BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We are NOT the only intelligent living beings in the universe.

I would also like to make it clear for other that my opponent was not dodging the original topic for it is very important for us to define our terms so that we can make logical points and counter points. The problem I see here is our perspective on knowledge and what I mean by it. As well as intelligent life. So as for as my stance goes, I believe there is a civilization out there capable of many things and advancement in the thousands of galaxies we know to exist but we haven't made any contact with them. In a way, I do say there is other intelligent Life but either 1) Neither have they or us have made advance communication technology to reach each other or 2) They know of us but do not wish to make contact just yet. The reason why I believe there is other ILB is because the galaxies we see now and every other star we see with our telescopes and images are old and in a way, a image of the "Past". To make it clear, I will use a star that we can see with our naked eye as an example. When we look up at night we are able to see stars but some of the stars may have died out minutes to hours before hand because the time it takes for the light from the star to reach our eyes can take a very long time. Even though light travels extremely fast, in the vacuum of space, it can take years. The same goes with the galaxies we see with our telescopes. Some of the furthest galaxies we can observe are billions of light years away. So if we see a galaxy that is 10 billion light years way from us then that means we are seeing the galaxy the way it was 10 billion light years ago, not how it is the present. So if another civilization on a planet that is 50 million light years away from us, pointed a telescope towards earth, they wouldn't see New York city with its tall skyscrapers but instead, they would see the dinosaurs.
We are NOT the only intelligent living beings in the universe.

I'm an now going to apologize for the hit below the belt I have given.Yes I believe that there is inteliegent life in the universe.The problem that I find in my opponents arguement is that if we have no knowlage of anyother intelligent life then therefore they do not exist in the known universe.I agree with my opponent of the triviality of this debate, however I believe there is more to debating that truth.I would like to point out that at the heart of this debate lies arguments about what is considered knowalage and what is considered intelligence.I would like to state that my low blow was not a dodge of the original topic it was simply an attack of the one and only flaw i could find in my opponents arguement.I invite my opponent to find and exploit any flaws in my arguments in order to secure there victory, just as I have done to them. Alternatively, we could smply both provide arguments as to why it is definate that there is intelligent beings somewhere in the universe, and ask that the votes be based on who gave the most compelling evidence to as to why the assertion is definately true.
We are NOT the only intelligent living beings in the universe.

It has become clear to me that I should have defined "known universe" on my part. For me, the known universe includes all the thousands of galaxies that we can prove exist. We know that there are thousands of galaxies. Therefore, I believe that there is at least one Intelligent Civilization within one of those galaxies. It seems like we both agree that there are intelligent beings in the universe but now that we have both defined our terms, I'm not even sure if this debate should continue or would make any sense.
We are NOT the only intelligent living beings in the universe.

My position is this: We are the only intelligent living beings in the known universe. Defining terms: Known universe: The area of the universe the human race has observed and can acurately describe. To truly know a something is to be able to describe it. Familiarity is not knowlage. I personaly believe that there are other intelligent beings in the universe, but not in the known universe. I am asserting that no intelligent beings are in the universe as we know it and they most likely do not know of us. Good luck to the instigator, this will be a challanging topic to construct arguments for.
We are NOT the only intelligent living beings in the universe.

Third round will be left for any last thoughts or remarks My position in this is: we are not the only intelligent living beings in the known universe. Defining my terms: Intelligent Living Beings (ILB): when I say this, what I mean is; MultiCellular Organisms that are developed enough to construct cities, buildings, transportation, and possess the ability to advance in fields such as science, medicine, mathematics, communication, etc. The human race can be used as an example. When I say ILB I don't mean, bacteria or micro organisms.
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

1. I would say that I achieve more societal welfare than you by taking away autonomy. 2. I'm not sure what you mean by this question, so clarify in the comments. 3. So, first in contention 1, adolescents has sensation seeking, unlike adults. That's the first piece of evidence. In contention 2, in the minds of adolescent's minds, instant rewards are prioritized over rewards over time. In contention 3, adolescents are more emotional, more impulsive, and their understanding is immature. So adults have a better probability of making the better decision. 4. Adults are more likely to make better decisions than adolescents. Your question might be proven false by the fact that adolescent could make even worse decisions than the adult. 5. Yes, by eliminating this "free will", I could save more lives and maximize more societal welfare. Also, you need to prove that medical autonomy actually is a free will.
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

1. How does taking away autonomy maximize societal welfare?2. When you say that in order for aff to win they must prove that adolescents can achieve medical autonomy, are you talking about your "correct" version of autonomy or objective autonomy in general. 3. Even if adolescents and adults process information differently, does that make the adults any more objectivily right? 4. You stated that, "They [adolescents] do not use this reasoning as a result of immature cognitive control systems." What if adults dont use reasoning as well as the adolescent? Should the adolescents suffer from the medical choices of the adults?5. You stated that I never justified that autonomy as a right. You are correct but since autonomy is free will, are you arguing that we should eliminate free will?
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Answers to questions: 1- Moral agents will act in the objective self-interest2- The framework of my case is that no individual can make better choices for one person than the actual person themself. 3- I do not have any impacts in my case because this is a lincoln-douglas debate4- I do not have solvency because this is a lincoln-douglas debate5- This is an is-ought fallacy. You are automatically assuming that there are standards that make individuals capable or incapable of autonomy. Everyone has the right to self autonomy. Every human being that has a cognitive mind and know the consequences of their actions has the capibility of autonomy.
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

The first part of round 1 will be the guidelines for this debate. The second part of round 1 will be the 1AC. Please post your case, because last time, my opponent just said "I agree. " The first part of round 2 will be the first CX time. Max 5 questions, and if you don't agree with that, add in what you feel should be the proper amount of questions at the end of the 1AC. The second part of round 2 will be the answers to those CX questions. The first part of round 3 will be the 1NC. The second part of round 3 will be the CX questions. Again, 5 questions max. The first part of round 4 will be the answers to those CX questions. The second part of round 4 will be the 1AR. The first part of round 5 will be the 2NR. The second part of round 5 will be the 2AR. When placing cards, write out the tag as usual. When placing the actual cards, just type in what you would say if you were in a real LD debate. If there's any questions, comment. Good luck to my opponent.
A Ban is an Act of War.

I am not an authoritative figure, I have neither the inclination or the means to enforce any ban presented. (This is part of what I was aiming to raise for this round)However for the purpose of the argument, and at your request, I will tell you my Answer - And do not judge, I asked 2 days ago if there were any restrictions to your request. The only thing I would ban on this earth - Is to ban the perception that all Bans are done to affect *YOU*. I say the above with "you" to not mean my opponent, but to instead aim at the person reading the "ban" directly. The purposes of 'Bans' are to assist with an authoritative figures' regime, or to assist with safety or sanitary crisis's as they arise. If a government were to ban the use, sales and storage of fossil fuels, the likely reasons for this occurring as due to the effects it causes on Global warming (Exhaust emissions); It could be due to the fact that it is a finite resource, and the fuel is required to ensure our freight and goods transport are kept alive (thus keeping our ecosystems functioning). However each 'average joe' citizen will instead look at it that "the man is trying to hold me down" - or that they just want to take all the fun away (Just before they go out for a weekend cruise and use 100L of Fuel). If people were to step back and objectively look at the reason the ban was placed in the first place, the majority of the time, all will agree that it is 'for the best'. In pre-emptively striking at your counter-claim - If someone were to put a nonsensical ban on, such as "No putting your caps backwards" or issue an edict to remove all pinky toes from the male half of society - Then this is not a problem with Bans, but a defective leader, Which would be dealt with by replacing the offending party - This in no way affects the argument on Bans being used to assist - but proves that it is fallible to greed/corruption/power. In conclusion, I believe I have effectively defending the validity of Bans, and answered Pro's request on Bans. I have shown that while Bans have been shown to be abused in the past, this is at the originator of the bans' fault - as Bans are simply concepts, that are used by humans.
A Ban is an Act of War.

Hello. Thank you for this Debate. I will be maintaining that banning something does not refer to it as an act of War. For the purposes of clearing miscommunication, I will provide my understanding of the subject. Act of War (To be shortened to AoW) - Any action (Generally regarded within governments/corporations) between 2 parties, where the instigator of the action, intended for hostilities to occur as a result of their original action. These actions are usually pre-meditated, and have not had a focal point to cause these decisions (It is not a reaction to another's actions). Eg. Raiding nearby settlements, destroying livelihoods of an opposing party. Banning or Ban : To prohibit the use, or restrict access to specific points, Usually created by an authoritative figure to their 'subjects'. My stance on the matter is that generally when a Ban is imposed, it is for a specific reason - So for one to consider this as an 'act of war', is purely subjective - YOU think it is an AoW - This does not make it fact. I have other defenses here, However that is my main point I wish to push across.
A Ban is an Act of War.

Omitting*Severely disappointed by Pro here.I made one mention of global warming, within the context of an example no less, and yet this is enough for the debate to be dropped by my opponent, no new points raised, and the assumption that I am a 'global wamist' (I believe there are better terminologies to describe someone who believes in global warming). Perhaps focusing on my debate point here instead of two 'trigger words' used in my round, ironically i have had little inclination to read your first debate, so unfortunatley i was unaware of your struggles, so sorry to not be aware of this beforehand, i would have used a different example.Regardless I still maintain my position as per my previous round - as this has not been refuted by my opponent here, it is accepted by omission.My advice for my opponent in the future - don't take an example literally - because it is literally an example....
Barack Obama will be re-elected if he faces the current GOP candidates one on one

Ok then I will take this. Don't worry I will not troll this one and I will really debate with you fairly. First off I don't agree with this people that are running vs Obama. They all have there flaws and are not the best people to run for office but you said in you're debate that Obama will be re elected if he faces the GOP candidates one on one. I only have to prove to you that he will lose if he faces these guys. Good luck.
Barack Obama will be re-elected if he faces the current GOP candidates one on one

.. .. . The Second was accepted by another troll so ill try this one last time. .. .. .I believe that Barack Obama will be re-elected president because overall he is a better campaigner and a better overall candidate than any individual out of the current GOP candidates. Every current candidate in the GOP has some fatal flaw or fatal quality that I believe would cost them the presidential election if they were to go one-on-one against Barack Obama in the 2012 campaign for the presidencyThe Con must simply offer evidence against this, I encourage a creative counter-argument :)Con may also use the first round to state his arguments, or if they choose to they can simply accept the debate and wait until the second round to state their arguments. There are 5 rounds and a 8000 character limit so there will be plenty of debating. This argument is based on the one condition that no new Republican candidates enter the field for president. .. .. .. I dont want to end up in a debate where the Con is going to argue that Palin or Donald Trump will join the race and they would beat Obama, for fairness the Con may only argue for the CURRENT GOP candidates, they include,Mitt RomneyRick PerryMichele BachmannHerman CainIf you really want to you may also argue forNewt GingrichRon PaulRick SantorumJohn HuntsmanIf you accept this argument please post some legitamite arguments, dont just troll and rant
Barack Obama will be re-elected if he faces the current GOP candidates one on one

1) Obama has announced plans to begin the final stages of withdrawing troops from Iraq, one of the longest wars in US history that even today is still very unpopular among troops and voters. The ending of a war may bring him approval from voters for finally ending the costly war. 2) The recession is starting to heal since Obama took office, unemployment is decreasing at a steady (slow as hell but steady) rate and if the numbers continue to go down over the next year as the election heats up the people may notice the improvement and support him in the election. 3) Early in his presidency he signed an agreement with Russia to cut the nuclear stockpiles of both nations in half over time. This would be very appealing to peace lovers who, along with his withdrawal of troops from Iraq, may come out to support him when the time for voting comes. 4) Obama did authorize the mission to take out Osama Bin Laden which was a great victory for the United States. With his death and the continuing pressure against Al Qaeda we could also see the close of the war in Afghanistan which would please peace lovers as well. Also Obama's role in US involvement in the Libyan Civil War was very well played because he kept US troops from being deployed into another distant conflict but he did donate resources which helped take down one of the most notorious dictators in the world. Gaddafi's death will also bring us closer to world peace which again would bring peace lovers to support him. 5) I really, really, really hate to say this but Obama's ethnicity could possibly gather support from African American voters in the next election which could boost his numbers. 6) Lastly Obama showed during the debt ceiling debacle that he is willing to work with the Republicans and make cuts to programs he favors if it helps remedy the debt situation. Such actions may appeal to independent voters who want the 2 parties to work together because so far almost all of the current GOP candidates have shown their disapproval of Obama and all of his policies. .. .
Tunak Tunak Tun

Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Dholna vajje tumbe vaali taar Sun dil di pukaar Aaja kar layieh pyaar Sweetheart, the strings of the instrument play Listen to what the heart says Come and love me Come and love me Come and love me Come and love me Dholna Sweetheart Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Duniya yaara rang birangi Na eh bheri na eh changi The world is a colorful place It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad Sun yaara bole ik taya Mehndi da yaara Listen friends the iktaara" says Mehndi's friends Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Dholna kadeh mere nal hass Mainu dil valli dass Nahin taan teri meri bass Sweetheart, come smile with me sometimes My heart's keeper (lover) look This body is not under your or my control This body is not under your or my control This body is not under your or my control This body is not under your or my control Dholna Sweetheart Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Duniya yaara rang birangi Na eh bheri na eh changi The world is a colorful place It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad It's not good nor bad Sun yaara bole ik taya Mehndi da yaara Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Dholna tu chann mein chakor Sadde varga na hor Rab hath saddi dor Sweetheart, you are moon and I am chakor" There no one like us Our threads of life is in the hands of god Our threads of life is in the hands of god Our threads of life is in the hands of god Our threads of life is in the hands of god Dholna Sweetheart Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Duniya yaara rang birangi Na eh bheri na eh changi Na eh bheri na eh changi Na eh bheri na eh changi Na eh bheri na eh changi Sun yaara bole ik taya Mehndi da yaara Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da
Tunak Tunak Tun

Dholna vajje tumbe vaali taar Sun dil di pukaar Aaja kar layieh pyaar Sweetheart, the strings of the instrument play Listen to what the heart says Come and love me Come and love me Come and love me Come and love me Dholna Sweetheart Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Tunak tunak tun Da da da
The 1992 Dream Team would defeat the 2012 Team USA.

1. Yes, Team USA would have difficulty guarding Jordan, however he cannot carry a whole team while his teammates are being guarded against lock up defenders such as Lebron, Iguodala, Chris Paul, and Westbrook on wings. While people like Tyson Chandler would protect the rim. Jordan would give them 30 in a loss due to his teammates beings locked up or slowed down. 2. Now who would lock Kobe and Lebron up? Kobe has already proven he can score on Jordan, and Lebron was and still is a freak of nature. If he wants to get to the rim, he won't have much difficulty unless he is getting fouled or help side defense comes over. And in that case, Lebron would dish the ball out with his superb passing to another efficient offensive scorer such as Kevin Love or Durant for the 3. 3. Yes, The Dream Team would likely outbound 2012 USA Team, however guys like Tyson in 2012 were an absolute force on the boards, so it's nothing to joke about. And Lebron would compete with Barkley for boards easily as I believe 2012 Lebron is just as strong as Dream Team Barkley. It'd be tough, but with the effective offensive scorers 2012 has, they wouldn't have much need for offensive boards. 4. How are the Dream Team better defenders? If we are playing by today's rules, 2012 are easily better defenders. Like I said earlier, Andre, Lebron, Chris Paul, Westbrook, Tyson, and Kevin Durant would have no extraordinary issues guarding anyone aside from MJ. 5. How does the Dream Team have more offensive firepower when the 2012 Team averaged more points with individual players? Very slight numbers, but still a fact is a fact. So you're wrong here. 6. So Team 2012 has no depth? Only KD, Lebron, and Kobe? Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Westbrook were all killing the 1 position that year. Harden began becoming an outstanding scorer, Iggy would do the dirty work, and still be an efficient scorer, Melo was killing it offensively when he came to New York, and Kevin Love was doing his thing. The 2012 Team has way too many weapons offensively that the Dream Team would know how to ever guard. Yet they are still great wing defenders and can protect the paint.
The 1992 Dream Team would defeat the 2012 Team USA.

Rules: 1. You must be for Team USA winning the game. 2. This is a one game match, not a seven game series. 3. All players are at the talent levels that they were in the respective years that the teams came into existence; the players are not necessarily in their primes. I believe that the Dream Team from 1992 would defeat the Team USA from 2012 for several reasons. 1. Team USA cannot stop Michael Jordan no matter who guards him. 2. Kobe and LeBron will be effectively shut down. 3. The Dream Team will be able to outrebound Team USA. 4. The Dream Team are much better defenders than Team USA. 5. The Dream Team has much more firepower in their offense than Team USA does. 6. I understand that this could be a big 3 match between Magic, MJ, Bird, and Kobe, LeBron, and KD, but excluding those big 3's, the Dream Team has a lot more depth than Team USA does. With these reasons and many more, the Dream Team will effectively defeat Team USA.
The 1992 Dream Team would defeat the 2012 Team USA.

Unfortunate you had to forfeit. But just to add something. I think you're being biased because you eventually knew what these players became. For example, you used the fact that they are mostly HOF against 2012 team. But how is that fair when their careers aren't over yet? And you keep asking me about their futures. Truth is no one knows. So you should base it completely over that year and that year alone.