BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God does not exist

There are many reasons why there is no God but here are a few. The first reason is that if a supernatural cause created the universe then there would need to be supernatural evidence. The second reason is that God has no reason to create the universe. The third reason is that God did not create a perfect universe or a perfect world and yet he is supposed to be supernatural and perfect. The fourth reason is that no one could create a supernatural being. The last reason is that he cannot be seen.
This House Would Ban Video Games that Objectify Women

I accept the challenge and would like to define the parameters if pro agrees as this is a rather wide statement. "Unnecessary" is a very wide term and its interpretation is very much dependent on individual preferences. Instead of debating "unnecessary nudity" I suggest we debate the use of "overtly explicit nudity and sexual behaviour". I would also like to define the impartial reviewer- are they being payed by the video games industry, through government funding or by some other means? Looking forward to debating this with you.
This House Would Ban Video Games that Objectify Women

This House would ban any large scale video game that contains scenes, which show or promote the objectification of women. I thank my opponent for taking part in this debate, and I also ask him/her to offer relevant information to the motion. I believe that any indie or AAA game that contains unnecessary female nudity or sexual behaviour should be banned, so that we can promote a fair and equal society. To do this, we will use an impartial viewer to review each case. For this to be possible, we would make sure that each popular game was carefully "combed" through.
This House Would Ban Video Games that Objectify Women

Sorry for any confusion caused. I am new to this forum and I was unaware whether the format to the debates were different. I thank you for debating this with me. The impartial viewer would be entirely government funded, so that we could avoid any "foul play" through bribing from the games industry. I would agree with the motion given, but I think that in some cases necessity comes into play. Sometimes in these games they will use sexually explicit scenes to reinforce a point that they have made, whether it was to strengthen a character or to progress the story. While I agree that the term "necessary" is subjective, we would use many different sources to come to a conclusion about the final product. I will be offering two main points as the proposition in the second round for this debate. The first will be exploring the morality of these games, and the second will be questioning whether we are giving the youth a good example for them to follow . Firstly, I would like to call upon the new Grand Theft Auto as an example of how explicit content can hurt and harm society in general. I am of course referring to the strip clubs that one can find around the world. Now, while I am not saying that this is the only example of a game that does this, I think it gives us the perfect opportunity to question the morals that it promotes. The player can pay one of these strippers to give them a lap dance, and is encouraged to "touch" the dancer in an overly sexual way. These scenes are obviously meant to appeal to the male consumers of the game and are there for no other reason. They do not further the story. It could be argued that they give depth to the world, but the other misogynistic remarks that the main characters make, along with the prostitutes that one can hire are going too far. These things promote the "male dominated" society that we have seen in ages past, and do not give the youth of today a good example of how they should treat women in their lives. This links in to my second point. These games are treating women in an immoral way, and it is the job of the government to promote a fair society, one without sexism and discrimination. Moving onto my second point. It is common knowledge that there will be many children who play this game. While it is the job of the parents to educate them, most of them do not about the sexual content that the games contain. These images can give them the wrong impression of women. It is widely accepted that pornography can ruin relationships, as they give the viewer a false interpretation of sex and love, and these young children are even more susceptible to the effects of it. These explicit scenes work in the same way, and are contributing to this idea that women are "objects", who have no actual character, but are just used for the pleasure of the consumer.
It will be a most inopportune time. Really, now you may get a bigger picture in regard to Amabella.

You should attempt to do this in your bathroom. Maybe this is because I just woke up early that morning. I have an uncanny ability in this area. That gives me peace of mind. There are many things I do know. I think I need to find friends that have same interest. Before I share Amabella with you we'll go over these points and here are the cons. Those were ground breaking findings. http://supermusclesbuild.com...
Sheep 2016!

Sources in comments.Ok, so you meant that sheep were more peaceful than other animals? You need to use better wording on that next time, because it meant ALL animals the way you said it. You showed that the president is violating the constitution AFTER he got elected. Plus, each one is a small violation of the constitution. The election of a president WELL under 35 years old is a direct violation of a REQUIREMENT to be a president as well [1], not just the constitution. It would be a bad thing because he would not have enough life experience, and therefore be underpriveleged.Others could run the army, but it would still be weakened no orders from the president.Ok. A euglena, shoe, dog, chair, a dead guy, a plant, a bench, a pair of pants, or ice cream would not be able to authorize drone strikes. But does that mean they would be a better choice at president? No!Thank you, and vote pro! Also, my opponent dropped various points from the second round (list of what sheep can't do.)
Sheep 2016!

My opponent continues to claim that my point about sheep being peaceful implies that they are more peaceful than "ALL animals." I never used the world "all" in that statement, and it was intended to mean they are one of the most peaceful animals, but not necessarily the most peaceful. Given that the constitution is already being violated [7], there is nothing exceptional about a sheep doing so too. Anyway, you didn't say why that would be a bad thing. While the sheep may not be good military leader, other officials would be able to take charge. [8] The president doesn't run everything. Almost all drone strikes are authorized by the president, so electing a sheep would stop them. [9] Sources: 7. http://www.forbes.com... 8. http://www.defense.gov... 9. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...
Sheep 2016!

Sources in comments.You stated that "sheep are more peaceful than other animals," which means ALL animals. Sheep would provide a poor replacement because they need to be out in the open to properly do "sheep stuff."Sheep would be poor leaders to humans. A sheep being a leader to a sheep is not the same as a sheep being a leader to a human. Your link only shows that sheep MAY be able to do the very basics of what a human is required to do to be a terrible leader. However, you have to BE 35 years old to be a president [1], but no sheep has ever LIVED to that mark [2]. Therefore, a sheep would be violating the constitution.For example, LeBron James got more disliked over time (2006-11) [3], but that does not mean he got stupider or worse.We would be defenseless to other countries because without the president TELLING US IN ENGLISH OR A SPEAKABLE LANGUAGE what to do with fighting, we would be weak, as we would not have solid orders.
Sheep 2016!

I did not state that sheep are the most peaceful animals, only that they are "more peaceful than other animals." By this I meant in general more peaceful. Anyway, manatees would provide a poor replacement as they are aquatic. My opponent claimed that sheep would be poor leaders. However, new evidence indicates that they are more competent than previously thought, (4) while approval rating show that human politicians become dumber than previously thought. (5) Next, my opponent claims we would be left defenseless. This isn't true because most of the military is, and still would be, made up of humans. (6) Sheep can advocate political viewpoints as strong leaders. The video is proof! http://www.youtube.com... If you are against nuclear war, voting sheep is the best option. SOURCES: 4.http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 5. http://www.gallup.com... 6. globalfirepower.com
Sheep 2016!

Sources in comments due to the lack of characters allowed.My opponent says that sheep are the most peaceful animals. However, this is false. Manatees are actually really peaceful too [1].Yes, a sheep would not be able to send drone strikes, which is good. However, the sheep would undermine OUR society because he/she would not be able to [2]:•Set goals to make a better nation•Do any serious work without eating the papers•Protect our country against attacks from other countries•Be able to read advice or laws•Be able to MAKE any laws•Follow constitution, thus rendering irrelevancy to all U.S goalpostsFurthermore, Pakistan would be able to attack US now with nuclear or other items [3] since we would be defenseless. If another country comes to our defense, then a whole war forms, and the U.S is left without an army, thus making the whole country a third-class world. So a sheep might actually increase the threat of a nuclear war, as shown above. A sheep elected as president=failed nation.
Sheep 2016!

Sheep are more peaceful than other animals. (1) Because sheep are more peaceful, a president sheep would disapprove of drone strikes against foreign countries because they are violent and aggressive. Continued drone strikes will undermine stability in Pakistan; they need to be stopped. (2) Pakistani instability will spiral into nuclear war between India and Pakistan. (3) The threat of nuclear war must be stopped; the sheep is the only way! Sources: 1. . http://www.pawnation.com... 2. . http://www.theguardian.com... 3. . http://cisac.stanford.edu...
Sheep 2016!

RESOLUTION A sheep should be elected the President of the United States in 2016. DEFINITIONS Sheep: "Any of various usually horned ruminant mammals of the genus Ovis in the family Bovidae, especially the domesticated species O. aries, raised in many breeds for wool, edible flesh, or skin." [1] President: The highest position in the executive branch of the United States federal government RULES 1. First round is acceptance. Last 3 are debate. 2. No new arguments in final round. 3. Pro has burden of proof SOURCE 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The God of the Bible exists and everybody knows

The lack of necessity for a God negates the need for one. The resolution is Resolution - The God of the Bible exists and everybody knows Possibility - The fact or state of being possible. Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances. For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that a higher power exists is possible but not proven. There is no empirical evidence to show that it does . Most people can only logically assume that a higher power does not exist. This does not mean that it is true or not true, but it does means that there is a high probability that a higher power may not exist. So we can acknowledge that a higher power could exist, because there is no way to show that a higher power existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence. My adversary has to prove beyond doubt that a higher power exists with empirical evidence. He has done accomplished this so his BOP is not upheld. C1) The universe can create itself We now know with modern science the universe can create itself, and the process of evolution is a fact. We no longer need a God in order to explain why we exist, which negates the need for a God C2) Not everyone knows he exists This is abundantly obvious with some tribes never hearing the gospel in their life before they die.
The God of the Bible exists and everybody knows

I am arguing for the Christian God from a reformed view. I am not a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or some "just believe off a whim" Christian. The Christian God exists and the Christian worldview is the only worldview that makes sense out morality, logic, truth, human reasoning, science, etc. I will be arguing mostly through a presuppositional methodology of apologetics even though there is abundant evidence in history and other fields. The Bible says that every person knows God but suppresses the truth about Him out of our sinful nature. I expose that people do know God when they make knowledge claims about things that they cannot account for with Him.
Does aliens exist? - Serious debate

Okay, as I said in the beginning of my argument, I thought we will discuss about intelligent life in the universe, not about civilisations which are capable of interstellar travel, but I think I can handle it. The main accomplishment which astrophysics trying to reach is interstellar travel. Lots of new ideas pop up at any moment, trying to solve the problem in many ways and angles. One of my favourite possible future solutions is the Alcubierre drive: bending the space-time in a way that significantly shortens the path, which is based on a solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity. http://www.andersoninstitute.com... Another way suggested by the scientists is wormholes, 'shortcuts' in our universe. Again the theory originate from general relativity, and science doesn't stop trying to achieve it. http://www.popsci.com... Earth is, approximately, a type 0.7 on Kardashev scale. And we are getting closer. From our progression we can deduce that a type II civilization will probably have one of the techniques, and type III... I believe there are type III civilizations in the universe. The universe exists for about 15 billion years. It's possible, even likely, that there are some intelligent creatures out there that live slightly longer than us the humans. Because our pace of technological progress is exponential, even one million years will make an enormous difference. About cooperation, I agree that this can be a problem, but, remember, extraterrestrial life forms might not have the same kind of society like us the humans, or the same way of thinking, or even the same way of existing! Even if the aliens were like us, the future of the human kind is to become one big group. As long time passes (and I'm talking about intergenerational orders of magnitude) more groups merges. We might have many countries on these days, but if you compare it to medieval days - we are much more connected. You can find similarities in most of cultures and societies over the world. And, if all will go as planned, soon the human race will colonize other planets in the solar system. In 100 years, I bet, Mars will support Earth financially while Ceres's government will strongly oppose, or anything like that. The vision of one united 'nation Earth' isn't far as you think. For the benefit of the rest of the readers, here's an explanation about Kardashev scale - https://en.wikipedia.org...
Does aliens exist? - Serious debate

First of all, you're making some assumptions which could be false like "0.1% have suitable conditions for life, etc", so the conclusion of "1000 per galaxy" may be invalid since you started with "maybe false premises". I was not going to ask why didn't the make any contact with us, since they have no motive to visit us (as you stated). My point is the non-existence of living creatures able to do interstellar travel is that it's something which requires great technologies. The CLOSEST start to ours is proxima centauri and it's distance to our planet is roughly 4 light years, so it would take you 4 years to arrive there traveling at light speed. That's really hard, first of all you need a LOT of energy to accelerate a body to almost the speed of light (only mas-less particles can travel at light speed) and then you need a lot of energy to stop it. Also you have to count for inertia, accelerating from 0 meters per second to 3x10^8 m/s in a few seconds would kill you, so if you wanted to achieve almost light-speed you'd need to do it kinda slow, and then you'd need to stop slowly too. So it would take you more than 4 years to arrive to the CLOSEST star. Interstellar travel not only requires great technologies but also a lot of time. The distance between stars would be reduced by near light speed travel because of special relativity (Lorentz contraction) yet they'd be gigantic distances. If a species wanted to think about "fast" interstellar/intergalactical travel the most viable solution would be curving space time, but that requires even BIGGER amounts of energy, not even the energy released by a star during its whole life would be enough. Leaving aside the technological issues the capability of developing intelligent life that's able to reach such technological power is also a tough thing. Think about humans, they could destroy themselves yet we don't even have enough technology to travel to proxima centauri, and we're not even close of being a civilization type II according to the Kardashev scale. In order to achieve that we would unite in one nation, "Nation Earth", yet wars, belief and strong nationalism divide us. An extraterrestrial life able to interstellar travel should not only have technological power but also being smart enough to cooperate in order to achieve that level. That last one is quite hard to get, since life start with the simple purpose of surviving. You would require a highly cooperative species to also become the "intelligent dominant species" in that planet. Something like "super intelligent ants", otherwise achieving great technologies and the level of cooperation needed for interstellar travel becomes even less likely. So I believe that in order to get all of those things in such young universe it is extremely hard, it is far more probably that intelligent life is partially developed and then extinguished, never reaching what is needed "rule an entire galaxy".
Does aliens exist? - Serious debate

Okay, let's agree, for the benefit of the discussion, that we will debate if there are intelligent extra-terrestrial life forms. I have only one argument, but it's a strong one: statistics. Earth is one of 8 (or 9 as some scientists claim lately) planets in the solar system. We have about 200 billion solar systems in our galaxy alone. There are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe, which means we have about 100 sextillion (10^23) stars. 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Even if only 0.1% have suitable conditions for life, and only on 0.1% of them life have been developed, and only 0.1% of these inhabited planets have intelligent life forms, we still have 100 trillion intelligent life forms in the universe, an average of 1000 per galaxy. Now, I know what you're about to say. 'How is it that we have not yet found them?' There are few logical explanations for this question. First of all, Why would we? People always say that aliens will contact us, but, what reason do they have to do that? As Dougels Adams (rest in peace) said: "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea." (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). We, the humans and the rest of planet earth, are so primitive and so unimportant, why would the intelligent super-developed life forms will even bother to check if there are any living creatures here? There are also many other options. As I said earlier, there are few life forms in our galaxy. Maybe, and I'm just theorising, they find our primitiveness amusing, and they watch us like zoo animals. Maybe the aliens are so developed they don't need their body anymore, and they live in their own cyber-spaces without troubles. Maybe the first creature to become galaxy-class developed conquered the entire galaxy, and now they mute all of the others. Maybe their existence is so strange for us, we can't even notice it. (Imagine a super-slow creature that takes a week only to say 'hi'.) The statistics requires that aliens exist, and there are so many explanations and options, that I can not believe the small and poor humans are the only ones out there.
Does aliens exist? - Serious debate

I require a serious opponent, who is ready to work on this s**t and not just throw stuff into the air. First round: introduction (without argumentation yet!): why you chose this position Second round: Arguments and claims Third round: Reply and new arguments (if there is) Fourth round: Ending and conclusions. I believe, based on logical reasons, there are unearthly life forms in the universe, or at least there will be in the future. It just seems impossible for me there will not be. Good luck, Con!
Does aliens exist? - Serious debate

In this final round we present our conclusions, but firstly allow me to recommend you this Youtube videos, they'll be pretty fun to watch if you still haven't seen them. As you can see I choose solution 1 from the second video as my argumentative tool and took this debate for fun. Actually that paper you submitted is quite useful for my argument, according to it, it would take 50 million years for a species to colonize an entire galaxy, that's 0.05 billion years. The universe is 14 billion and the observable universe is 46 billion light years of radius, and it takes about 0.01 billion years for a planet to form. Let's make the horrible approximation that it takes about 5 billion years for a planet to develop life advanced enough to start a galactic conquest (the higher this number, the better for your argument, that's why I round 4.5 to 5). it would take 0.05 billion years to that species to conquest their own galaxy, according to your link. So, planet formation + developed life on it + galactic expansion = 5.06 billion years. Considering that light takes a good time to reach us, let's say we can actually see this civilization flourish at a 20 billion light years radius. Don't you think we would see clues of an intergalactic civilization at a sphere of radius of 20 billion light years? I mean, a civilization so advanced to colonize an entire galaxy would clearly leave some massive clues of their presence, as we discussed before they should be able to manipulate space-time which requires enormous amounts of energy, we would notice those weird and unnatural and artificial space-time curvatures, yet we see nothing. As a conclusion: - Existence of life in other planets? Yes - Existence of a species able to reach an intergalactic conquest? I don't think so, since the limit is probably the fact that there's a limit to what a living being can achieve, since his instincts will always be first. So as we have conclude this debate, let me tell you some fun stuff. If the universe is infinite it can contain every possibility you can imagine. So let's make a fun though experiment, let's assume that there's only one species advanced enough to conquer it's own galaxy. But if we think that this universe extension is infinite indeed, there's a catch. In a limited space-time like here, right now, there is a finite combination for all the quantum possibilities a system can take. So considering that and a infinite universe, the events in space-time of a infinite universe must be repeated infinitely many times. Long story short, if the universe is infinite at some distance things start to repeat over and over again. So if there was in the whole (non-repetitive micro universe inside the infinite universe) one species which could conquest a galaxy, there would be actually an infinite and repetitive species that achieve galactic conquest.