BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some UFO's ARE from another planet.

As an explanation for strange phenomena, UFOs bear some relation to God: It's very difficult to accurately attribute any given piece of evidence to them, just because so little is known about them. And this is why aliens are great fun, and it saddens me that I'm arguing against their existence: we can make them up to be whatever best fits with the evidence - we have total creative freedom. When something unreal, unexplainable has happened, we can charge straight in with an explanation far more satisfying than the tenuous offerings of physicists - we're not slowed down by tedious natural laws, we can ascribe anything we want to superior technology. Unfortunately, this is all the work of the human mind, leaping from conclusion to excited conclusion. The result is an emotionally intense fantasy. Even when the scientists expect us to believe the most preposterous of freak weather circumstances, even when they break down and admit, "We just don't know,", that does not validate our wild imaginations into becoming reality. We not allowed to say, "Well, no one can think of a better idea, it must be the aliens." Aliens are a brilliant story, but they aren't concrete enough to be a scientific theory. Note that I've refrained from directly addressing the substance of the evidence you presented, because a 3-round debate can't afford to get bogged down in arguing through the details of each little scenario. Instead, I have to attack the nature of your evidence overall: it's anecdotal, it's all stories, not a controlled trial. Which is why it fits in so nicely with aliens - they're a story too, and a very appealing one. Your first point was about the possibility (or the inevitability) that aliens will evolve on another planet. Logic and reason do indeed tell us this is possible, but only a little investigation is needed to tell us how horrendously unlikely it is. There's a lot of stars out there, and between them, an awful lot of space. Not to mention, an even larger amount of time separating us - they may be long dead, or still bacterium. If the Universe isn't infinite, that's very unlikely two civilisations will arise at the same time. If the Universe is infinite, and the Law of Typewriting Monkeys requires that two civilisations do indeed exist at the same time, they're still going to be a hell of a long way apart. In a strictly pedantic sense, I have to concede the debate now. You said, "Some UFO's ARE from another planet." And I agree. However, I'm going to assume that for the rest of the debate, we're talking about aliens, and not chunks of rock knocked off Mars.
Some UFO's ARE from another planet.

To clarify the definition of UFO's before the debate: UFO's are unidentified flying objects, even if something is not an alien spacecraft it can still be a UFO. But just because some UFO's may not infact be alien spacecraft this does not mean the rest aren't which is what this debate will be about. My first point is that life on Earth is most likely not unique. With a universe as infinite as ours and with the building blocks of life littered across the galaxies you would be foolish to think Earth is the only planet to support life. Logic and reason can tell us that there are most likely other worlds with life, however this is not the subject of this debate. The subject of this debate is whether or not life forms from these other planets are developed enough to travel the vast distance of space to Earth and whether or not their spacecraft have been spotted by humans on occasions. Spanning back to the start of human records, there have been several sightings of strange objects in the sky. Cave drawings and old paintings have even shown rather familiar objects hovering in the sky(Ie. The cigar shaped UFO and flying saucers). But it wasn't until 60 years ago that sightings became more common, and within the last 10-15 years where sightings and actual video footage have reached record levels. The largest encounter being in Phoenix, Arizona(March 13th, 1997) where several strange lights were seen flying in formation over Phoenix by thousands and the same night a giant V shaped object a mile wide flew over(Close enough to the ground some people say they could have thrown a rock at it and hit.). I want to hear my opponants side of the debate before I explain why some UFO's are probably from another world instead of our own technology or natural phenomenon.
The PATRIOT Act takes away rights and therefore is bad.

- I find it funny how everyone is like: "I don't want anyone listning in on my conversations", then they go walking around a mall talking on ther cell phones surrounded by 3000 people :) + WTF? Everybody does not do this. And if the person is listening to your conversation, they more than likely dont have a relationship with every country in the world, a prison system, an electric chair, a nuke system, the ability to take all of your copyrights, take your house. Point blank: the government has alot of power that they can abuse. And what mall has 3000 ppl at a time, especially within earshot anyway. The only reason that I even took this random point seriously is so that you would not run it again. - The problems you state are almost irrelevant, because even if they were allowed to do it without a fair trial, there have been no cases where there wasnt a fair trial, The Government dosent look at ANY personal records of ours, unless they have reasonable cause (If you don't like this, yell at the Constitution) + They dont require a reasonable cause. And even if there is a reasonable cause EVERYBODY DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL!!! They can just type your name and listen to your conversation.(Section 2703(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as redesignated by section 212, is amended-- (1) by striking `entity the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber) + `(ii) If the court orders disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury, the disclosure shall be made in such manner, at such time, and under such conditions as the court may direct. `(3) Any action under this section shall be tried to the court without a jury. - The PA is not taking away peoples rights, if anything it protects them. And the PA can and will always be "shut down" for lack of a better term, one a war is over. + THE PATRIOT ACT BARELY PROTECTS US AND EVEN IF IT SAVED 100 LIVES A DAY IT WOULD STILL TEAR DOWN OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TERRORISTS. AND WE CANT AFFORD NOT TO LISTEN TO OUR CONSTITUTION. THAT DOCUMENT IS THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY, LITERALLY. - G.W. Bush has been a fine gaurd. + The wole who will guard the guards thing was not really an argument. It was just a persuasive phrase. It is actually a latin phrase: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Intelligence officials often use it. - But I have a question. You told me to stop calling people or you or somebody names. What are you talking about? I never called anybody names. + "I would like to once again show that you have brought up NO evidence or proof or logic for your statements. I have. it is FULLY CONSTTUTIONAL!!!!!!!" It is not offensive just not substantial and franlkly annoying. - What if we started taking away rights like freedom of speech or religion ro "protect us"? Were on a slippery slope to no constitution. Also even if you bbelieve that they need reasonable cause then you must consider that they dont even need a warrant, they should noot have that right. Also no fair trail or trial at all is a HUGE DEAL!!!
The PATRIOT Act takes away rights and therefore is bad.

I find it funny how everyone is like: "I don't want anyone listning in on my conversations", then they go walking around a mall talking on ther cell phones surrounded by 3000 people :) The problems you state are almost irrelevant, because even if they were allowed to do it without a fair trial, there have been no cases where there wasnt a fair trial, The Government dosent look at ANY personal records of ours, unless they have reasonable cause (If you don't like this, yell at the Constitution) The PA is not taking away peoples rights, if anything it protects them. And the PA can and will always be "shut down" for lack of a better term, one a war is over. G.W. Bush has been a fine gaurd. But I have a question. You told me to stop calling people or you or somebody names. What are you talking about? I never called anybody names.
The PATRIOT Act takes away rights and therefore is bad.

First I would like to pointout that you made 3 assertions with no evidence to back it up. Ok, point 1. First off, its the FBI/CIA that use the resources of the Patriot Act, not the feds. (Bush isnt doin it) But what is it that they do? Thet do not wiretap our phones, internet and live, they DATA MINE, they type a word into a computer lets say bomb, and press enter. They ONLY see documents and what not with that word in it. They do not see anything else. The Government isnt spying on us. There is nothing wrong with DATA mining, and the ONLY way they will wiretap, is if they have a reasonable cause. Whats a reasonable cause? A reasonable cause is if they see an email that says something like: Hi Achmed, praise Allah! I am building a bomb and plan to blow up the U.N. To your second claim: gives the police the right to not have a warrant or alert a person of the fact they are searching property. Once again, they do not do this without a reasonable casus, like the example I gave before. Now here is the kicker, since they only do it with reasonable cause, it is FULLY CONSTTUTIONAL!!!!!!! What does it say in the Constitution? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon PROBABLE CAUSE....." They do it upon Probable cause, and are fully constitutional, they are not taking away our rights. Point three: Where do you get the idea that they don't get a fair trial? I have not heard of anybody who was caught in a terrorist act, not getting a trial. The Patriot Act is a good thing, if anything, it helps to protect our Liberties by keeping us safe. The people of the United States will guard the guards, by electing the right people (NOT HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON or BARAK OBAMA!) into office. Our rights are being upheld, and our lives kept safe. I would like to once again show that you have brought up NO evidence or proof or logic for your statements. I have. Thank you.
The PATRIOT Act takes away rights and therefore is bad.

The Patriot Act does 3 things: - allows the government to wiretap our phones, internet and live - gives the police the right to not have a warrant or alert a person of the fact they are searching property - allows the government to not give people a fair trial People may argue that the PATRIOT Act makes us safer but it only tears down the principals that our country was built on. Who is to say that if the terrorists do not like what we say then we take out our freedom of speech? Or that we stop freedom of religion and convert everybody to Islam? The PATRIOT Act is a catalyst to the terrorists being allowed to control our country. I expect you to respond to all 3 things that the PATRIOPT Act does. Who will guard the guards? I now stand ready for cross ex.
the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie and khan is the stupidest star trek villain

"you think you've already won, don't you?"I don't think I have already won, I know that I have won "i forgot to say this after your round one argument, but "where no man has gone before" is NOT episode three, it is episode TWO. thus, you probably have no knowledge whatsoever of the original series and probably never watched the wrath of khan either. a true fan would know the order of the episodes to a t." Two issues here... First, this is an ad-hominem attack and should be considered irrelevant, this major lapse in conduct should be counted against my opponentSecond, this is not true... Where No Man Has Gone Before was originally aired on September 22nd, 1966.Charlie X was the second episode ever aired on September 15th, 1966The Naked Time was the fourth episode ever aired on September 29th, 1966Because it is in between the second and fourth episodes, it must be the third episode "In my opinion, a story which is historically inaccurate spoils the entire plot of a movie, unless the movie is specifically intended to be an alternate history film. the wrath of khan is not meant to take place in an alternate timeline, it takes place far in the future in OUR timeline." Notice how my opponent offers NO proof, sources, or reputable people who agree with them, to be blatant, who cares what your opinion is? I've already proven that the Wrath of Khan is not the stupidest Star Trek Movie, and you agreed with it too (by conceding that Star Trek V is stupid, without offering proof that it is not as "stupid" as Star Trek the Wrath of Khan).Also, if my opponent were to hold "his opinion" then he would have to hold that nearly every movie ever created is bad, with only documentaries, Star Trek, Star Wars, and a few other movies being good, something my opponent would probably not agree with."khan is not an intriguing villain either. his only unique trait is super strength. beyond that, he's just a hispanic guy. that's it."Once again, No proof, sources, evidence on top of that, is that my opponent just contradicted himself, showing that it's quite possible my opponent doesn't know who Khan is. "In it, khan's origin is revealed. he's a genetically modified indian guy from the nineties who tried to conquer the world."So, what we see is that my opponent has no valid points (lack of any evidence whatsoever), has contradicted himself, AND has conceded that Star Trek V is stupid (without offering any evidence that it is less stupid than the Wrath of Khan) thus we can assume he agrees with me that Star Trek V is stupider than Star Trek II As it stands, my arguments are relatively unrefuted, his arguments (or lack thereof) are completely refuted, he has conceded a conduct point (by making an ad-hominem), and I am the only one to offer any sources, thus at the moment, there is no way my opponent can win.
the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie and khan is the stupidest star trek villain

you think you've already won, don't you? i forgot to say this after your round one argument, but "where no man has gone before" is NOT episode three, it is episode TWO. thus, you probably have no knowledge whatsoever of the original series and probably never watched the wrath of khan either. a true fan would know the order of the episodes to a t. in my opinion, a story which is historically inaccurate spoils the entire plot of a movie, unless the movie is specifically intended to be an alternate history film. the wrath of khan is not meant to take place in an alternate timeline, it takes place far in the future in OUR timeline. you see, space seed was an honest mistake, but by the time the wrath of khan was made, it was much later, and they should have realized that a race of genetically altered superbeings was NOT going to take over the earth. khan should have been thrown in the dustpile and swept away into the trash. it's like a film saying that in five years we will fly to the edge of the universe. technology simply does not advance that quickly. khan is not an intriguing villain either. his only unique trait is super strength. beyond that, he's just a hispanic guy. that's it. if the second star trek film had harry mudd in it, i would be obsessed with it. i argue that harry mudd is the greatest star trek villain. he's funny, boisterous, and he comes up with everything from old women who look beautiful to love crystals to being king of a bunch of androids. evidently, during the time of the original series, mudd was more popular, since he was in two episodes and khan was only in one. khan is the stupidest star trek villain and the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie. i hold my position. i await your next argument. and please, don't take too long. i hate guys who take too long to post their argument.
the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie and khan is the stupidest star trek villain

"your Conception of movie ratings as a measure of a film's quality is a bit off. They may measure a film's popularity but historical accuracy is not included in that measure"While I agree that historical accuracy isn't in every single movie review/rating, some people do take that into account when rating sci-fi movies. But where I disagree with you most is that historical accuracy does not necessarily mean its a good/bad movie. .. P1: Nearly no movies are accurateP2: A good movie may not accurateC1: Accuracy does not define how good a movie isW1: Thus my opponent's entire argument is invalidP1: Nearly no movies are accurate Non-Documentary films are nearly never historically accurate. In fact, many movies that appear historically accurate, typically aren't. A study done on the movie "The Intimidation Game" found that it was only around 41% accurate, however, most people who saw it, believed it to be 100% true. We must remember movies are meant to be fiction unless they are categorized as Documentaries, and fiction movies shouldn't be judged on accuracy, rather entertainment. P2: A good movie may be inaccurate In David Lean’s, “Lawrence of Arabia,” considered by many film critics to be a "classic" or "epic". Lawrence’s men cheer him when he returns from the desert, having single-handedly ventured back into that treacherous sea of boiling sand to rescue the unfortunate Gassim. However, this is not true, according to Scott Anderson’s non-fiction account, “Lawrence in Arabia,” Lawrence, was greeted with rage and derision by his troops, for having foolishly risked his life as their leader in pursuit of a worthless ruffian. To add on to this, "2001: a Space Odyssey", considered one of the greatest Sci-Fi books/movies of all time, was completely wrong about the technological advancement of today. But it is still one of the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time. C1: Accuracy does not define how good a movie isBecause many good movies (like The Wrath of Khan) are historically inaccurate, but still are good movies, we can deduct that historical accuracy does not define how good a movie is, thus, my opponent's argument of accuracy is completely flawed. "sir, I agree that the final frontier is very stupid" My opponent doesn't offer why Final Frontier is less stupid than The Wrath of Khan, thus, concedes the point that there is a movie greater than or equal to the stupidity that he claims The Wrath of Khan has.
the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie and khan is the stupidest star trek villain

sir, I agree that the final frontier is very stupid. however, your Conception of movie ratings as a measure of a film's quality is a bit off. they may measure a films popularity, but historical accuracy is not included in that measure. and remember, the majority of that popularity is from fans who have never seen space seed, the original Khan episode. they do not know that he is a "genetically modified superbeing" who tried to take over the world in the nineties. they just think he's a badass who puts bugs into people's ears. might i mention, that scene is grotesque and lowers the quality of the film quite a bit. i argue that the original motion picture is far superior to the wrath of Khan. the cool nebula, the mind controlled bald lady, and the clicky Klingon song all make for a great story. like i said, the historically inaccurate origin of Khan turn a brilliant. masterpiece into a campy b movie like the blob. i await your next argument.
the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie and khan is the stupidest star trek villain

However Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is definitely not the worst Star Trek movie. P1: Awards are a good way to determine a movie's qualityP2: Ratings are a good way to determine a movie's qualityP3: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan has higher ratings than most Star Trek movies and has been nominated for several awardsC1: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is not the "stupidest" Star Trek movieP1: Awards are a good way to determine a movie's qualityThis is common sense, a good movie is more likely to be given awards and nominations than a bad one, thus you can judge a movie's relative quality due to the amount of awards it has received. P2: Ratings are a good way to determine a movie's qualitySometimes awards aren't representative of a population's opinion on a movie. So, the average person can go online and rate a movie, thus offering their opinion on the movie. This is much more representative of awards and shows how the general population feels a bout a movie's qualityP3: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan has received awards and a high rating Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was nominated for 11 awards in 1983 and won 2 of them, then it was recognized again in 2003 being nominated as a "Best DVD Classic Film Release". Star Trek II also has a rating of 7.7 on IMDB, highest of all Shatner-Era Star Trek films. . http://www.imdb.com...;http://www.imdb.com...C1: Thus Star Trek II is not the "stupidest" of all Star Trek filmsOn top of this, let's remember that my opponent has not offered any proof our sources showing Star Trek II is the "stupidest" But to add on, I'd like to propose a movie which I believe is worse than Star Trek II, Star Trek V: the Final Frontier Not only does it have the worst rating of any Shatner-era Star Trek film on IMDB but its plotline is poor (as it has the same premise as episode 3 "Where No Man Has Gone Before") . http://www.imdb.com...;
the wrath of khan is the stupidest star trek movie and khan is the stupidest star trek villain

khan is the most idiotic star trek villain ever conceived by gene roddenberry. in the 20th century, people made predictions about the future. usually around the year two thousand. these things were way off and ridiculous. you can watch some of them on youtube, for some good laughs. i argue that the further forward in time you set your sci fi story, the better it will be, because by that time the world will have changed so much that they won't even know your sci fi story exists and won't make fun of it. these futuristic shorts did horribly at this. they said that by the year 2000, we would have flying cars and land on mars. it was idiotic. but then, a beacon of hope came along. it was star trek, and it was set so far into the future that we can't ridicule it today. but one episode, just one episode, mind you, turned the series from a brilliant masterpiece into a campy disaster and slaughtered the series with one fell swoop. that episode was the one with khan. in it, khan's origin is revealed. he's a genetically modified indian guy from the nineties who tried to conquer the world. sounds like those shorts, doesn't it? i've found that most people who love the wrath of khan have never seen that episode, and don't know what a trashheap he is. i await your next argument.
Off-Brand food/water products are just as satisfying as the more expensive BRAND name type.

There is a knock off brand for almost everything. Mountain dew, Doritos, chetos, heck, even water bottles. Off-brand items are not only cheaper, but just as good tasting as the more expensive, well known brand. If I want to go get a bottle of water, what is the difference between buying a $3 bottle of FIJI water, and buying a $4 pack of 28 store brand water bottles? Yeah, Fiji has some crazy story about how their water is the finest around because it is filtered through volcanic rock and never comes in contact with humans, but lets be real. It's water. So is store brand water. Why should I spend $5 on a "Doritos" bag, when I can spend $2 on a different brand that is nearly identical in every way?