BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Will we never be contact/contact Aliens.

Alright, sorry I took so long. Been busy lately.. Nevertheless,Let's get on with it.In today's debate round, I will point out flaws that were present in side pros speech while also presenting only one argument of mine:1. How history has proved to us that we can explore the boundaries of space.Rebuttals.The whole of side pros arguments were based on two main principles and I will justify today why these two principles are ultimately flawed. 1. Aliens must be suited to human-like needs. Side pro raised the blatant assumption that aliens can only live in an environment where they are suited to human needs. Therefore, they are humans and can only live in a place which is suitable for humans, thus Earth itself. 2 responses.1. No, aliens do not need to be suited to humans. What makes you say that they are humans and need to live in a place where humans live. These are aliens, not humans. Aliens are extraterrestrial beings that we have not met before. They may come in other forms that can suit them in their planet. It's an arbitrary claim to say that aliens are humans in the first place.2. Even if humans and aliens needed to be the same, that does not mean there aren't other planets like us. Because, in fact, there is. Kepler 22-b and many other planets that do look like us and are considered places we might have to go to in the event that our planet gets destroyed. [1] 2. Restrictions to space that restrict us from meeting aliens.Next, side pro presented us with restrictions in general space that disables us from meeting aliens because it's impossible for pros eyes. I will address this argument fully in my main argument for today.Argument.1. How history has shown us that we can explore the boundaries of space.Throughout history, it has been continually proved that we humanity in general have progressed to such an extent where whatever we believe was impossible is continually getting possible. Simple ideas like whether humans can fly have constantly been deemed as impossible in the past. Nevertheless, after tumultuous and effective human progression, we have reached the conclusion where humanity will always progress and new inventions will always be made. Experiments like the one being conducted with the Mars rover intending to terraform the planet in the 2020's are experiments that are continually being progressive and a step towards meeting or contacting aliens. It is very flawed to claim that our meeting of aliens will be tangibly stopped by the fact that there are restrictions which seem "impossible" but in the end will ultimately lead to our meeting with the aliens.Therefore, it is to my belief that, yes there are restrictions, but these restrictions can always be overcome by the progression of humanity and the constant proof that we have in history.Conclusion.In the end, side pro failed to provide me with any form of tangible principal flaws that exist under my paradigm. I have told you how aliens cannot just be limited to humans and also how these restrictions can always be overcome in the end. For all those reasons above, side opp wins.
Will we never be contact/contact Aliens.

Alright newbie Jk. Scientists always look for life, we have sonar and satellite telescopes. We can observe a small fraction of space but still in the range 20 Billion Planets. Not just regular planets but Earth-like planets. The problem is no life is on them. If life in space did exist, it would exist on a place like us. No intelligent life will ever form on Jupiter. Common sense. Earth ourselves are fantastically and super lucky to be basically perfect in tilt, size, gravity, moon are and size, and sun size and distance. The planet would very much like us, almost identical. If that is the case, with same gases in the atmosphere to the formation of dirt, rock, and water. If this planet existed it would probably be close to our age or probably older. If intelligent life came about this planet what would they look like? Like us. You nor anyone commit a mental picture of another intelligent life that would live on the same planet but ours. Nationality they will have too, we think for some reason the whole planet is united to kill us. Physics, and just the way life forms around a planet differ, from Labs to German Shepard, like from English to Germans. Aliens would not be united and we could see some nationalities similarity and differences. The whole point, if these Aliens were Humans, and even if they were 1 billion years older than us, they still could travel to other stars, why? Too far, not enough energy and can't create a worm hole because not possible on that scale. They will be like us stuck, sending stupid signals that take forever to complete you will never no. They will probably not care too much like we do, we could become obsessed and start worshiping them, no no. Conclusion, they're never coming.
freedom of speech ends at the school yard door

The freedom of speech goes past the school door. the only place were the freedom of speech is limited is the military. 1. Freedom of speech is encouraged at school to answer questions and give opinions. 2. students have the right to a conversation in the halls. I'm pretty sure everyone has there own conversation at lunch and in the halls. 3. Freedom of speech doesn't include profanity, if that is what you are getting at.
Zoos are good

I have been to many zoo's in my lifetime, Including the San Diego Zoo, San Diego Safari, Sacramento Zoo, and Sea World, so I have relevant experience in this topic. Anyways, to my argument and rebuttals. Zoos are institution where, traditionally, animals are kept for people to see them and be entertained by exotic animals that they would never see unless they traveled to the animal's natural habitat. However, zoos have changed in recent years, by putting focus on treating the animals humanely and conserving them from extinction. We can admit that humans have lead to the destruction of some natural habitats through expansion and creation of new cities. No matter how much we may resent this, it will continue to occur, as humans have a natural tendency to expand and grow in populace. Zoos can help with this problem by allowing members of a species to be retained and kept in controlled conditions where they can breed and survive. This wont stop habitat destruction, but can prevent some of the destructive effects of it. Also, Zoos are not as cruel to the animals as you think. Animals may be kept in small places, with no chance to roam free, but these animals would have a harder time surviving in the wild. In the wild, they would have to hunt or avoid being hunted to survive, all whilst enduring harsh climates, habitat destruction, food shortages, natural catastrophes, dependent population crashes, and the uncertainty of being able to survive. Animals in captivity can live a comfortable life, where they are given playmates, spouses, toys, adequate food, and shelter. Families of animals can still live together in zoos, while in the wild, families can be separated easily. Animals kept in captivity will likely be safe from threats they will have to live with in the wild. And now to refute my opponents arguments. My opponent says that zoochosis is a rising issues in zoos where animals act unnaturally from being kept in captivity. However, I can say that after reading up on it, I haven't seen any examples of zoochosis in all the times I visited several different zoos. Also, the zoochotic behavior can be prevented by zookeepers giving animals things to do in their exhibits, such as toys, other animals, and mental/physical exercises. My opponent also states that Orcas should be kept in the ocean, not small enclosures. Yet, when I went to sea world, I was amazed at how large the holding tank was for the orcas, and how friendly they where towards their trainer. The orcas also interacted with dolphins in one of the shows, which demonstrates that animals can interact with other species at zoos. Finally, my opponent says that animals are transferred inhumanely to zoos, but gives no evidence. I was willing to except the other portions of their argument, as I could find some support for both sides of those issues, but not for this one. I would again like to thank my opponent for bring up this topic, and hope that they respond to my argument. Sources: . https://www.theguardian.com... . http://www.allaboutwildlife.com... . https://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.wisegeek.org...
Evolution Did Not Happen

Good luck on your first debate and I hope that we can have a good debate. I will explain the science behind evolution and then I would like for you to try and explain what makes evolution highly unlikely.Because there of crossing over in meiosis of the cell cycle, independent assortment, and other heredity features in individuals, humans are increadibly diverse in terms of genetics. Another way that we humans are genetically diverse is that there are frequent mutations in our cells. This could be from anywhere from mistranscribing an amino acid sequence or a complication of mitosis or some other variant that caused a mutation. These mutations and genetic variations are very likely to have been happening for thousands of years for humans. The scientific theory of this is that when there is a mutation, it changes the individuals chances for survival. And via natural selection, individuals with mutations that help them survive make the individual more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes, which include the advantageous mutation. The main idea of the theory is that with the compilement of all these mutant genes, this causes a species to gradually change over time making them more likely to survive. That is the basic idea of what evolution is and there are many pieces of evidence that support this claim such as geographic isolation, the change in an organisms appearance over several generations, similarities in fossils, etc. This is why that I am a supporter, and I hope you will be too at the end of this debate, of the theory of evolution.
Evolution Did Not Happen

Hello all.I am happy to be engaging in my first debate on this awesome looking website, and I decided to debate on a topic I feel strongly about: evolution vs creation.I will be taking the position of Pro, as I believe that evolution did not happen as it is scientifically impossible or extremely unlikely.The first round will just be acceptance, and if in their first post would Con like to post their first argument.I would like this debate to stay friendly, so could the comments please be peaceful.If I am doing this wrong, feel free to let me know as this is my first debate :)Thanks.
Tv add

1: Pro has only fulfilled two out of three of the arguments I presented. He still has not clearly defined his terms, which are entirely subjective, and therefore make things confusing if he doesn't. He has also not explained why these advertisements are a problem, and what can fix them. 2: Pro has not shown that the Supreme Court of India has enough knowledge to make a decision of that nature. What credentials do they hold to make such a statement? 3: Pro has provided examples of three advertisements. Most definitions would not quantify this as showing that the majority of television ads are harmful. 4: Pro has not shown that these ads specifically have a negative effect on the human brain. He has shown that television can be harmful, but has not shown that these advertisements are harmful.
Tv add

According to supreme court of india, 'a tv show motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printend word.The ideas will have a strong impact on the minds of the viewers and can affect emotions. Therefore it has much potential for evil as it has for good and has an equal pottential to instill or cultivate violent or bad behavior.' Tv adds like, 'Tvs wego', 'clean and clear', ' vodafone latest' are such examples. These adds shows visuals, that will affect human minds badly. *Clean and clear- a girl makes heavy sound to wake up her friend from bed. That activity will affect the person's mind badly, it may also creates negetivity to that person whole day. *Vodafone- a small girl and boy are in conversation in a hidden place. a dog is stands to help them by not let others to pass by. This will tempt children to copy this. actually there is no need to children of that age to do that. *Tvs wego- two girls copeting eachother by showing sexual emotions with their partners. There is no connections between a bike and that.
Esports is a sport and should be in the Olympics

So, I see where you're coming from. ESports is growing at extreme rates, And will only continue to grow as time goes on. But, It doesn't belong in the Olympics. And I know it'll never be added to the Olympics. The points you bring up, Don't help your case what-so-ever. The fact is, The Olympics are for people who dedicated their entire lives to the sport they love. Even though eSports is technically a sport, I guess, That would defeat the whole purpose. There are already major tournaments for the games you listed. This is a tricky topic, Honestly. You can't back this up with facts. Whether you're with or against this. This is purely an opinion-based debate. And honestly, Only time will tell. Please provide some more information on why you believe adding eSports to the Olympics would be a good idea. What are the pros. Because honestly, Both you and I know there would be an extreme outrage and upset Olympic fans. Adding video games to the Olympics is basically like adding baseball to MLG.
Esports is a sport and should be in the Olympics

Agreed esports is a wide area. But so is track sports. On the point of some countries don't play a specific game: some countries don't play softball, But it's an Olympic sport. Games like CSGO, League, Dota. Have teams in every continent. And have structures, Rules and tournaments that run just fine. Just because a game has players on multiple platforms doesn't mean there aren't players for a specific platform. On the point that the Olympics is old and we should leave it alone: from the Wikipedia page of the Olympics: Two previously discontinued sports, Golf and rugby, Returned for the 2016 Summer Olympics. On August 13, 2009, The IOC Executive Board proposed that golf and rugby sevens be added to the Olympic program for the 2016 Games. [16] On 9 October 2009, During the 121st IOC Session in Copenhagen, The IOC voted to admit both sports as official Olympic sports and to include them in the 2016 Summer Olympics. [17] The IOC voted 81""8 in favor of including rugby sevens and 63""27 in favor of reinstating golf, Thus bringing the number of sports back to 28. [17] The games are constantly updated. New ones added and old ones removed. So no, We don't and should not leave the Olympics alone. If chess is considered an Olympic sport then why not other games?
Esports is a sport and should be in the Olympics

With all due respect, This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. The Olympics were created for people around the world to compete in their selected sports, As professionals. The Olympics have been around for ages. And with that being said, Let's just leave it alone. Things like video games is not something that should be brought into the Olympics simply because it's too wide. What I mean by that, Is not every country plays the same games. By the same rules. On the same consoles. I'm all for eSports. In-fact, I love video games I play them all the time. But eSports is not something that belongs in the Olympics, And never will be. I honestly don't see how you can argue this.
Debate.org user's need to rethink some things

The point of a debate is to not influence opinions, but prove one to be better than another. I can say being a Republican is better than being a Democrats, and argue with someone who disagrees. I'm not arguing to convert, but maintain the idea that Republicans are better than Democrats. If they sway that way due to my debate, then that's great, but it was not the intention of debate itself. You do not need to debate an issue because you believe in it, you debate just to debate. You fight on an issue because you believe on it simply because of faith in the ideal. If you like, say, God, then that's fine, but you can still debate that Satan is better than God, and your faith will remain the same, or visa versa. WHatever you debate on, its your choice, and does not define who you are, but how well you can defend the topic. If someone where to challenge me to debate on a subject I personally do not believe in, I'd still do it and try to do the best job I can. Will I change myself, or another because of it, maybe, maybe not. Probably I won't. But I still took the topic, and I'll still be who I am in the morning. If you have a strong debate, it would not be absurd to think people will "sway". But sway in what manner? Do you think that you could make an argument so great that a panel of judges, or in this case, the internet, will convert their own ideals? I can't do it. Perhaps a small audience will change their mind, or consider it. In which case, that is a stupendous achievement on my behalf, but if debates are chosen by what the people still believe when all things are said and done, most won't have a chance. The better argument has to be the method of determination. Say that I had to defend how the Earth is flat today. I could whip out quotes, stats, charts and so on. What would this prove? SImply that I can find quotes, stats, charts, and so on. Does this make my case better? No. But if my opponent says nothing, absolutely nothing, who presented and defended their side better? Who deserves to win? The Pro who is obviously defending a side that is not true and everyone knows it but did a great job trying, or the Con who said nothing but DID technically defend the side everyone believes and knows (in most cases) is right?
Debate.org user's need to rethink some things

But is that not the entire point of the debate? To change the person's feeling on an issue? If you believe in an issue, you fight for it. I would never think to choose a side of an arguement depending on which one would be easiest to win. If you have a strong enough argument, people will sway. You cannot ask people to look at how strong an arguement is instead of who you agree with. If the arguement is really that strong, you'll agree. That is basically what debating, or even preaching, speeches, etc are.
Debate.org user's need to rethink some things

Wow, I'm very surprised someone took this on. I actually did hope it might never be accepted so that it would always be in the challenges area for future debaters to read, rather than be lost in the archives. Oh well, hopefully enough people have read it. Any who... But debating is not about swaying. Debating is about making a better point. If you want to sway someone, then that is preaching. This is Debate.org, not Preach.com. If someone can prove a point better, even if it was disagreeable, then they are the winners of a debate. Whether or not someone's perspective actually changed in the process is just a plus. The Nazi made the better point, even if the majority of people don't agree, he still has the right to win the debate. Otherwise, every debate would be one sided, in accordance to the number of people who agree on the debate. If there are more republicans on the site, generally the pro's on the "Yes, We Need to Fight In Iraq" debates will win. If there are more Evolutionists on the site the "God Exists" con's will win the debates. In fact, from peoples comments, it seems many of my own debates would be losses if I had not proved my point better, as I tend to have slightly disagreeable topics to many. It is not fair for the debater who defends the less agreeable side if votes are determined by feelings rather than logic. Otherwise, the entire point of this site becomes null. And just as a clarification, my name is Darth_Grievous_42, not Grievo us. But you all can call me Darth for short.
Debate.org user's need to rethink some things

I'll debate you on this, it'll be fun. I believe that you are partially correct. Whoever provides the most swaying argument should win. You've got me there, but people will vote for who they agree with. As long as they have read the "neo-nazi" as you said, as long as they read that person's argument, I see no reason why they shouldn't vote for the Con who said, "Nu-uh". The nazi HAD his chance to sway people to believe his side. That is really what debating is isn't it? Taking people who agree, disagree, or have no opinion on your side of the debate. You want to keep the people who agree and sway the people who disagree or have no opinion. As long as they listen to me, I believe I had a fair debate. If the "nazi" really provided enough facts, figures, etc, then he would've won. "Who won the debate?" means "Who made you agree with them or kept you agreeing?"
Revenge porn should be criminalized.

Let me define what this is here: Revenge porn revealing or sexually explicit images or videos of a person posted on the Internet, typically by a former sexual partner, without the consent of the subject and in order to cause them distress or embarrassment. I will be taking the stance that it should not be criminalized, and should remain completely legal. R1: Acceptance R2: Opening Statements, no refuting opposing arguments R3&4: Rebuttals R5: Closing Arguments Cite sources if needed, remain respectful, have fun!
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Public - "WHAT IS ZARADI DOING!?!?! HE'S STARTING THREE DEBATES AT THE SAME TIME!? HE'S A MADMAN!!!"Yes, ladies and gents, now that Summer is upon us I decided to try to put my own effort into kick-starting the debate community again and do a bunch of debates! These will be open to anyone and everyone! First come first serve! If I get a forfeit I just remake it.The resolution this time is as stated:Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in needThis is an LD debate, so standard LD conventions (not necessarily standard LD cases) apply. Standard debate conventions also apply.THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL BEGIN FIRST IN THE FIRST ROUND. THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL POST "NO ROUND AS AGREED UPON" IN THE FINAL ROUND, TO MAINTAIN THE EVEN NUMBER OF ROUNDS.With that being said, GL HF TO MY OPPONENT.