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

1. All parties involved need to reach an agreement on what they define romantic love as. In this case love is based on trust, understanding, honesty, and intimacy 2. Intimacy does not have to mean being sexually intimate with a person or more than one person. It can mean to share your deepest thoughts and desires with another person and be totally open with them which can allow for a romantic love to develop. 3. Romantic love does not have to entail sexual relations but it can. 4. A healthy relationship is based upon the above information which can be found in more than one person at a time. 5. The feelings of romantic love are out of one"s control which can lead to a person being in love with more than one person at a time. 6. Polygamist relationships are multiple people having romantic love for one main person 7. Polygamists are aware that they are in a romantic relationship with someone who is also in a romantic relationship with other people. This is not considered cheating. 8. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at once. Non-controversial premises: Premises 1, 3, and 6 are non-controversial. Premise 1 is non-controversial because it is simply stating what the grounds of romantic love are, which can be widely agreed upon. Premise 3 is non-controversial because it is known that there are people in the world who are in romantic relationships but do not take part in sexual relations. These types of people are considered asexual. And premise 6 is also non-controversial because it is the definition of polygamy. Controversial Premises: Premises 2, 4, 5 and 7 are controversial. 2. Being intimate with someone is about becoming close to that person and having a feeling of attachment and secureness. That feeling can come from anything, it does not have to come from sexual relations. 4. Trust, understanding, honesty and intimacy are the foundation of a healthy relationship and it is more than possible to experience those things with more than one person simultaneously. Just because you love one person does not necessarily mean you lose any love for the other person. 5. It is often said that you cannot control who you fall in love with and I have seen this happen to many people. Love can take over your psyche and as much as you want to fight the feelings, the feelings will remain. 7. Polygamy is not considered cheating because the people involved are aware of the actions that are taking place outside of their realm of control and are accepting of it.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1.) The agreement on what we defined romantic love as, still stands. In this case, romantic love is based on trust, understanding, honesty, and intimacy, agreed. 2.) Intimacy does not involve sexual relations, and romantic love does not, in this case, encourage sexual relations. Intimacy is an authentic connection between two people, it"s a special characteristic of romantic love shared amongst solely two partners. The potential for authentic romance relies on the deeper connection that intimacy ignites and conducts. 3.) A monogamous relationship is basically committing oneself romantically to only one partner. It is a relationship that is accepted by most, and sharing trust and honesty is confirmed in such a relationship. 4.) My opponent has agreed on the fact that favoritism is a possibility in a polygamous relationship, and it can cause problems. 5.) My opponent mentioned a point that claims my stance to be correct, using the word "team" in round 3 to describe what I had stated about romantic partners not being fazed in face of threats to their romantic relationship. I was clearly applying that two people involved in a romantic relationship are indeed a team, depending on each other. 6.) Feelings are always involved, of course. Feelings and emotions can cause conflict in a relationship, especially when one or more people are involved in sharing one"s romantic love like such. Feelings may be strong enough to attain influence over one"s self-control, however, biologically there are parts of the brain that control everything, including feelings. 7.) I have stated why, based on your premise that feelings overpower the mind, that romantically loving more than one person at the same time is wrong. It is the existence of the subconscious and conscious mind that control and direct emotions/feelings. This proves my point made about control as well, the possibility of having control and using it. The level of maturity in a romantic relationship between two people stimulates control, having the ability to sacrifice themselves in ways only worthy/meant for one another. It is simply wrong to do some things that seem to just feel good; Just because something might feel right in the moment, doesn"t make it right in reality. 8.) It was actually my opponent who never really answered questions I had stated in round 2, even if they were not meant to be directly answered, my opponent didn"t even consider them to mention the ideas in the following rounds. These were my critical questions: "Is it really true or practical that feelings overpower the mind? Can it really be that people want to believe and convince themselves this is the case, due to which the fact that humans think this way is because we choose the idea that is more favorable/pleasurable to the mind?" 9.) My argument that it is not possible for a person to romantically love more than one person simultaneously, still stands. My premises are all still true and possible, although points were disagreed upon by my opponent.
Jesus was not caucasian white as most of America likes to present him as

I share my opponent's distaste for silly assumptions and backwards thinking, and we have a shared dislike of egocentric thinking and a lack of education and curiosity. It may be obvious that I took this argument to serve as a devil's advocate. This is a question that many may have thought of as less of a question for debate and more of an obvious fact. But in raising the question in the way that he has, my opponent stepped into the dangerous waters of certainty, when religious currents are almost always murkily uncertain. I believe that my points have been salient, and for the large part unanswered by my opponent. I encourage those voting to cast their ballots in favor of the strongest argument, and not their own beliefs, as the challenge of debating for an unpopular opinion is the very reason that I myself entered the debate. And with this in mind, I can declare that I have been successful in presenting an argument which has bested my opponent's argument. I hope that the points I have raised will compel the readers to challenge even their most deeply held beliefs, in hopes that they may see more clearly in the light of reason.
Jesus was not caucasian white as most of America likes to present him as

You're getting pretty deep on me here. Deeper than I intended. I will not debate against the valid points you made "But he is also portrayed as black and Asian, if you're going to church in Senegal or Korea. ". That's not the point of the debate. This was more so for Christians who are racist and have this white Jesus in their minds. I was hoping to shed some light that he was most likely middle eastern looking, which shocks racist Christians that I'm hoping to make a point against. I agree with what you're saying above, but it's off the topic I was going for.
Jesus was not caucasian white as most of America likes to present him as

Jesus is often shown to be white in the context of a White European society, which is the source of much of American culture. But he is also portrayed as black and Asian, if you're going to church in Senegal or Korea. This, as I have stated previously, may be just as valid as any "historical" depiction, due to the lack of an actual historical record. This point remains unanswered by my opponent, though there is a rich tradition defending the historicity of a Christ, yet that argument has not been raised. I would point out that the same fallacy which my opponent accuses the "Middle-American" strawmen of using is one which he is himself guilty: by saying that he categorically didn't look a certain way, isn't that wrong in the same way as blindly believing that he did?
Jesus was not caucasian white as most of America likes to present him as

First, I was kind of hoping for a racist reply as this is the behavior and thinking I want to shine a light on. It's inherintely against the ideals of Christianity and for those who see him as white and belittle other races, I was hoping to show a different point of view. I only used Caucasian since it's what I pick on forms for my race, unless it just says white. You have good points around this, but I didn't specifically mean historically from the Caucasus region. My point is that Jesus, especially in America, has a tendency to be shown as similarly skinned to the average white American. Given the area he was born, that his parents would have been of much darker skin, that it simply makes no sense. Furthermore, if he was white as I've seen in pictures/movies in church growing up, why wouldn't any of his disciples try to use this as a further mark of purity. His "look" is never really discussed and that leads me to believe he would look just like others born in the region and therefore different than the classic portrayal.
LR4N6FTW4EVA is a Teenager

" . .. I will refuse to attempt to prove his age. I will likewise not attempt to determine if he is a well programed computer generating responses from a database of paragraphs of the work of others. " Do you have any idea how our legal system works? As I stated before, "Innocent until proven guilty". If you, the "prosecution"/instigator (as the burden of proof is on them), cannot prove that the defendant is guilty, then he is not guilty. My opponent has not shown evidence that LR is a teenager, so I don't have to do anything. This is why, in court cases, the defendant's lawyers prefer to cast doubt on the state's case. My opponent doesn't seem to understand this, so I will provide two examples: Example 1: John is brought to court by the state because he has been suspected of kidnapping. However, the state has no evidence to show that John was at the scene of the crime, etc. Therefore John is rendered "not guilty". Likewise, since my opponent has no evidence to prove that LR is a teenager, he is considered "not guilty", or "not a teenager". Example 2: John starts a debate with the resolution "I like pie". However, since he has no evidence to show that he likes pie, the contender doesn't have to prove anything. See above example. "I encourage the reader to consider my arguments from round 1, most of which have not been addressed. " And I encourage the reader not to. Why? Because if LR is not a teenager, my opponent's arguments DO NOT APPLY. I stated this last round also; it seems my opponent has not quite comprehended this either. Here's an example: John starts a debate with the resolution "George Bush is the president of the U. S. ". However, for his arguments he cites a Wikipedia page on Bill Clinton. Since George Bush is not Bill Clinton, his arguments do not apply. Similarly, since LR has not been proven to be a teenager, my opponent's arguments do not apply. So, let's recap the debate. My opponent has not provided evidence to show that LR is a teenager. He refused to do so, and even challenged ME to. Obviously, by looking at the clause "innocent until proven guilty", we can conclude that since my opponent has not met his burden of proof, LR cannot be considered a teenager. Furthermore, if LR cannot be considered a teenager, then he cannot be considered subject to the arguments presented by my opponent in round 1. Not only do they not apply to LR, but the resolution says "LR4N6FTW4EVA is a teenager, and as a teenager he is recognized by society and law as being without life experience or education and is prone to foolishness. " Thus, LR must be a teenager to be vulnerable to the labels put forth by my opponent.
LR4N6FTW4EVA is a Teenager

"It was not my intention to ever insult LR4N6FTW4EVA. You'll note that I only stated facts about his age, and drew my conclusions about teenagers, all teenagers from our society's laws." When did I say that? All I said was that I hope LR isn't offended by anything said in the debate. "I have accepted in good faith that he is in fact fifteen, and hope that he has not lied, and will not be lying at any point in time on his profile." Well, there's two flaws with this; first, because you are having "faith", you do not have evidence (by definition) in what you are believing in. Second, just because you hope he hasn't lied, doesn't mean he hasn't. He could very well be lying about his age, name, gender, birthday, or pretty much anything else. You have no evidence to prove that someone you found on the internet is a teenager; thus, your resolution does not apply. I will go ahead and address the other points, even though this alone grants a CON vote. "Our society does not value his life experience." Of course it does. Why do you think fast food chains, who hire people as young as 14, have a section on the application for one to write past experience? "LR4N6FTW4EVA as a minor still benefits from the protections of the juvenile court system. I will accept that if he is charged for a crime as an adult, that our society has recognized him as an adult. If you can provide such evidence that he has been charged with a felony as an adult, I will happily concede this debate. To be charged for a crime as an adult, appears to be the only way in which our society recognizes minors as being adult before the age of 18." My opponent makes a large mistake here; although he encourages me to find evidence that LR is an adult, he himself has no evidence to prove that LR is a teenager. I do not have to prove that LR is not a teenager if my opponent can't prove that he is. "Innocent until proven guilty". I'd also like to bring up the fact that LR could very well be 12 or under, thus not making him a teenager nor an adult. My opponent certainly treats him like a child. And as long as LR is not a teenager, the resolution does not apply.
LR4N6FTW4EVA is a Teenager

It was not my intention to ever insult LR4N6FTW4EVA. You'll note that I only stated facts about his age, and drew my conclusions about teenagers, all teenagers from our society's laws. I believe that LR4N6FTW4EVA's age as shown on his Debate.org profile is legitimate. I feel it should be accepted as a legitimate source for his age. I do not wish to require his social security number to secure his age, and cannot pursue public documents, such as voter registration to prove it because minors do not vote. I have accepted in good faith that he is in fact fifteen, and hope that he has not lied, and will not be lying at any point in time on his profile. While 15 years does afford some life experience, and an eighth grade education certainly counts as some education, this life experience and education has not be recognized by the laws of our society. The voting age has not been lowered to the age of 15 so that we all may benefit from the education and life experience that a 15 year old would bring to the voting booth. Our society does not value his life experience. LR4N6FTW4EVA as a minor still benefits from the protections of the juvenile court system. I will accept that if he is charged for a crime as an adult, that our society has recognized him as an adult. If you can provide such evidence that he has been charged with a felony as an adult, I will happily concede this debate. To be charged for a crime as an adult, appears to be the only way in which our society recognizes minors as being adult before the age of 18.
LR4N6FTW4EVA is a Teenager

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent plans to prove that "LR4N6FTW4EVA is a teenager, and as a teenager he is recognized by society and law as being without life experience or education and is prone to foolishness. " Even though this is obviously not the resolution one would be expecting to debate, as it is not what appears as the title of the debate, I will argue it anyway. My job as CON will be to argue that this resolution is false. I will attack the resolution one part at a time. "LR4N6FTW4EVA is a teenager" My opponent's evidence here is LR's debate. org profile. Now I ask you, what can stop him from changing his age to 30? Obviously something that can be changed so easily could not be reliable. It IS the internet, after all. I'd also like to point out that since my opponent can't prove that LR is a teenager, he cannot prove the rest of the resolution, because it assumes that LR is a teenager. This also renders pretty much all of his examples of age limits useless. "he is recognized by society and law as being without life experience or education" Even if he was a teenager, LR would obviously have some sort of life experience and education. As a teenager, he would be in at least 8th grade unless he failed. Living in the U. S. , he would have a Social Security number, allowing the government to know if he was/is receiving an education or not. He could also have life experience from an extracurricular activity or another program, such as Boy Scouts. I believe that will be all for now.
I am more stupid than you.

I apologize to my opponent for my last round being so messy. I have this disease called Bipolar Disorder which causes me to mostly act normally, but sometimes I get really dumb and incoherent like you saw last round. Thankfully I've taken my pills today and I should be good for the rest of the debate. First, I thank my opponent for only arguing about what we present here in the debate and not referencing outside sources, like my profile. Rebuttal:Pro's only real argument is that because I'm on a site that promotes intellectual conversation, I'm most likely intelligent. I have a few responses:First off, this is just false. There are over 31,000 registered members on this site, yet 28,000 of them haven't won a single debate (1). This means that 91% of the site hasn't won. This would actually indicate that people on this site are unintelligent and are not participating in the intellectual conversation my opponent is talking about.Second, assume his argument is right. People on this site are smart. Well, Pro is on this website too. So by his logic, he's smart as well. Thus, since his burden is to prove that he's more stupid than me, this point doesn't show anything because if anything, it shows that we're equal in intelligence.Third, there are plenty of blatantly unintelligent people on this site. Solarman1969 has participated in 67 debates and has lost 68 of them (2). Izbo10 is widely regarded as the site's biggest idiot and troll (3). Mikee is unable to talk about anything other than how agriculture sucks and history is great. There's plenty of other examples, but these should show that just being on this site doesn't make you intelligent. That covers the argument my opponent made. Now lets look at why my reasons for Pro not being "more stupid" than me.Con case:1. The resolution states that my opponent is "more stupid" This phrase makes the flawed assumption that we are both stupid in the first place. If neither one of us us actually stupid, then obviously neither of us is more stupid than the other. So if I prove that my opponent isn't stupid, then the topic becomes grammatically impossible to prove.Pro clearly isn't stupid. His grammar and spelling are flawless, he uses fancy words like "synonymous" and "presuppose", and based off his use of the phrase "C'est Fini?" he probly speaks French as well. I can't imagine anyone who types like this to be dumb. So clearly, my opponent isn't stupid. Therefore, if he argues that I am not stupid, then neither one of us are stupid, meaning that its impossible for one of us to be "more stupid" than the other. 2. Even if you interpret the topic as just being about who's smarter, Pro hasn't done anything to support it. He has the burden to show that I am not only smart, but that I am smarter than him. Now, he's tried to make an argument that I am smart, which is cool, but he's mentioned nothing of himself, which prevents the judge from comparing our intelligence. Thus, he is not "more stupid". I look forward to Pro's response.1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.debate.org...3. http://www.debate.org...
I am more stupid than you.

I understand that in this argument, the fact that I am new and have no 'history' that you can use to your advantage may give me the upper hand. So I will try to stop myself referring to any of your comments and opinions beyond the realms of this debate. Alright, be gentle on me good sir, your taking my debate-ginity. My opponents response to this question, despite being rather amusing, does nothing to hide his intelligence . As we are communicating through a website that promotes intellectual curiosity and improvement, we would assume that it's members would share this same unquenchable thirst for knowledge. It would then not be too irrational to presuppose that it's members would be far more 'intelligent' than the Average Joe. Of course DarkVoid is no different , in a debate where the most stupid man wins, DarkVoid has done the most logical thing - act like a complete retard. Credit should be given where credit is due, and the manner through which DarkVoid has presented himself has placed him in a rather sweet position in this debate. Even though I was saddened by the apparent lack of herps and derps, the use of 'herro', 'teh' and other spelling mistakes synonymous with websites such as 4chan engage with the large majority of the audience and makes them 'Literally lol.' An act that DarkVoid knows will ultimately lead in him winning this debate. Darkvoid can continue this debate in one of three ways Continue with this stupid persona - an act that would propel him further into his persona but as I've already stated would do little to show he is stupid. Forfeit the round - an act that would suggest that he has run out of stuff to say but like above highlight his true intelligence Proceed to make a 'coherent' argument. C'est Fini?!
I am more stupid than you.

Herro to my oppnent. I saww ur debat and thought itd b muy fun. My iq is -74.56432 and ppl tell me that im super dumb. I cnt wait 2 see ur argumentos!!!!!Also, wht does "more" mean???And it say at teh bottm that i got 7700 "characters" lef. LOL, like cartoon characters? But deres only like a few of those on rite now right??? It make no snse...