BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chances that a alien visiting us would be nearly identical 2 humans or humanoid at all is very small

I am only taking it because I figured it would be a rather interesting discussion, given my taste for Stargate/Star Trek. As a start, I am not even an evolutionist, nor do I believe that any aliens exist, but I love sci-fi and that kind of stuff. Now, on with my side: Firstly, with potentially billions of billions of trillions of planets in however many galaxies as exist in the universe (I don't know the estimation, but I believe you get the point that there are lots of planets around the universe), chances are that there are other "earth-like" planets in the universe. It is a decent assumption, therefore, that there are possibly (via our rules of science) other humanoid species. However, there are lots of other different types of planets over hundreds of different types of stars. Therefore, there are also probably hundreds of types of intelligent life forms out there. GOing further into speculation, some sci-fi writers have even hypothesized the possibilities of beings with triple helix DNA strands, silicon-based lifeforms, and hundreds of other types, with possibilities that used something other than proteins as building blocks. I guess that my argument is that there are probably lifeforms of humanoid AND non-humanoid beings. For all we know, there may be an intelligent life form similar to the Go'Auld from Stargate that communicates as a symbiote and aren't really humanoid at all.
Mike Huckabee is a dishonest man

I will begin with the more obvious things that have shown a lack of honesty in Mike Huckabee. First, his claim to taking the "moral high ground" in not going negative on Governor Mitt Romney is perhaps the most transparent political ploy launched by all of the candidates on both sides. There is a reason nobody in the media is falling for that one, and judging by the poll numbers, people in N. H. aren't falling for it either. He develops this attack add on Romney, and then calls a press conference where he announces that he does not want to air it, and then proceeds to show it to CNN, ABC, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. .. Mike is no dummy, he knew where that would lead. This was a great way to have your commercial viewed by millions without having to pay a dime, and if that was all, I would think. .. "slick Mike, questionable but slick". It doesn't stop there, however, Huckabee went on to claim on "The Tonight Show" that airing the commercial "didn't feel right". He was confronted by a much more clever Sean Hannity who clearly wasn't buying it, who asked him if he didn't want it aired, why show it to the press. All Mike could say was that if he didn't show it, they might think he didn't really have one. .. great! Then his "conscience" could be totally clear, it would be as though it didn't exist. But he had to show it to the press. Do you actually believe that Mike Huckabee was really all that concerned with whether a few reporters at CNN thought he was "bluffing"? Give me a break Mike. Free air time, and you get to look like the "better man" to those who don't read between the lines anyways. By the way, I have been watching Huckabee in the debates and in his speeches that are aired, and he spends PLENTY of time attacking Mitt Romney, calling him dishonest among other things, so clearly "staying positive" on the other candidates is not really all that important to him. Another issue with Mr. Huckabee is his little "question" about the beliefs of the LDS Church in a New York Times interview. He said to the interviewer. .. "don't they (The LDS Church) believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers? " (For the actual beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints see www. lds. org or ask me in the comments box below and I would be happy to explain them. ) Of course Mike was just asking and again, miraculously had no idea that would be in the paper! Really Mike? Just for the record, Mike Huckabee was a baptist minister. No disrespect to the baptist faith, but baptist ministers are extremely well versed not only in the bible, but in the literature of other faiths. They do have a tendency to be well versed in "anti-mormon" literature as well. Mike Huckabee knew the answer to that question, just as sure as he knew asking it would cause it to be read by millions. Im tired of him playing the Innocent and naive victim. He is not being honest with us. These are just two examples where Mike Huckabee has lied to the American people. P. S. -A good video that sums these arguments up in about 2 minutes. . http://www.youtube.com...
Mike Huckabee is a dishonest man

I'm going to make this final argument short and sweet. First of all, there were no attacks from my previous argument and thus you must have agreed with everything that I said, forfeiting every single argument you made in your second speech. Mike Huckabee was just sticking up for himself and Romney has purposely been the one misconstruing his ads. Second, I still don't get the entire religion argument, but it really sounds like you are holding a personal grudge against the man just because of his religious beliefs. If that's not the case, well, I'm sorry but you should have continued it in your last speech. Third, I think that the only thing that you have proved in your last round is that Huckabee isn't the greatest public speaker and was a little nervous in front of the camera, which was viewing to almost 300 million people. About the whole theology argument, Huckabee had thought about what he had said earlier and had retracted his statement, telling the truth a few weeks later, the date being December 14th (I believe): "I have a bachelor of arts in religion and a minor in communications in my undergraduate work. And then I have 46 hours on a master's degree at Southwestern Theology Seminary. So, my degree as a theological degree is at the college level and then 46 hours toward a masters -- three years of study of New Testament Greek, and then the rest of it, all in Seminary was theological studies, but my degree was actually in religion." Although he is a bad public speaker, and he has said things that he has probably later come to regret, there are more things to being a good president. I don't think that Huckabee is a dishonest man, I think that his nerves may have gotten the better of him, but would not lie on purpose. As you said before, his actions would be to promote himself but keep his conscience clear, no man on Earth could lie to keep a clean conscience. Keep that in mind when you are voting for Romney, there isn't a clear conscience, there's more under that "poofy" hair than meets the eye. Good debate and good luck in the voting. GO HUCKABEE!!!
Mike Huckabee is a dishonest man

A few more of Huckabees lies: "I'm as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I'm stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It's a theocratic war. And I don't know if anybody fully understands that. I'M THE ONLY GUY ON THAT STAGE WITH A THEOLOGY DEGREE. I think I understand it really well." "As the only presidential candidate with a THEOLOGY DEGREE, along with years of political experience, I know that theology is black and white, but politics is not." "Anytime you have been a person who was identified as a pastor and you've got a seminary education and THEOLOGY DEGREE, people tend to worry about you," Huckabee told the Values Voter Summit in Washington last month. TRUTH: He spent a year at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Tex., before dropping out to work for the televangelist James Robison, who bought him his first decent wardrobe and showed him how to use television. Governor Huckabee doesn't have a theology degree. He only spent a year in seminary. -From a Huckabee staff member Source: http://bravenewfilms.org... http://www.worldnetdaily.com... http://www.herald-mail.com... When asked about the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in Iran, Mike had no idea what to say. He defended himself by arguing: "The report was released at 10:00 in the morning" (Dec. 4). A few days later he reaffirmed "The report came out at ten in the morning and it was like five in the afternoon". It was revealed later that the report had actually come out the day before, (Dec. 3). Why can't Huckabee just admit he was too lazy to prepare himself by reading the report that everyone else seemed to know about? In a recent debate, when Huckabee was put on the spot about his bill giving the children of illegal immigrants scholarships and in state tuition, he defended it by saying that: "The bill...only applied to a student who had schooled in Arkansas from the age of five to six onward...(and they) had to apply for citizenship" The reality is that the bill, (which Mike knows...its his bill) only requires a student to have attended three years of high school (meaning they could start schooling in Arkansas at 15...not 5) and were only asked to sign an affidavit stating that they had intentions of eventually applying for citizenship. Sounds different than they..."had to apply for citizenship". It seems when put on the spot, he tends to go a bit beyond "sugar-coating" to avoid looking bad. On October 21, Huckabee told a crowd that "most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen". While I agree that most were Christian, only 1 of the 56 signers were ever clergymen. (www.politifact.com) I think readers will also find this website very interesting: http://plutarch01.wordpress.com...
Mike Huckabee is a dishonest man

First of all, I want it on the record that I believe Mitt Romney will make an excellent president, but I do feel that Huckabee is just a little better. Although neither of us know Huckabee's state of mind when this ad was created until it was released, I believe that he didn't want to show the ad, but ended up showing it because he didn't want to be called a coward and a liar by the press. To that date, Huckabee was the only candidate to not have launched a negative ad. He felt that he not only should stick up for himself, but also for his co-candidate, John McCain. As for your argument saying that his conscience could be clean, um, no! If that argument is true, then you have won, but thankfully, that is not the case. No matter what, Huckabee and his team had created that ad and whether it was run or not, he would have that on his conscience. By using the press to run it, he still had put it on the air, thus putting this on his conscience. And of course Huckabee should be concerned with reporters being concerned with his "bluffing." Up until a few months ago, Huckabee was an unknown factor in this election, but, thanks to those reporters, he is considered one of the, if not the, leading candidate in the election. Again, I think that Mitt Romney is an excellent candidate, but it's not to say that he is perfect. If there is one man in this election that is dishonest, it is Mitt. He has lead several attack ads that have purposely been misleading. Romney is quit possibly the smartest candidate, both Republican and Democrat, and if he's getting his facts wrong, it's on purpose. Huckabee is not only more personable than Romney and the other candidates, but he is also more honest than them. I had decided to postpone this round no longer and if this argument hasn't won it yet for the con, then I will presumably attack the religion argument, if you would kindly inform me on their views, but I already had more than enough information for this round.
The Central Problem with the World Has Always Been, that People Know Too Much

I am Pro so I have a goal to meet the resolution. I will respond to some of Con's claims but not all since I have a limited characters to create my own arguments as well. RESPONSE:My opponent claims that smart people are always the driving force of progression. My opponent doesn't realize human progression inherently can not be determined by "smart" people but only by ignorant people. It is only in the recognition of ignorance do we pursue more knowledge. For example, if Western European countries weren't searching for a faster way to arrive at the Far East and India, would Columbus have "discovered" America[1]? If people had not realized that we should find faster ways of communicating, would the telephone, radio, cell phone, e-mail, and Instant Messenger ever been invented[2]? In order to know more and study more one must admit one is ignorant. That is the very point of studying subjects and testing new theories because we know very little. To claim that the "knowledgeable" advance the world is to claim those who know a lot have advanced the world. This is simply not true, only those who understand they are ignorant attempt to test new theories, try new subjects, and search for better methods. If someone is knowledgeable, why would they test anything new? After all, they are knowledgeable. [1]http://www.saylor.org...[2]http://www.thegeekstuff.com...ARGUMENTS:1. Admission of Ignorance Has Advanced the WorldSocrates-"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.[2]"[2]http://www.brainyquote.com...What is knowledge? If my skull was cracked open, would you see what I know? Maybe if my chest was cut open and a physician gripped my heart, would anyone truly find out what I know? Knowledge is intangible. Those who are "knowledgeable" is relative to the perspective of each person. We only study and begin to learn more in order fill our voids of ignorance. But these voids of ignorance only exist for those who understand, recognize, and accept they are ignorant. To those who are knowledgeable, there is no point to learning more since think they are knowledgeable already. Therefore, those who think they are knowledgeable are incapable of advancing the world since there is nothing to be studied or learned since they know so much about it already. We will not study HIV/AIDs or any other severe disease if we claim we are knowledgeable on the subject. HIV/AIDs is only studied more out of admission of ignorance on the subject.
The Central Problem with the World Has Always Been, that People Know Too Much

The most enlightened people are the reason we have the comforts that are often expected of us. Smart people were always and will continue to be the driving force of human progression. Knowledge is expressed in everything: We all type in the English language and we understand it. Rapid advances in networking, computer science and engineering have made the Internet possible, and with that, online debating. Medicine has reduced the infant mortality rate drastically in nations where people have access to medical facilities and the life expectancy is at it's highest point in history. This is all because of people that were smart.As Con, I will attempt to demonstrate that the knowledgeable people are among the most important people and why they should be commended, not denounced, and that knowing "too much" has never been a threat to the world.
The Central Problem with the World Has Always Been, that People Know Too Much

I have come to the understanding and truth that the problem with the world today and always has been is that people know too much. People often state people know too little. I disagree emphatically and I am fully intent on alleviating the world of the burden of the so called "geniuses" of this world. For far too long, they have raptured the planet with their "knowledge." They must be stopped. But in order to be stopped people must submit to the truth and the very resolution of this debate, "The Central Problem with the World Has Always Been is that People Know Too Much." As Pro I will examine the "knowledgeable" and show why they should be denounced, not celebrated. I as Pro am fully intent on exposing an immediate truth that must be known, embraced, and submitted too. NOTE: Notice I said "truth" not a fact. We each have our own truths(dreams, understandings, etc.) but not our own facts . My limited understanding is that facts can be observed and measured in reality. I am fully intent on making Con, the readers of this debate, and the voters of this debate to surrendering to the truth presented to us. http://www.youtube.com...
Feminism is good for society as a whole.

YOU KEEP LYING AND ATTACKING ME! Your with him! You brought everyone against me in a debate. You are a liar, a cheater, and a false man. I bet you are him! Also you are a cucks sucks! Even Bieber is better than SJWS! Also don't get sarcastic and say who ARE cucks sucks. Cucks are male SJWs. I bet you are that guy with the baby avatar. I am popular on yahoo and you are trying to prevent me from being popular on here! FK U! Also I will keep you down by saying I don't like you!
Feminism is good for society as a whole.

LIAR! YOU LIE! so LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
Feminism is good for society as a whole.

Feminism is a very important idea in root of equality in not only women but men as well. It is focusing on women's rights such as equal pay. It also focuses on values and traits based on gender. Such as women being associated with emotion while men are with logic and strength. Emotion is sometimes treated as secondary when it comes to problem solving. Though people are questioning the fact that women are driven by emotion and that emotion is not important. So feminism is not "evil" at all. As I guy I do believe in equal rights for all.
No US citizen has the right to bear arms.

There is obviously a disconnect. I really believed that my opponent was joking about the bear arms idea. However, those arguments should not be looked at for these reasons: 1) The clause specifically has a compound verb, i.e. to KEEP and bear arms. If you use my opponents logic then the only way it would be possible is if keep was removed. However, you can't remove a word from a clause. 2) Refer to Pro Round one: "A common misconception about the US constitution is that the second amendment refers to the right to have your arms surgically changed to that of a bear. However this may shock you to find that this is not the case at all." He even said in his first round that that's not true at all. I.e. the argument of bear arms. Therefore, my opponent has contradicted himself. Therefore, drop my opponents whole case. Extension: He has not once refuted my case what so ever. Therefore, extend all my contentions. Thus, I urge a negation.
No US citizen has the right to bear arms.

To be honest, I am confused. My opponent is arguing for my points, and seems to be agreeing with my contention completely. Not one attempt has been made to refute any of my points I initially set out. Please note that as I set out in the first round, the burden carried by CON is: "[to] prove why all US citizens have the right to bear arms in the sense of having their biological arms changed to that of a bear." The closest my opponent has come to attempting to prove this burden is when he said 'It's a free country, if someone wants bear arms, GO AHEAD, get them.' Nothing else he has said has been at all linked to this burden. I will now show how my opponent is simply proving my points for me. My first point was that the US constitution does not grant the right to have your arms surgically changed to that of a bear. My opponent has not attempted to show that it does grant this right, but rather, made quite an effort to show me that the constitution refers to firearms and not bear arms which is my point exactly. My only explanation for this is that my opponent has seemed to have forgotten that he has selected CON. No amount of grammatical trickery will dig my opponent out of this deep hole he has dug for himself in agreeing with my point. My second point was that the taking of the arms of a bear is cruel. My opponent has not addressed this point once. It seems as if he had intended to in the first round, when he quoted what I had said however he did not add any comment onto the end of the quote. Not only this, but he has also not come close to addressing my third point which was that if the right to have your arms changed to that of a bear were to come to fruition, fatal maulings would increase 10,000%. Both these points have been totally ignored. The burden was set out clearly in the opening round and my opponent has not made any progress whatsoever to prove that US citizens have the right to have their arms surgically changed to that of a bear. In fact, with some quick calculations I've discovered that 741 of the 1329 words typed by my opponent (55.8%) has been used to show me that the constitution is referring to firearms and not bear arms WHICH IS MY POINT EXACTLY. I have made my case convincingly enough so that even my opponent agrees with my contention. A PRO vote is the only reasonable vote. Thank you for your time.
No US citizen has the right to bear arms.

"While the wording may be confusing, upon closer inspection, the word 'bear' appears to be a verb and not a noun. Thus, the right to bear arms is a privilege and not a right." My Response: My opponent asked for an example about the noun/verb controversy. "upon closer inspection, the word 'bear' appears to be a verb and not a noun. Thus, the right to bear arms is a privilege and not a right." All I did was universalize an unwarranted phrase from my opponent. My opponent makes the 2nd amendment into a very odd right of the right to bear arms. However, my opponent makes one crucial mistake. In the clause it says to KEEP and bear arms. Keep and bear is a compound predicate. It would be an incorrect grammatical construction if it was a verb and noun together. Therefore, drop my opponents whole argument about the right to bear arms. Since its to KEEP and bear arms. Quotes: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776 "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46 [A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 - Elbridge Gerry It's because with I agree with all of these quotes, I urge a negation. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. *Extend all my contentions; they weren't even once refuted*