are set standards for defining right and wrong in the majority of situations. I believe that these standards are set by A GOD, one who has authority to set such standards and is superior to us. Without a God, one cannot argue that there is any form of OBJECTIVE morality, a standard that applies to all with regards to ethical values. This is the point that I will be defending.
Steroids in sports.

It seems to me that using the term "advanced training" is quite vague, please can you elaborate. Secondly, I believe that there are a plethora of reasons why steroids should not be allowed in sports. for one, the sake of purity is at risk. How can you measure the skill of a human (one of the main reasons for sport) when that individual is affected by an outside alteration such as steroids? also, if you allow all players to use steroids in sports, yet all are free not to as you put it "take the health risks", aren't you not putting the people who don't want to use steroids potentially out of the game. that does not seem fair, and fairness the one of the principles guiding sports. The reason we have rules, referees and instant replay are all for the sake of pure sport, and steroids fit into that realm as well. Also, athletes are seen as heroes in the world of children. Can't you name one person that you looked up to that played sports-mine was Alex Rodriguez, and I can't imagine how my life would be changed as a kid if I had found out he had taken steroids. What kind of message does that send children; that its ok to take drugs as long as you see positive benefits? Not to mention the idea that although steroids have long term effects to the human body as well. so no, steroids should not be allowed in sports.
Steroids in sports.

I believe steroids should be allowed in sports. It would maximize the skills of most players and is the next step in advanced training. The primary reason steroids get a bad rap is because they are against the rules and viewed as cheating. Players who don't want to take steroids can be free to make that choice, just as some players don't choose certain training methods now. Players who want to take the health risks associated with steroids should be able to do so.
God exists.

Challenge accepted. Judging by the number of rounds, I'm going first. Agree to the definition, although I think I want clarification about the extent of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence because I have some arguments which rely on that.1. EvidenceIf my opponent wishes to raise the issue of faith, the problem would be that in the case in which there is no evidence, agnosticism becomes the most reasonable position. God, as has been described, should be a driving supernatural force in improving the world - but there is no evidence of the supernatural even existing.2. EvilWe've agreed to a definition which, if true, means that God has the ability, knowledge, and desire to prevent evil.However, if this is the case, a contradiction appears. Plenty of natural evil occurs, which by any moral standard, is a negative influence. If God could stop this evil and did not, it would be wrong, and thus God would not be omnipotent.3. ContradictionsI think that these individual traits are contradictory.If God is all-good, then he cannot do evil; however, if he is all-powerful, he must be able to.If God is all-knowing, then he cannot learn; however, if he is all-powerful, he must be able to learn.These are what I meant when I said that clarity is needed on the extent of these traits. Some definitions may invalidate these arguments, admittedly.
God exists.

Note: I'm here as a competitive debater, so I don't necessarily agree with ProFinal notes.1. The Creation of the UniverseIt is true that this argument does not argue for the "omni" traits of God. However, it establishes that the creator was very powerful (perhaps not omnipotent, but indicating such) in that whatever created the universe can act independently of spacetime and can also create an infinite expanse of spacetime out of nothing.Regarding consciousness and free will, I ask: what else could be necessary and create a contingent object ex nihilo?It is true that a past contraction phase may be possible. However, apart from the appealing nature of the hypothesis that spacetime is infinite, scientists scarcely accept this notion.2. The Design in the UniverseOne commonly cited instance of design is the cosmological constant, a variable in determining the expansion of the universe. Variance of 1 in 1^123 would cause an unusually fast or slow expansion phase, in any case making life impossible.We can quote-war on this too: many scientists, such as Robert Jastrow, have talked about certain unusual coincidences that may lead us to believe in design.3. Plausible MiraclesHume's response is used by Con here. It may be true that miracles are intrinsically improbable. However, facts which I stated significantly increase the probability.I have enjoyed the debate, and I hope the same is true for Con!