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

1) I agree with the definition of love as premise 1 states from the opponent. 2) I also agree with this important clarification that It is important to clarify that we are speaking about romantic love in this circumstance, and other definitions, levels and types of love are irrelevant. 3) In terms of relationships a person can only be fully committed to one person. This is why the majority of people are in monogamous relationships because they realize that you can only be in love with one person at a time. 4) Yes, there are instances where people may break up with, pass away, lose feelings/ interest, or leave someone they are in love with, but if they are forced to move on with another person then they clearly only still are in love with there ex lover and are only moving on with the new individual because they feel forced to, and not because they are in love with them. 5) Yes exactly, they may never have stopped being in love with the person whom left them, but just because they moved on with someone else doesn't mean they are now automatically in love with them. 6) yes, people do practice polygamy, but just because they may be married to more than one person doesn't mean they are in love with all of them. 7) Monogamy is now a social norm but there is it reason that it is, and this is because you can only love one person at a single time and most people in our world realize this. 8) Cheating is often based on impulse and if it is not and they actually love the other person whom they are having an affair with, then they must not be in love with there actual spouse anymore then. 9)I agree with this clarification that It is important to differentiate between sex and being in love romantically with someone. ________________________________________________________________________________________ 10) Therefore, you are capable of loving more than one person at once. Non-Controversial: I agree that premises 1, 2 and 9 are either statements, clarifications, or definitions. Controversial: I also agree that premises 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are controversial premises and reflect my opinions and evidence supporting my viewpoints and beliefs.
It"s possible to romantically love more than one person at once.

1) Love refers to the intense feeling of caring, passion and affection for another person. It also means having a deep feeling of attraction and attachment to the individual. 2) It is important to clarify that we are speaking about romantic love in this circumstance, and other definitions, levels and types of love are irrelevant. 3) A person can certainly be in love romantically with more than one individual at a time. 4) There are instances where the special other may break up with, pass away, lose feelings/ interest, or leave someone they are in love with, leaving that someone still in love but possibly feeling forced to move on and find another person whom which they will love. 5) Regarding premise 4, that someone may never have stopped being in love with the person whom left them, because it was not their decision to do so and be forced to move on. 6) Many people in our history and modern day believe and practice polygamy, which is having multiple spouses. This supports the idea that people can be in love with more than one individual at the same time. 7) Monogamy is now a social norm and anything other than it is often looked upon as morally wrong and often illegal. If it wasn't seen as this more people would be open regarding how they may be in love with more than one individual. 8) Cheating, which unfortunately occurs often in our society, is often seen as a mistake based on impulse versus the possibility that that "cheating" individual may actually be in love with more than one individual. This supports that social norms and what society sees as wrong clouds most people opinion and views on the acceptance and understanding behind someone loving multiple people at once. 9) It is important to differentiate between sex and being in love romantically with someone. It is also important to understand the difference between loving someone and romantically loving someone. ________________________________________________________________________________________ 10) Therefore, you are capable of loving more than one person at once. Non-Controversial: Premises 1, 2 and 9 are either statements, clarifications, or definitions. Controversial: Premises 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are controversial premises and reflect my opinions and evidence supporting my viewpoints and beliefs.
Muse is the best band currently working

King Crimson may have had their share of influences among many bands, but it seems most of their prime was in the past. They may still continue performing, but their modern influence seems to have faded. You even yourself claim not many have even heard of them, and I would argue Pink Floyd, Yes, and Jethro Tull are all more well known bands that had heavy influence on many progressive rock acts to follow. Muse is very good at experimenting and creating new sounds. In their earlier days, they clearly had a frying sound, almost metal influenced. They knew how to mix prog rock with electronic in a way that is exciting and so pleasing to the ear. Take for example the song Plug In Baby. This song opens with a killer riff and a great bass line. When the chorus arrives, I get goosebumps. Matt Bellamy's voice is so powerful and smooth, it's astounding. This song effortlessly dances through several genres, but finds a perfect balance. Then you experience their opera. Yes, Muse created a rock opera, Exogenesis: Symphony. It shows how well versed Muse is, that they are able to combine classical music with rock and create something we rarely see these days. This is an amazing piece of music. It's long, but it's so worth the listen. No band currently working would dare to create something like this. It's masterful. Muse has great instrumentalists. The song Panic Station highlights the amazing bass work. I provided a bass cover to specifically highlight the sounds basslines hardly go for. In the song, Knights of Cydonia, we hear an amazing guitar solo, hailing back to the classics. The guitar sounds used range from a typical shredding sound to an almost surf-rock vibe. As for the drums, have a listen to the driving drum part on Apocalypse Please. King Crimson had their time. They influenced and crafted, but over time, they've simply faded, despite the fact the band still remains. Muse is able to balance the current sounds of alternative rock with a throwback progressive feel, all the while mixing in operatic and electronic influences. There's simply no band quite like them. I guarantee that in the future, many will remember Muse as one of the best of this time period.
Muse is the best band currently working

Muse may be a talented modern band, but their expertise may never truly match the longstanding legacy of King Crimson.King Crimson first started off as an experimental band around 1968 in London, and has been considered to be the father of prog rock as a whole, creating their own musical genre emulated by generations of other prog rock bands to come - including Muse. Ever since then, they've grown older, and even let some new musicians on the team when others left the group. The years and passing down of experience from generation to generation of King Crimson has ultimately led to a refined sound which still emulates the quality of their earlier albums in the olden days.As an example of one of their jams, here is an excerpt of their 2014 rehearses for Elstree. Notice the crazy drumming and the clever use of a flute solo in the second half of the excerpt:One concert which I would recommend giving a listen is King Crimson's live performance in Japan in 2003, which you can enjoy here:The introductory soundscape played by robert fripp is incredible, considering that he is capable of creating such a smooth and consistent ambient sound using a guitar. One would almost think he was playing a violin or a cello of some kind.The band also continues to play some of its nostalgic songs, such as their haunting classic In the Court of the Crimson King as well as 21st Century Schizoid Man. No lover of music could possibly live and die without ever hearing In the Court of the Crimson King, with the imagery of various colors, tastes, sensations, and emotions all expressed in seven minutes of musical glory. Popular bands have written covers on this song. I mean, I can't believe that not many people know this song or King Crimson, or have never heard this song, or - you know what, have it here:King Crimson version:And I'm kicking myself, because I can't find a modern King Crimson version of 21st Century Schizoid Man anywhere, but some other modern band called Rx Bandits does a cover on it also. It just goes to show the influence King Crimson has had in the world of music:Muse is a great band sure, but I think that King Crimson could easily be considered a better modern band than Muse.
Muse is the best band currently working

Muse is a great band. They know how to cross genres like classic rock, alternative rock, progressive rock, and space rock. They have a miraculous sound that stretches from a more intense, brain-frying sound in their earlier albums to the orchestral-featured symphonies that sound like nothing else in this current world of music. In a time where many claim music is dead, Muse is a shining beacon of hope. The members of muse all contribute so much. Dominic Howard does excellent drum work. Christopher Wolstenholme's bass lines are always innovative and surprising. Matt Bellamy has an astounding voice, calling back to the great Freddie Mercury. He also has a good deal of skill with the piano. Muse is amazing at creating themes. Probably the best since Pink Floyd. The albums The 2nd Law, The Resistance, and Black Holes and Revelations, all have driving themes that make the listening experience so much more. The songs flow so well and the lyrics are sometimes twisted and sometimes poetic. Muse really channels Queen, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, and so many other artists, but while being inspired by these artists, they also create their own sound. A miraculous sound.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

"i didn't really add anything new."Yes you did. The direct result of cannibalism was never introduced until I brought it up."and even if i added a new rule, should it change anything?"New rules change everything.Here's a story to outline that. I am walking through the forest unarmed and a leopard attacks me. New rule, I get an AR-15. Now, instead of being the victim, I am the aggressor. All because I changed one rule. How have I avoided the question? Let's go back in time to round one. "It's never moral to kill somebody. It may be practical, or even necessary, but never moral." This debate is not about whether it is wrong to kill and eat a fellow human. It is about whether or not you may morally kill another human. Pro has not given a real argument, and has only compared us to other animals. Animals do not have morals, they do whatever they can think of to survive. Humans do that too, but as I stated before, it may be practical, even necessary, but never moral to kill and eat another human. The source that Pro has provided is a few random people talking on a forum message board. No sources are used in the message board, so I do not recognize the source as legitimate. Although I will say something about the claims in the source. The source uses examples of snakes, mice, and insects. None of these animals are able to comprehend morality. The source also failed to mention pigs, which were the animals that made me request a citation.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

i didn't really add anything new. there' sno clear end in sight, but eating antohe may allow for an end. and even if i added a new rule, should it change anything? is it inherently wrong to cannibalize? that's my question, and con seems to be wanting to avoid it. here are some animals who cannibalize when hungry http://boards.straightdope.com...
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

Pro claims that a definition of morality was irrelevant, yet fails to understand the concept. Pro has also changed the situation from the original. "my facts would ten to be such that eating the person would give perhaps neough time to be saved."This was not stated in the original hypothetical situation. The rules cannot be bent to suit to Pro's argument. Moving on. "according to the animal kingdom"This doesn't mean anything. Nobody would ever say "according to human kind" or "according to fish.""we may not be animals."Yes we are. (http://io9.com...)"but when tehy are starving, they do. this is common with pigs."I'd like a source that states that pigs resort to cannibalism."but there is no reason our moral code 'eat or be eaten' in the wild shounldn't be applicable."This is not a moral code. This is a code of survival. It is no more than advice. In conclusion, it is not moral to kill another human, and Pro has not said anything that proves otherwise.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

a definition of morality was irrelevant, given we undestand what morality means. my facts would tend to be such that eating the person would give pehaps neough time to be saved. even if it just gave a person more time to live, that is not insignifiant either. according to the animal kingdom, many animals do not eat each other of the same species. but when tehy are starving, they do. this is common with pigs. we may not be animals, but there is no reason our moral code 'eat or be eaten' in the wild shounldn't be applicable.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

Pro has not given a definition of morality. In the interest of time, I will do so.Morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...).Pro stated "if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person. consider a deserted island hypothetical or maybe stranded in the desert w no end in clear site, or something like that." I believe that by this logic, killing and eating another human being is in fact immoral. If there is no end in sight, why would it be okay to kill the person? There is no way of knowing that after murdering/eating the person you will have enough strength to continue your journey.The only way I can imagine cannibalism being moral in this case is if the other person was already dead. However, that is not Pro's claim. "the normal rules of not being able to kill others at this point no longer applies."The reason that laws about murder exist is because of morality. It's never moral to kill somebody. It may be practical, or even necessary, but never moral. Pro has the burden of proof to show that it would in fact be moral to murder and cannibalize a fellow human being under the circumstances.I look forward to a good debate.
The European Union and the United States should be allied.

You wrote the following:First and most important of all, languages. German have their own language. France have their own language. Which language are going to use?I must say, the argument is invalid. You do realize that English is a world language, yes? The EU and US would communicate in English. Now, there are some other world languages as well: Spanish and German. There will not be any communication issues.You also wrote:Us is considered the most powerful country I can not deny that. But Us have a lot of state. 1 government can not control so much of the people. On the other hand EU have so many problem about crimes. If we talk about Europe, we will always have the topics about crimes. Since both of the sides needs development, why should they be allies. Both sides should be ready for the changes when they are going to be allies.I would like to point out your grammar and spelling errors. However, that is unimportant. I will not deny that both sides have their flaws. But on the other hand, these nations can work together for a common cause.How can the European Union be so sure? Must the United State of America give the technology away so that they both can have trust with each other?No, they do not.I must admit that both of them are very powerful. But both sides needs development and this is not yet the right time.If there is any time these two entitites must come together for a common cause, it would be now.I am going to restate my points simply for review: The EU and US would work together to promote global economic growth. The NSA problem can be solved.The EU and US would cooperate in the quest of eliminating terrorism. The threat of communism and/or dictatorships can be resolved. The union of the US and EU would ensure a brighter and better future for all of us.
The European Union and the United States should be allied.

My opponent forfeits. I will give him an opportunity to make a sophisticated argument in the next round. I believe I have made valid points and therefore will not make any more arguments until he has made his. I would also like to point out that I misspelled a few words accidentally. I wrote too fast and didn't fully review the argument before posting it. Voters, please do not count this against me. Thank you. Hungkeng, I look forward to your argument so that the debate can continue.
The European Union and the United States should be allied.

Your argument for that with all of them, the world could be a better world might be true. But it is not practical. How can the European Union and the United State be allies when the USA is actually being suspicious on each other. Why should the number 1 country in the world, United State of America, be allies with the group of country that are lamer than she? Why would American want that to happen to them? In addition to my point, when they are allies, they need to support each other. This means that they need to share their supply and most important of all, sharing technology. America is already spying on every head of state from every country. How can the European Union trust them. And also, why should America share the technology with them. I strongly feel that by doing so, there will protest coming up. And according to your topic sentence, would they kill the "terrorism"? I would like to challenge you to rebut my arguments. Therefore, I am proud to end my speech.
Free The Furries

No one claims that flurries aren't people. They aren't discriminated against. https://www.animalsandsociety.org... Shows how being a furry leads to bestiality in most cases. No one presumes that all furries are into beastiality but there is a close link. I would provide more sources or write more but the response time for this debate is only 5 min for some reason, which I noticed only when 2 min had already passed
League of Legends team-building microdebate challenge

Top Lane Champ --- GarenGaren does not rely on mana meaning that the only limit on his use of his abilities is the cooldown timer. His Ult does true Damage based on how much health the other champ is missing, meaning that any champ under 20% health who Garen Ults is guaranteed to be killed. His E also allows for easy lane clearing late game, making him a farming masterMid Lane Champ --- KatarinaKatarina's abilities give her an edge against non-ranged champs, and her ult in close quarters team fights is absolutely lethal. If timed at the right moment, a Kat ult could easily produce a triple kill, quadra kill, or even a penta kill. ADC Champ ---------- AsheAshe is a ranged unit whose basic attacks applies a slowing effect to targeted champions, making it much easier for Ashe and her support to take out an injured champion trying to flee from battle. Hey ult also freezes fleeing champs in their place which is not the case for many other adc champs, making her difficult to flee from once targeted by herSupport Champ ----- BlitzcrankBlitzcranks Pull ability is a powerful ability that when combined with a nearby ADC almost guarantees that an enemy champ loses half of their health if they are grabbed by Blitzcrank during the early game. In late game when both teams are very close to each other, Blitz's ability allows a team to pick off an enemy champion without having to force a teamfight and risk losing one of their own in the process, turning a potential 5v5 down to a 4v5 if the right champ is targeted Jungle Champ -------- NunuNunu's Q does 300 damage to minions/monsters and restores his own health by 100 from the beginning. Combined with the smite ability that all junglers select, this gives Nunu an edge in jungling early on since he can rack up kills and level up much faster than other jungling champs.
League of Legends team-building microdebate challenge

Alright f*ckers here how this works. You are building your own team from League of Legends, and you will argue for why your champ selections for each position are better than my picks, which are listed below. (You may not pick the same champions for your team that I have selected for mine)Top Lane Champ --- GarenMid Lane Champ --- KatarinaADC Champ ---------- AsheSupport Champ ----- BlitzcrankJungle Champ -------- Nunu- In round 1 you will ONLY list the champions you choose for each of the 5 available positions.- In round 2 you will ONLY mention the abilities of each champ and why that makes them the best at that position. You dont have to list ALL of them, just the ones you want to use in your arguments.- After that, anything goes... You can defend your champ or criticize the opponents champ all you want,BUT HERE'S THE CATCH:The character limit for this debate is 2000 characters (otherwise this wouldn't be a microdebate) That means you will have less than 500 characters, per champion, each round, to defend your champ and/or criticize your opponents pick. So, If you like really elaborating on your arguments, then THIS DEBATE IS NOT FOR YOU, unless you're really up for a challenge. Pick your arguments very carefully.... VOTING PARAMETERS:Voters will NOT vote according to who they think argued successfully for the majority of their champions. If a voter believes one side won the debate on 3 of their chosen champion picks, but the other side won the debate on 2 of their champs, voters must vote 3-2 to reflect that. Not just vote all 3 points in favor of the winner.
League of Legends team-building microdebate challenge

I'm sorry for missing the previous round: thought I'd have enough time but between assignments, readings and actual League of Legends, I forgot this was a micro-debate (ie: a 24 hour limit as opposed to 72). I done goofed, and I'm sorry for that. While my post for the previous round is in the comments, you're free to ignore it if you consider my absence unforgivable. I enjoyed this debate regardless, and I'd be happy to have further debates like this in future. Also , if anyone is on the EU server, you can find me under the username SharkyTheShark. Until then, I'd like to thank Imabence for this debate, and hopefully I'll see you all in the next debate. Good luck in the Fields of Justice! -Duncan