BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets.

First off, since CON would like to speak in mathematical terms, the number of stars in the universe (that can be seen by telescopes) is around a septillion stars. This is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, and although this is an estimate, it is seen as a MINIMUM amount of stars. It could very well be a near infinite number, since the Universe is ever-expanding according to several astrophysicists. These stars likely have a number of planets surrounding them, which means there is much more than a septillion number of planets. As shown on http://space.about.com..., "the initial results from the Kepler mission revealed 1,235 planet candidates, while 54 of them were orbiting their host star in the so-called "habitable zone"." The Keplar did not survey the entire galaxy (because the number of planets is much too vast), however the number of planet candidates would increase by a lot. In the test, the percentage of planets in the habitable zone is about 4%. In 1964 Stephen H. Dole estimated the number of habitable planets in our galaxy to be about 600 million. Although the percentage of planets in the Universe would not be as high as 4% (since not all galaxies are the same) even if the number was much much smaller, say 0.00000001%, the number of habitable planets would be 50,000,000,000,000,000. If we were to further eliminate 99% of these (As an estimate for the number of planets greater than 4Billion years, even though it does not necessarily take this many years... This number is specific only to Earth), the numbers would still be phenomenally large. By sheer numbers, the odds of life on another planet are incredibly great. I realize that playing the odds still does not confirm life on another planet, however if you have a number of stars (MINIMUM remind you) of a septillion, without even including the number of planets, the odds are clearly in life's favor. In addition to the mathematical odds being in life's favor, so far we are only taking in to consideration an ET that lives and has evolved similarly to the humans and the species on Earth. To be as narrow minded to believe that all evolution and planetary ecosystem must mimic Earth's exactly is an unfair argument. Animals evolve differently, and on Earth are able to adapt to situations that may seem extreme compared to another planet. Relative to this, CON also did not rebut the claim I made about the different environments that animals live in today (Fish living at the bottom of the ocean experiencing "extreme" pressures etc.) I rebutted and responded to all of CON's claim's (the short length of time with which the homo genus has existed, the proportional numbers, etc.) whereas CON picked and chose which to respond to and what to ignore. Also, CON's statement in the first round "Although there are lots of galaxies (at least 100 billion)" vastly underestimates the ACTUAL number of galaxies, which as stated on (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...), is 5-fold from his stated (500 billion... AT LEAST).
Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets.

Well, I believe that PRO has chosen poorly the debate title. I have already proven that it is impossible to affirm with certainty that "Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets". Now PRO says that he will prove that there "may be" life in other planets. To have any line on what does "may be" means, I think PRO should try to show that it is at least as likely as not that there is life in other planets, that is, at least a 50% probability. First of all, let's reexamine the "water on mars" argument. PRO says that "he fact that a planet right next door once had water already shows the possibilities of many more planets thriving with water". Actually, it does not show that. Exactly because of the fact that Mars is "right next door" it is expected to share some similarities with Earth. More distant planets have, probably, less similarity with us. When I mentioned "short day/night periods" I wasn't talking about exactly 12h. 24h days are still quite short. In order for life to succeed, days can not last years or decades, for that would create extremely hostile environments evolution-wise, with some generations living entirely during day time and others during night. Finally, for life to develop in a star system, the star must be "fit" for having habitable planets, that is, must be a F, G or K star (yellow-white, yellow, orange) [1]. That is because stars with masses bigger than 1.5 suns age to fast for life to develop, while on the other extreme, small stars are not good candidates because of the tidal lock effect [2]. So the pulsars which presented planets, for example, probably won't present any life-bearing planets. Summing up, we're looking for a star, of a specific category, at least 4 billion years old, with terrestrial planets located in a small "habitable zone" around it. This alone excludes most of the universe from our filters. After that, the planet must meet the criteria I mentioned before: present water in liquid state, have an atmosphere, have geological activity, have low orbital eccentricity, short day/night periods, have an magnetic field, etc. This excludes most planets. Even after that, the planet still have to present chemicals that can create unicellular life. This life must than evolve, undisturbed, for billions of years, during which the climate and atmosphere must evolve accordingly to sustain the new lifeforms that are walking towards intelligence. All of that before some interplanetary event destroys or set back that planet's life. And also, endure these and other hardships long enough to survive to this day (I must remember PRO says life EXISTS now, and not that THERE WAS life in other planets). And PRO believes the compound odds of all of that happening are at least 50%. I am sorry for my disbelief, but I think it is mathematically impossible for this odds to reach such high level. References: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets.

Hello there, I just signed up yesterday, so I also apologize if I get confused. I believe the burden of proof is on the Pro, so I will limit myself to the rebuttal of your arguments. First of all, you have not given a single proof that there is life in other planets, but only that there is a possibility. If you throw a dice thousands of times, there is a chance that it lands on six every time. But saying that there is a possibility doesn't mean that this will happen. Although there are lots of galaxies (at least 100 billion[1]), that does not mean that there is a proportional number of habitable planets. In order for a planet to sustain life, it must meet a great number of criteria. Some assumptions on these criteria are that it has to be terrestrial, present water in liquid state, have an atmosphere, have geological activity, have low orbital eccentricity, short day/night periods, have an magnetic field, etc[2]. Even with all this considered, not necessarily life will arise, and if it does, still there can be unicellular life in a planet that never evolves to higher forms of life. Finally, to say that intelligent life exists on other planets, it must exist NOW. The Homo genus is estimated to be only about 2.3 million years old[3], we've only been around for about 0.05% of Earth's existence[4]. Even if there are other planets bound to have intelligent life, it is extremely likely that it was already extinct or that it hasn't been born yet. [1] http://www.physics.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets.

First off, this is my first debate (and actually, my first day on the site) so I apologize if I get confused on some of the jargon that is used here. Hopefully I know how to work this. Life exists on other planets. Despite incredibly infinitesimally small chances, Earth, after billions of years and "perfect" placement in the galaxy, became flush with life. Organisms, both intelligent and not are everywhere. The Universe (which is ever expanding) is filled with trillions and trillions and trillions of galaxies. The number is so large that we can not really even comprehend it. Each of these galaxy's has planets and suns. Of these planets, there must be at least one that has beaten the odds (like earth) and now has life on their planet. Good luck to the opposition!
Christian hour should be one very computer worldwide

Well, thank you for starting this ever increasingly relevant topic.My opponent seems to have chosen a weird way to word the resolution and left out a modifier. I wish to add at least a tiny bit of clarity."Christian Hour should be one very big computer worldwide."I disagree. Large computers are clunky and hard to fit on a desk. I think it should be kept as compact as possible, especially with the developing technology that allows us to fit terrabytes of information a computer no thicker than a very small stack of papers.Not to mention, how would everyone be able to enjoy this resource if it was just one computer? We need lots of these things.Thus, I negate the resolution.Good luck pro.
I am Dr Obama

Though your arguement would be valid if the letter i (yes, ty mate it IS the 9th letter of the ENGLISH alphabet, good job clearing that up) was reffering to the literal letter. However, in this case I is a pronoun reffering to my being. And that could equate to Dr Obama but as i am not it is pointless to argue. your arguement basically says i have to prove that 'the ninth letter of the English alphabet can not equate to Dr obama' how the Fubbizle does i=Dr obama it is basically that that u have to prove
I am Dr Obama

Okay. "I"is defined as the ninth letter of the English alphabet usable as a math variable. "Am" is "the first singular of be" (1). Be means "to equal in meaning" (2). Therefore, the revised resolution is "I equal in meaning to Dr. Obama". This resolution defines the ninth letter of the English alphabet, I, as Dr. Obama. Therefore, it is up to my opponent to prove the ninth letter of the English alphabet can never equate to Dr. Obama. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I am Dr Obama

No, you never defined terms. So I is defined as the 9th letter of the English alphabet with the ability to be used as a math variable. Since, it has the ability to be used as a math variable the letter "i" shall now equate to Dr. Obama. My opponent has conceded this debate ("your arguement would be valid if the letter i [...] was reffering to the literal letter"). You never defined "I" as the pronoun so the letter "I" was defined as a variable and in this case equates to Dr. Obama.
It is impossible to move backwards mentally

Now before I get into the Pro constructive, I would like to point out that my opponent had no viable reason for not attacking my third point. If he so desires he may attack it in his next speech, but if he doesn't you must count it as a drop and the Con will win. Now onto my rebuttals. First my opponent makes the claim that when you undergo any manner of mental deterioration that you are not moving backwards. you are just moving forward with a new set of information. This is completely ridiculous, the deterioration clause mandates that you are indeed moving backwards. There are no positive impacts to mandate any kind of growth. When there is any kind of loss you must count this as moving backwards; if there had never been any kind of loss the gains would have still occurred. Also my opponent changes their stance towards the end of their refutations, instead of saying that mental regression is impossible they now contend that it is just less frequent. For this my opponent concedes that even to the smallest degree it happens; Thus I win. Now going on to ideological dissension. My opponent does not cover my arguments here. In fact, his arguments if anything strengthen my stance, there was mental regression. Even if in only in a fleeting sense it existed. Thus I win still Again, no attack was made on contention 3.
It is impossible to move backwards mentally

For the sake of keeping the debate a reasonable length, I'm only going to address two of con's arguments. If you would like me to address the third, I would gladly do so in the next round! I'd like to start by addressing con's first argument: When one loses memory through any manner of occurrences, such as mental deterioration, your mind isn't necessarily moving backwards, it is moving forward, but with a new set of information. I say this because just like all other things in the universe, your mental state is governed by the laws of time. Also, moving back or regressing would mean you would go back to exactly how you were at that first point. It isn't true regression if you have mental deterioration because you may have lost a lot of memory, but because you are constantly moving forward in time, you will be taking in new information all the time. From my knowledge, it's impossible to lost 100% of the information you take in on a daily basis while remaining alive (I may be wrong), thus you cannot totally digress or move backward mentally. Next, to address con's argument on Ideological Dissention: I would like to bring up the Dark Ages for this section of the argument. The Dark Ages were a period of time in Europe where no societal progress was made, and a lot of knowledge was lost to the world. During this time, the members of the christian church rejected the ideas of the Romans because their ideas were Pagan. From our perspective of the period, a lot of moving backwards took place. This is the case because we are comparing our current societal progress to the societal progress of the era. What we may consider progress at this point would be the advances of medicine, technology, etc. It's probably very true that progress in that sense did not occur, but in it's place, spiritual growth took place. New religious ideas were formed during the time, churches were built, etc. There may have been a digression of a certain aspects of their society, but it would've been impossible for total digression to take place.
It is impossible to move backwards mentally

Now considering the resolution, and the fact that my opponent has allowed me to go first; I will contend that it is entirely possible to move backwards mentally. However since I am the Contender but am making the initial constructive, I will first to frame the Debate; so that we can actually debate it. Now let's analize what this topic is asking us to debate. Impossible indicates that moving backwards mentally is not ever a possibility. Move Backwards can mean anything from Mental deterioration, to ideological dissention. Finally mental indicates of, or relating to the mind. Now since I will be having one more speech than my opponent I will make my arguments here simple and brief First, we can move backwards mentally through mental deterioration. Whether or not you want to consider Alzhiemers, Mental retardation through head trauma, or Losing mental capability through the usage of illicit drugs and substances destroying the human mind. The impact here is that one of reasons we can move backwards mentally is through mental deterioration. Second, Ideological dissention. When people hold a common ideal which they live by, it allows them to progress their society (whether in ways positive or negative) however when this dissention occurs progress dies and they move backwards mentally in this regard. Third, taking a class below ones level can cause a person to move backwards mentally. For instance after a freshman's first year in high school they take algerba 1. During their sophmore year they take Algebra 2. However during their junior and senior year they take math models. now considering this individual actually understood the content in their classes, taking such a low level class will cause them to stop growing mentall, and even forget the algebra they learned in their first two years of high school. So in closing, we see that it is possible to move backwards mentally. Back to you Pro!
Eternal, romantic love exists.

40%-50% of married couples in the United States divorce. The other 50%-60% who do not divorce are likely to lose their feelings for their partner over the years, either completely or partially. Many people often grow tired of being around their partner, calling them "annoying", "bossy", etc. Romantic love is considered an emotional and sexual attraction to someone else. Sex- we all know what sex is. One may argue the male is "meant" for the female; that they were meant to be mates. That is, after all, what most married couples do: mate. Then why is it that homosexual couples also experience romantic love? Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, experience both emotional and sexual attraction to their partners, yet are biologically unable to reproduce with them. Are they, then, "meant" for each other? Are they meant to be mates? Because they can't mate. This feeling that both homosexuals and heterosexuals are feeling for their partners are induced by hormones and only hormones. While there is scientific proof for sexual attraction, this only supports the existence of infatuation "an intense but short-lived passion or admiration for someone or something." Sexual attraction is induced by testosterone, but the levels of testosterone vary daily, even around one's long-term partner. There is no scientific evidence for eternal, romantic love and people very often lose their romantic feelings towards their spouse/partner. http://www.apa.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Eternal, romantic love exists.

I'm not saying love is all about sex. There are different kinds of love: fraternal love, maternal/paternal love and romantic love. Romantic love is characterized by emotional attachment and sexual attraction, making it different from fraternal and maternal/paternal love. I did not say lack of sex renders love as not eternal, but I did say that the more two partners have sex, the more they grow tired or bored of each other as a sexual partner, or romantic partner. However, that does not mean any friendship (fraternal love) that has been established between the two will decay as well.
Eternal, romantic love exists.

"if I can prove that only one case of this exists, than government/affirmative have fulfilled their burden of proof." It's "then", not "than". :) While you can "prove" a case of eternal love just because a couple *claims* they still and always will have the strong feelings they have for each other, this does not mean eternal, romantic love exists because there is no scientific evidence for it. The only organism proven to mate for life are swans. "you stated that 50%-60% of relationships end in divorce, leaving the 50% or 40% of relationships that are eternal and romantic." No I didn't. You switched around my statistics and I never said their relationships were "eternal and romantic" as many of these people have partially or completely lost their feelings for their partner. Thus their feelings are not eternal (or infinite). Roughly 30% to 60% of married individuals will engage in adultery. For the very, very few elderly who do claim they still have romantic love for their partner, I would argue that their feelings are not so much romantic as they are fraternal. How so? They engage less in sex due to several reasons. Menopause, erectile dysfunction, disability, but most importantly, a change in the levels of hormones that induce the feeling of romantic love. Fraternal love is brotherly or friendly love. An elderly couple can still love each other, but it is not romantic because they at one time had a romantic relationship. They have now accepted each other as equals and as very close friends rather than sexual partners. Low testosterone correlates with marital satisfaction. Low testosterone also is correlated with less of a need to have sex. Fathers have lower testosterone levels than husbands without children; husbands have lower testosterone levels than bachelors. This suggests that the more a man has sex with one female, the less he wants it with her. Thus the element of romance in a relationship declines over the years. http://classroom.synonym.com... http://en.wikibooks.org...
Eternal, romantic love exists.

The way you worded your resolution really hands this debate to the government/affirmative side. "Eternal, romantic love exists", meaning that if I can prove that only one case of this exists, than government/affirmative have fulfilled their burden of proof. That can be done easily. For one, you stated that 50%-60% of relationships end in divorce, leaving the 50% or 40% of relationships that are eternal and romantic. This debate obviously falls with side government/affirmative.
Mankind is to dependent on blaming other factors than other members of mankind

Yes it may become much more difficult to control the child, the child cannot get a weapon the parent owns if they don't know where it is. We cannot continue to use media as a martyr of why children have social problems. Children are influenced by so many factors, yet the one that is most often blamed is media. However there are so many different things that could drive a child to do violent things. This is the problem, people choose one factor like media and only blame it and ignore the more likely factors which are other members of human society.
Mankind is to dependent on blaming other factors than other members of mankind

While I agree with what you wrote that the parents should be more responsibility to stop the child from bringing things to school. But after a while the parent can do so much , like the cant stop a child amount of curiousity but they can stop the child from acting upon their thoughts of curiousity. But it depends on how old your child is and sometime it is social media or television that cause a child to do dangerous things. You can do all you can to control what your child see but not all the time . I mean you can probably dont watch tv or have tv in your house but technology is every where and that something you cant control so that thought get implanted in their mind and you can not take it of get rid of it.
Mankind is to dependent on blaming other factors than other members of mankind

The thing is they're still blaming the video games more than they're blaming the parents. It is the parents job to make sure that any sort of weapon the child could bring to school is out of the child's reach. Yet society blaming the parents for buying the video games is not enough, the parents need to take at least most of the responsibility in this situation. Yes you bring up a very good points when it comes to child curiosity, and as a parent then they should understand this and make sure that they don't let this curiosity allow for the child to do something that shouldn't.
Mankind is to dependent on blaming other factors than other members of mankind

There have been so many occasions of Man blaming other factors. When a kid brings a weapon to school, instead of blaming the parents for leaving the weapon where it was accessible by the kid, the majority blames video games for bringing to violent. People are always talking about how fast food causes obesity not actually blaming the obese people for not taking the action to not be obese. There are so many occasions where people try to find other things to blame, and not blame the other members of our species, which in the end it is our fault. So I do think that people are becoming to dependent on blaming other things than actually putting the blame where it needs to go, other people.