BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

I will address my opponents arguments then introduce my own. Contention 1: It is true that humans have not explored more than 4% of the entire universe, however what HAS been explored has been the parts of the universe immediately surrounding our own solar system and beyond it. Seeing as how we have yet to find even signs of bacteria in nearby solar systems (nearby being about 4 light years to 12 light years away)http://www.astro.wisc.edu...So if bacterial life did exist outside of Earth, it would already be many light years away, but if a very advanced intelligent life form exist, it would be infinitely times farther away from Earth, possibly on the other side of the galaxy.... If they exist. Contention 2: If aliens do exist (which has not been proven yet) it doesnt necessarily mean they are far more intelligent then we are. Dolphins are considered intelligent life forms but it there is an alien life form similar to dolphins, they could still just be fish.... If there were to be any alien life form out there the odds that they are of equal intelligence of us is slim, and the odds they are of greater intelligence than us is much much smaller. The ratio of intelligent species on Earth compared to ALL species (including bacterias, insects, etc.) is so small that statistically it is equal to zero. Contention 3: The Pro's argument that there could be an alien mothership hovering above Earth is that according to Wikipedia, it is logical.....If we agree that this is a mothership, not a normal spaceship a huge mothership, then how come we have not found it yet? a simple spaceship would have to be of large enough size to travel long distances across the universe. But a mothership compared to an ordinary spaceship would be the equivalent of a fighterplane compared to the aircraft carrier it is located on. My point is if there is a mothership, then it must be of a very large size since it is by definition a mothership. Now if there is indeed a mothership floating above Earth right now, how come we havent found it yet? the US alone has hundreds of tactics ranging from observatories to satelite systems to defense weapons used to try to detect a nuclear launch in space........... so how would we miss an alien mothership floating in Earth orbit? it would be fairly easy to find considering its size and with all the eyes pointed upwards towards the sky. MAIN COUNTERPOINTYour sole explanation for why this is possible is that there is no logical contradiction to there NOT being one there. But if the US, and the rest of the world, is constantly monitoring its own orbit, then how come we havent found anything? If it is there it would have been spotted, but it has not been spotted, therefore it cannot be there....
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

Contention 1: It has not been proved that aliens don't existWe have hardly began to explore the universe, and to declare that aliens don't exist would be premature. As such there is insufficient evidence to claim that aliens don't exist. Contention 2: Its possible that aliens have advanced technology/abilities compared to humansThere is no evidence that aliens don't have advanced abilities like space travel and cloaking devices. Contention 3: There is no logical contradiction in the claim that an alien mothership is hovering above the earth Wikipedia explains. .. "A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true" [1]Conclusion: Therefore its possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earthI look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Its Possible that there is an alien mothership hovering above earth

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!DefinitionsAliens = Extraterrestrial life (from the Latin words: extra ("beyond", or "not of") and‎ terrestris ("of or belonging to Earth")) is defined as life that does not originate from Earth. Mothership = A vessle of some sort that is used to travel through space by aliens.Earth = Earth (or the Earth) is the third planet from the Sun, and thedensest and fifth-largest of the eight planets in the Solar System.Possible = A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction. This is to say that a proposition is logically possible if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!
Disarm Nukes TODAY!!!

Just two weapons of yields not in use by any country today (having gone for even heavier loads) were enough to vaporize two cities, kill 266,000 people and convinced a fanatical country ready to die to surrender without a single invader setting foot on Japanese ground. The US could have simply stopped producing nuclear arms at this point, but because of the USSR, they simply built on. And the USSR, wanting to not be left behind, built their own, and then the UK, and France, and China, and India, and now Pakistan, South Africa and North Korea. Over 2500 nuclear tests were conducted, with many launching multiple warheads. World wide radiation levels are massively increased as a result, and Fukushima and Chernobyl greatly contributed to this and made large areas of land uninhabitable, forcing over 100,000 people to relocate. In 2000 there were 32,000 nuclear devices ready to fire. Now this is down to 22,000, but the others can be easily rearmed and detonated if we went to war. A 4 megaton weapon (mid-sized today) would vaporize most cities and the surrounding areas. A 5 megaton device unleashed on London would send fallout flying halfway thought the UK. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear terrorism has become a lot more easier. If we do not do something today, it is only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is detonated on our home soil. Sources: Federation of American Scientists, Wikipedia, guardian. co. uk
Disarm Nukes TODAY!!!

I believe that nuclear weapons should be abolished today. Not slowly over a period of time, but NOW, as a matter of urgency. As I'm sure many people are aware, the recent rocket launch by North Korea has the world, mainly the US, South Korea, and Japan on edge. Although it is claimed by the North that the test was an attempt to place a weather satellite in orbit, many experts have come to the conclusion that it was an experimental launch of a new nuclear capable delivery system. This has grave implications. although the test was a total failure, it shows the world that there is another state ready to be a big-time player. A country would need just 1/12 of the US's nukes to kill everything on Earth. In my opinion, if no one had nukes, then no one would try to develop them. !
Metaethical Moral Relativism versus Sam Harris

Ah, brilliant! This is a great debate. Now without further adieu... I feel my response to the first and third rebuttal points need to be linked as they do correlate. I'll defend my statements and attack your statements on both issues simultaneously. It seems right to start with the third rebuttal as it is highly important to understand why or why not to value sentient beings before determining why a good life or bad life is perceived or proven. To respond to the analogy you provided, I find the movie idea curious. It would seem that it directly implies a universal judge to perceive what good and bad movies are like before seeing each movie to determine if it was good or bad. Obviously, I don't equate humans to a deity, but it would fit the analogy. After one dies, without a universal perceiver he will no longer be perceived at some point. It's true that some people carry their names through history, but what affect does it have? It merely perpetuates useless triumph or failure into someone else's life. Ultimately we all have a (perceptually) bad outcome: death. It is significant that we die. Now as to the relevance of ultimate suffering as the worst possible universe. Now to our perception this seems a very odd thing for me to even come close to attacking, but it is very simple. The argument means to apply a blanket statement of good and bad to ultimate extremes. If literally everyone in a universe was suffering to the greatest extent, what value would there in a "good life" regarding their perceptions? They would not have a perception of good, and therefore what we would call bad they would call good. Now to me a worse universe would be one where not everyone is suffering so there is a perception or at least general idea of a good life as opposed to the bad lives most people have. Now this means the bad life ultimately can't even be a universal bad as the worse universe includes a good life. So how can one universally perceive good and bad lives? We can't. To respond to your second rebuttal, I feel I've sufficiently attacked the good and bad life ideas in my last post. I would like to say, however, your last sentence in this did legitimately make me laugh. The way I said it in my head was funny at least. You make a good point with it, but it was still somewhat funny. At any rate, I tip my hat to you again TrueScotsman. This has been a great debate, and I'm sure your last argument will be just as good as the others. Now I leave it up to you and the voters to finish this debate off.
Metaethical Moral Relativism versus Sam Harris

I expect this to be a good debate on two secular methods of determining moral truths (philosophies). For any viewers, the argument premise is a debate concerning epistemological justification for a philosophy to determine morality, whereas God is not involved. Seeing as there is no need for an acceptance round I will move straight on to my main points. I will first of all define Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR) as, "The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons. " That definition is from . http://plato.stanford.edu... section 2. My secular philosophy, in case it is not obvious enough, is MMR. I pick it because there is no ultimate way to determine a moral system where God is not concerned. Morals must have some sort of ultimate goal to reach or some sort of point behind them. One might argue that there are immediate consequences to every action, but then the question becomes, "which consequences are good and which are bad? " Naturally, we'd tend to stress that extending human life is a moral good, unless one is a radical nihilist, which believes in destruction due to the fact that without God there's no point in life. I argue that proof of either one is impossible for two reasons: There is no universal entity to create universal morals: In order for an idea to be universally applicable, the idea has to come from an entity to create such ideas. Thus morals without such an entity are based on perceptions. There is no universal entity to judge of these actions: If no entity can universally judge the actions, then why can we decide what actions are moral and which are not? It's impossible. I will use an analogy of a society. Society without a government has no ability to create or enforce laws. The people who see themselves as leaders may decide on a few things being good or bad, but who applies that and judges everyone? There is no one. I will also argue that actions have no ultimate consequence: We know that eventually the earth will die due to the theory of entropy and information, which states that all energy and matter is headed toward a state of ultimate disorder. Also using first law of thermodynamics, since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, there is no way the earth could be self sustaining for eternity. Eventually it will run itself dry. So yes, if God doesn't exist our world is doomed already. Therefore any goals towards creating the best humanity possible are to no avail. They neither bear no ultimate consequence nor any value concerning good or bad. In conclusion: There can be no morality in a secular philosophy. I choose MMR because it most accurately fits the reality, whereas, it is given that God does not exist.
America went to the moon

Well, in my closing statements I would like to point out a few things. No evidence whatsoeverMy opponent has continued to talk about things without providing any evidence. How are we supposed to know the Chang 2 lunar probe found this if she does not have any back up. Once again, "One who asserts must prove" My opponent has proven nothing to in this debate round, just here opinionsNASA stunning photos are not so stunningOne of the major photos shown in the 40th anniversary is the picture of earth from the moon. You can that pic here (. http://www.nasa.gov...) Stunning right? Not really. Where are the stars? ?? I mean not a SINGLE star. If they really went to the moon, why don't the pictures match up? It is because it was filmed in a studio. People would have noticed that the stars weren't where they were supposed to be so they left the stars out. . http://listverse.com...;Silence is concession once againMy opponent has dropped many arguments in the last round, Van Allen, fake rocks, non existent wind yet the flag is waving. We haven't seen responses for these and so the Con wins all those arguments and therefore the debate falls to the Con.
America went to the moon

The Lunar landings have been spotted by China"s Chang"e 2 lunar probe, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe, and various other independent (non NASA-funded) space agent. To celebrate the 40th anniversary of the landings NASA put together a series of remastered images and footage of the Apollo 11 mission. The images are stunning, and blow away the age-old criticism that the Apollo footage was somehow intentionally bad to obscure the fact it was filmed in a studio.
America went to the moon

Radiation beltsIf you go back and read the article I sited, the astronauts spent an hour and a half in this radiation belt. This proves my point, I have evidence to back up my statements, she has nothing. If you still don't believe me though, let's take a look at what NASA itself has to say about the Van Allen radiation belt. Nasa admits it could not go through the radiation beltNASA itself has admitted that it could not send a human being through the radiation belt without this human being fried or incapacitated. This simply proves everything that I have stated in this round. We have professionals and even NASA backing my argument while my opponent still has no one ;Rocks were fakeOnce again, my opponent counters articles with opinions. "One who asserts must prove. " My opponent has asserted much this debate round but hasn't proven it. She still hasn't shown where all the moon rocks are, and the moon that we do know where they are, are fake. She talked about getting a fusion crust, but all a scientist would have to do is determine what makes up a moon rock. There are four main ingredients (plagioclase feldspar, pyroxene, olivine,and ilmenite) which were not found in the rocks brought back. . http://meteorites.wustl.edu...;Silence is concessionFinally, in a debate round, silence is concession. My opponent has failed to talk about the anti gravity scenario whch she brought up and I refuted in round 1. She has still failed to bring up sources and talk about where the moon rocks even are. Finally, she did not even address the flag flowing in the non-existent breeze. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, if she fails to prove any of these points by the end of the debate, the Con wins the round.
America went to the moon

The only time humans have crossed through the Van Allen belts was during the Apollo missions to the moon. The Apollo vehicles were traveling quite fast and only spent about 15 minutes in the most dangerous region and less than an hour total in the belts (each way). Their total exposure within the Van Allen belts during each leg of the journey was about 13 Rads and their shielding absorbed/deflected most of that. The Apollo crews experienced between 0.16-1.14 Rads during their mission. My opponent claim that all the moon rocks were fake. They say "Some are just meteorites collected from Antarctica" others say "They were created in a Nuclear Laboratory." or even "Did you know only NASA people are allowed to study the moon rocks?" This is about all they say on the matter.Every meteorite has a 'fusion crust' around it that developed on its fiery journey through the Earth's atmosphere. None of the moon rock samples have a fusion crust. They therefore cannot be meteorites. If they were then why can't anybody produce a meteorite rock today that is chemically & structurally identical to a Apollo Moon Rock sample?The samples have been examined by thousands of geologists and chemists around the globe. Not one has cried "Fake" ever!
America went to the moon

So for the first I will use it as an acceptance. I will also briefly touch on the points talked about by my opponent. Finally, I will add just a few constructive points.So according to my opponent, the proof is in the dust. This actually is not entirely true. I will give you one scenario which could be created here on earth that would allow this.The Anti-Gravity ScenarioIt is very possible for to create an anti-gravity scenario. NASA has done it plenty of times, and it could be reproduced to provide this effect on the dust as well as the wheel off the ground. Secondly she touched on the rocks and I have three main responses, first off:Where are the rocks?It is very interesting that these "moon rocks" have disappeared except a few of them. We had over 350 rocks which we supposedly distributed to countries, but now no one has any idea where they are? This is very suspicious especially since the moon mission was very important to the US. http://abcnews.go.com...No sourceMy opponent claims that these rocks are universally declared extra-terrestrial. My first question to her is where is your source. She claims that they are universally recognized as extra-terrestrial, yet we have nothing to go off of. Maybe she claims that they are extra-terrestial herself but until we have professional evidence, this argument must be thrown out.Fake rocksThe funny thing is, the few rocks that we do know the whereabouts of, have been labeled as FAKE. Let's take a look at the moon rock that was given to Holland by Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong. The supposed moon rock was declared by scientists to be fake. This is a clear example of how the mission to the moon was fake.Now that the refutation is done, we will look at two specific reason why the moon landing was a hoax.The American flag flutters in the non-existent windOne of the most famous photos of the moon the American flag next to the astronaut. But something is wrong. The American flag is in a breeze, and there is NO breeze on the moon. To check out the photo, click on this link. This is just one way of proving the moon landing hoax http://www.enkivillage.com... Van Allen Radiation BeltIn order to get to the moon, the astronauts would have had to cross the Van Allen radiation belt. This would have cooked everyone of those astronauts on that spaceship. But what makes it even more suspicious is that they were not in the radiation belt for a few minutes, it was an hour and a half. This would have killed every last one of them. http://listverse.com...; So in this round, not only did I refute both her points, but I also added two of my own which I hope will be refuted in the next speech. I eagerly await my opponent's response
America went to the moon

One reason that we can prove that we really did land on the moon is the proof in the dust. In the video of Apollo 16 the astronauts are riding a moon rover and the dust that comes up from the tire is floating something that could not happen if it was being videoed on earth. Also the Rocks that were collected on the moon Rock Samples Are Universally Acknowledged As Being Non-Terrestrial. Which means they had to come from the moon.
Youth rights (Youth meaning 16-21)

Ah, Pro has left the building. Too bad. My arguments stand unrefuted, and he should lose Conduct for the forfeit.I am sympathetic to Pro's notion, insofar that some young people ought to receive more privileges. I thin the error is in supposing that age alone should be the qualifier. During the debate I suggested a driving simulator that posed dangerous situations demanding good judgment. Some young people could pass them, most could not. ... and some older people couldn't pass them. Another approach is to license 16 year-olds on scooters and low powered motorcycles. That gets the job done, but poses minimal hazards to others. There is a strange new three-wheeled vehicle with two wheels in front that might serve in places that get snow and ice, unsafe for two wheels.I'm suggesting that the right avenue is to be more specific and rely on cost/benefit analysis.I hope readers find the debate interesting. I thought it was good while it lasted.
The Tyranids from Warhammer best the Zerg from StarCraft in any sense

I'm going to go over a few reasons why the Zerg would win. Adaptation: The Zerg are genetically modified organisms. Given the thousands of climates that they have seen and conquered, there can be no doubt as to there capabilities. The Tyranid can emphasize a certain trait, but they can't add new traits to existing specimens (or that's how I understad it). If the Zerg get one Tyranid specimen, the Tyranids will not only be assimilated, but whatever weaknesses they have will be removed and subsequently exploited. In addition to this, the Zerg have Abathur. He will guide the evolution of the Zerg and give them exactly what they need to exploit the Tyranids. Communication: Both the Zerg and the Tyranid rely on psychic/psionic communication. For the Zerg they have Queens and Cerebrates. Cerebrates are effectively immortal unless you have access to Dark Templar Energy. Cerebrates are basically very large brains. They are few in number, yet they had the potential to command literally every single unit in the Swarm. (Imagine if a few more were cranked out!) Queens are capable of commanding huge swarms of Zerg via Overlords. After this, they still have a huge amount of extra psionic potential. It wouldn't take much work to have them harness this and take over a large portion of Tyranid forces without budging an inch. This isn't even taking into account Kerrigan. As has been noted, she is the most powerful being in the Starcraft universe. I'm going to go by pre-ascension Kerrigan, otherwise this isn't a fair fight. Anyways, she can take over any being with her psionic prowess (with maybe the exception of the Protoss). Quick Sidenote: The Tyranid couldn't surprise the Zerg due to their immense psionic presence. Primal Zerg: The Primal Zerg are Zerg that were left behind before the Overmind enslaved every individual Zerg. These Primal Zerg, being incredibly powerful and adaptive, can literally eat one small Tyranid, get whatever power it had, and grow stronger in battle. An endless swarm of Tyranids would only help them. Creep: Creep is the only semi-vegitative life form on every Zerg controlled planet. The spores of the Tyranid would have no effect on them, except to tip off the Zerg as to what's going on.
The Tyranids from Warhammer best the Zerg from StarCraft in any sense

A friendly and fun little debate for fans of the either the StarCraft and Warhammer 40k universe. Debate is simple, I will be arguing for the side of the Tyranids, my opponent for the side of the Zerg. Evidence and arguments will be presented at any point in the debate, the end goal is to prove how and why the chosen race is better than the other. Be it if they fought or how, the way they are produced, their goal, etc. All we have to do is prove why one is better than the other. First round is for acceptance all following rounds are free game so long as you defend and attack arguments based on the topic. If definitions are required, please specify what needs to be defined in the comments, if no one has taken the spot that is.