BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intelligent life in the universe.

No you haven't supported fact that supports YOUR logic. Because that's what it is. Its YOUR logic. That's especially true when you say something so ignorant and arrogant like "Without purpose intelligent life cannot survive. ". Now here's the answer to your question, And and no I was not avoiding it, I was just attacking your barrage of idiocies. . . And the answer is the exact same as yours. The question is, I am assuming because you didn't clarify "is there intelligent life in this universe other than what is here on this planet even though you have not proved that there is intelligent life here on this planet so how can you possibly know if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? " is the question and since you do not know how to answer that question, How can I possibly know how to answer that question with proper ooze from my stainless steel bent puckered up brain? Um no. Let's simplify things. K? Here's what you "meant" to ask, But didn't. But nevertheless you 100% agree with me IF YOU are intelligent. . . "Is there intelligent life out there in the universe that has nothing to do with planet earth? " Is your proper logical common sense question. And your answer is as the same as mine. Ready? Drum roll please. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . You say "I don't know". There. That wasn't so hard was it? Now I don't know if there is intelligent life out there in the universe that has nothing to do with planet earth and you do not know if there is intelligent life out there in the universe that has nothing to do with the universe because YOU DON'T KNOW. And I don't know, NOBODY DOES until proved otherwise. But you know what? Man keeps searching. That's a VERY GOOD THING even though its nowhere near enough. And you know what? I hope that there are aliens out there that will come and save man from our own stupidity. So this is the end of the debate. Please always tc and have fun and do everything I wouldn't do.
Intelligent life in the universe.

Actually it is estimated that the universe is roughly 13. 8 billion years old. So that is your first mistake. Secondly intelligent life out there in the universe might not use something as demeaning as radio waves. How do you or anyone else knows what form of communication ---any--- intelligent life other than man and the other creatures here on earth would use? So that's your second mistake. Your third mistake is intelligent life in the universe may not even wish to bother with life here on the earth and may not even wish to communicate with it. Apparently you didn't think of that one. Your forth mistake is considering the fact that man has only just begun to chart the wakings of the universe and has only found a couple thousand planets when it its estimated that there are countless quadrillion. Man's searching is an atom as compared to the big bang. Your fifth mistake is since you've mentioned "If intelligent life had been there billions of years before life on earth, Then at least there would be signs showing this" and you never mention the who, The what, The where, The when, The why or the how. Your sixth mistake is that it never dawned on you that there may be intelligent life elsewhere in this universe in the here and now. Your seventh mistake is that it never dawned on you that its impossible, And least at this point, For man to search for life from galaxies (and it is now estimated that there could possibly be over 200 billion of them in this universe as reported by space. Com as of May 19th 2018) there's 0% of a chance that man can search even a couple of billion light years, Or even a couple million light years away to find out if there is intelligent life or not. However that may change when the James Webb telescope is launched in 2020. Your eighth mistake is too assume that man is intelligent. Really? Especially when daddy rapes his daughter, When man goes to war over something as ignorant as religion, When man loves his shiny guns, When man rapes the earth thus pollutes the skies, Oceans and chops down the forests and doesn't give a damn etc etc etc. From the original Planet of the Apes film the Taylor character states "Something out there in the universe there has to be something better than man. Has to be. " Agreed. Your hypothesis has clearly been done without any thinking, Rationalizing, Reasoning, Common sense or logic whatsoever. Hey there may be even intelligent life within out solar system. We---don't---know at least as of yet or we may never know. It could be on Europa, Enceladus, Titan, Triton, Or who knows where? Every rock, Not even close to possibilities of even life has not been unturned. It certainly hasn't been here on earth. So until that has happened with a reasonable doubt even within our solar system, Then sorry, Man is going to keep looking and hopefully we will find intelligent life out there in the universe that is better than man and can hopefully set us straight. Too bad if that's a bold statement from me. But man has been proven to not be intelligent time and time again and is a complete failure.
Psychological Egoism is an Inconclusive Empirical Doctrine.

If I remember correctly, this is my first debate with L-M. SUH-WEET. Onto the debate: [Definition - Psychological Egoism] http://plato.stanford.edu... 1. Claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. ~I find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition of Psychological Egoism (PE) to be quite accurate and with minimum hope of semantics. Basically, it states that every conscious act a person does is in the sake for their own welfare. [Definition - Welfare] http://www.merriam-webster.com... 1. the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity ~The definition of welfare is straight-forward: whatever is in your best personal interests that culminates into the one big juicy word we call "happiness". =====Arguments===== I have two arguments: 1. PE uses circular reasoning - this can be easily shown with the following statement: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment." This is a muck that PE has yet to come out of, and something I dearly await my opponent to "fix". 2. PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest. However, PE can't reconcile an example of a soldier jumping on a grenade in a few seconds to save his buddies. Where is the self-interest involved in that when he's DEAD? =====Conclusion===== I'll leave it at two arguments since I Have too many debates to tend to. These two arguments show that while Psychological Egoism may not be false - since future empirical evidence can show a process which makes us act in self interest - it is best left inconclusive.
how guns have changed society

Okay my opponent entirely ignored my first contention. My point is guns lead to us debating about their existence, which is bad since we could be discussing more pressing issues, such as health care. Here's how my first contention breaks down. 1) Even if my opponent is right, I still have offense that healthcare is an important issue being distracted from by guns. 2) If we are debating whether or not guns should have existed, as my opponent seems to think, it just goes to show how trivial the matter is. Even if this issue is resolved, nothing would change. Even if its effects were wide-spread, the effect of the debate being held would still be nil since our debate is entirely hypothetical. Thus, the topic is unimportant. 3) He says we need guns to protect ourselves from the enemy. First off, we wouldn't need guns if no one had guns, which, as Con, is what I propose. So this is still irrelevant to the debate. My opponent still hasn't proven why there is a positive impact on his side of the debate, so there is still no reason to affirm even in the most basic way. All in all, my offense stands and my opponent has none. Thus, I negate.
how guns have changed society

As Pro, my opponent must fulfill a burden of proof to justify an affirmative ballot. In his affirmative constructive, all he did was ask a question without any warrants, claims, or impacts justifying a vote one way or another. Without proof the resolution is true, it is assumed that it is false. Further, to affirm any resolution, there is a proactive burden to show it true. My opponent has not done that and has, thereby, not affirmed. Contention 1) Guns debates distract from more important arguments such as healthcare or the wars in Iraq. The latter two must be resolved, while the primer isn't too urgent. Therefore, arguing about guns inherently ignores more pressing issues, which is bad for society since other issues aren't resolved as quickly. Thus, with one bad effect of guns is that they've taken coverage away from more important problems. Thus, I negate.
the answer to any question of the unknown or religious question, i dont know

but i dont need an alarm clock to wake up, so far i always wake up at some point if i am falling friom high up in the air i can spread my arms and body position and it will change my direction or speed, i dont need something pushing on me to alter my direction, like i can wake up by myself objects that move equal to each other have no impact force on each other, but surely at one point there are things moving to the contrary
the answer to any question of the unknown or religious question, i dont know

Well firstly id like to say I'm not the best writer so please bare with my grammar. So what i do need from you is an argument not just a statement but i will roll with it. Firstly there is always the scientific theory that there must be something that causes something else. For example if your sleeping you need an alarm clock to wake you up. Its newtons first law of motion "An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.". So what I'm getting to is that there must have been something at the very beginning of time that was always there and has the ability to create every thing that is today . That thing would be God and would be able to be accepted by science because even though its not probable if its the only explanation left then its the answer.
Homosexuality in Humans is Natural

Oops. Forgive me. I participate in more than one debate at once, so I tend to get confused as to whether I am Pro or Con.I see what Pro is trying to say, and I must admit, it seems plausible. However, note that while Pro has shown that it is possible, Pro has not proven that it is 100% certain. This is just a theory, therefore Pro has not met his burden of proof. If this was a likely theory, scientists would have already reported it by now.
Homosexuality in Humans is Natural

Even though Con's description of natural selection is correct it is also incomplete in regards to the evolutionary process. To fully understand the evolutionary process one must know what determines a trait to be a desirable trait, or not. This is simple because the only traits that are desirable are traits that help to ensure the survival of offspring[5]. Con's mistake with the evolutionary process is to assume that selection is in a straight line from parent to child, and excludes social evolution sometimes called kin selection. The siafu comparison is apt for illustrating social evolution. Siafu workers are analogous to homosexual humans because both under normal circumstances will not breed, and both provide advantages for survival of the next generation. Queens and sausage flies are comparable to parents of homosexuals in that they're predisposed to have a percentage of their offspring that would not breed, but provide benefits for the survival of the group. Now there is a concern as to how traits that enhance the fitness of the group pass to the next generation when the individual does not breed. This is explained by epigenetics. Epigenetics allows a parent to pass a gene, or trait, to more than one child, but only a few actually express it[6]. Without this kin selection wouldn't work because the traits would never pass to the next generation. The claim that double orphans are rare is unfortunately false. It may appear at this moment in time in countries like the US, but this is hardly the case worldwide. Roughly 10% of the world's 1.9 billion children are orphans, and 10% of these are double orphans leaving 1% of the worlds children as double orphans [7][8][9]. That 1% is hardly spread evenly, and is concentrated in war torn, and diseased areas. Making it far greater than 1% for those areas. Events like the firebombing of Tokyo[10], Vietnam War[11], various tsunami's[12][13], and the 1918 pandemic flu have a tendency to leave a large amount of double orphans. Rare, in cons view, is highly subjective, and lacks the perspective of human history. Because desirable traits in evolution are traits that help ensure the survival of offspring it is advantageous for grandparents to have some homosexual children that will not breed to help ensure the survival of grandchildren. [5] http://anthro.palomar.edu... [6] http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... [7] http://www.unicef.org... [8] http://www.unicef.org... [9] http://www.gapminder.org... [10] Graveyard of the Fireflies, by Miyazaki [11] http://www.smithsonianmag.com... [12] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [13] http://www.alaskadispatch.com... [14] http://www.flu.gov...
The human body is physically designed as an herbivore.

Sorry about the delay. As humans we distinguished from animals by the advanced way of thinking. Therefore we name and categorize things to better explain and relate such things. The proper definition and explanation of an omnivore would be a organism designed to have a diet of both plant and animal. In my last post it was explained the comparison between our physical makeup. The human body is described also as most closely related to an herbivore. We have few characteristics as an omnivore. Yes we have evolved to tolerate meant but still, our body cannot hunt and kill and then tear open the flesh of an animal and eat it. We can't digest hair, fingernails, claws, raw meat. Our population has many diseases and health risks from our diet we choose. Human can in fact digest grass. They cannot live a grass based diet but the van have it as extra nutrients. Any species is able to eat what they find most abundant. Is it right? No. Does it pose as potential harm to the body? Yes. Go an entire month eating raw meat unstead of cooking it. Lile pomnivores do. Your body cannot live healthy. Thank you for debating.
The human body is physically designed as an herbivore.

Omnivore, herbivore word is a human classification. Other animals do not call themselves herbivores or omnivores because it is irrelevant. If you look at the question your asking in English language, identifying the word by their proper definition humans are omnivores. If now your argument is humans are designed to eat plants and not meat you can look at the human body and biology. Look at the evolution of species based on their diets. We see that species have evolved in certain ways to make it easier or more convenient to do certain things. Cows are herbivores and digest grass. Humans can't digest grass because they are not herbivores. To date evolution has made us capable of eating meat to our own benefit. Our species: Homo sapiens (primates) have always been able to eat meat since our ancestors who aren't Homo sapiens ate meat because of the research and archeological finds which clearly point towards that fact. So our species since it's existence has always been able to eat meat.
The human body is physically designed as an herbivore.

Physically - Related to the body Designed - Function, working purpose Omnivore - Eat food of both plant and animal origin We are unable to digest rocks and can't gain sufficient nutrition from them. If humans simply eat animals they are omnivores. We are "designed" (not by a god but nature) to be capable of eating both plant and animal origin to get the required elements to survive as a species. These give us elements our body needs to sustain itself and be healthy. These allow the human body to live a life cycle set as it is today by evolution. Our natural development and abilities have come from our needs to function. Of course you can avoid eating meat but in general terms nature hasn't enabled us to eat meat for meat. Just like we don't eat plants to eat plants. It's about what we need, minerals, fats, sugars, etc. we described creatures eating both as omnivores to help identify categories. If you think we're not supposed to eat meat because we weren't designed for it is wrong because we can eat it and digest it to nourish ourselves. But, fundamentally it doesn't matter what you call yourself or what you eat as long as you can get the required elements to sustain your body.
The human body is physically designed as an herbivore.

We are not omnivores. Humans are most often described as "omnivores." This classification is based on the "observation" that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods. However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. Thus, "observation" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most "natural" diet for humans. While most humans are clearly "behavioral" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods
The human body is physically designed as an herbivore.

What is your source that humans are made to digest grass. If we were we would ruminate but we don't. We are simply not herbivores. http://www.livescience.com... http://www.scienceforums.net... How can you be designed to ea some of. Othe. State that your were deigned as a herbivore. It's like saying cows or chickens are designed as carnivores. No, they are not meant to eat it and really can't.
Electric cars should be adopted, while limiting gas-powered cars

Hello,I wish you great luck in what I hope will be a good debate.I wish to clarify that as per normal, Pro, bearing the burden of proof, must first prove that whatever issue he/she may find in the Status Quo is an issue and secondly that his model will solve the issue, while not being a detriment to the SQ.I as Con will rebut Pro's points.Thanks and good luck
Electric cars should be adopted, while limiting gas-powered cars

I congratulate my opponent on a wonderful argument.While both sides agree fossil fuels pollute the environment, an issue which carries serious effect, electric cars are far more detrimental to the SQ not beneficial thus must not be adopted. My opponents main points consisted of the following(1)Gas powered cars are the cause of pollution(2)Gas powered cars cause harm to humans(3)Electric powered cars are not adopted due to a view that they are spineless and weak1.Pro believes gas powered cars cause pollution. Correct. What my opponent has neglected to say is that electric cars cause far more pollution. In an electric cars average lifetime of 15 years, it produces 149% of the pollution of gasoline cars. This is mainly due to the source of electricity powering the car. Coal. Coal is used for 91% of Australia's power, 86% of India along with countless other countries. Coal is far more dangerous for both humans and the environment with higher outputs of harmful substances.It is also due to the extreme production cost to the environment of making the car.Sources:http://cornerstonemag.net...http://www.economist.com...http://www.cnbc.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. Gas powered cars cause harm to humans. Again true. Yet as seen in my argument above, electric cars are far more detrimental to the health of human beings. In fact 86 more pollution related deaths are caused by electric cars than gas cars. It is clear to see that electric cars are not the green machines of myth but in reality are far less beneficial than gas cars.Sources:http://www.cnbc.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3.My opposition here has fallen for a stereotype that people want strong, powerful cars. This just isn't true. We are in the 21st not the 20th century, thus the average individual is not going to choose a car on how macho it is, but instead on the value for money and personal needs requirements.My opposition has failed to prove that his model, electric powered cars should be adopted, is more beneficial to the Status Quo, thus it must not be implemented.
Everyone is either born a girl or a boy

Well... you used Wikipedia as a reliable source twice now. Congrats! You've used false information. And also, I'm not going to look at pictures of babies genitals, thank you very much. How about we talk about some more animals? Because, you are wrong. Just read the comments on this debate, or would you like a Wikipedia link to that too? And the fact you studied animal behavior does not mean that you're an expert on people and how they're born. And you're right, I don't take this silly debate seriously, I want people to vote you as winner, so you can feel good about yourself. Boom.
Everyone is either born a girl or a boy

It is clear that my opponent does not take this debate seriously, "LOL." Is their argument that intersex people DON'T exist? Because they do, which proves that not everyone is born either male or female. I actually did provide factual evidence for it (see source 8). Here's more factual evidence for the existence of intersex people, however, in case that wasn't enough. A list of notable intersex people: http://en.wikipedia.org... A slideshow containing images of ambiguous genitalia on intersex individuals (Warning: NSFW) http://www.slideshare.net... A description by the World Health Organization of intersex individuals, and the practice of mutilating intersex individuals' genitalia shortly after birth as a means of 'picking a sex' for ones' child. http://www.who.int... Assignment of Intersex Infants and Children More sites speaking on intersex people: http://www.healthyplace.com... http://www.isna.org... http://www.cnn.com... I rest my case. Boom.
Everyone is either born a girl or a boy

Let's be proper here. Everyone is either born a male or a female. You can get that changed later in life, that's up to you. But, the definition of male is: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. While the definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. Basically, you either have something that fertilizes an egg, or you have the eggs. You can't have both, and you can't have none. I also have a weird feeling that everything you say is going to be opinionated, with no real factual evidence to support your statements, in which case I will leave this debate.