BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

a couple decades ago, an argument was introduced in a notable physics journal of some kind, but I cannot recall the name of this argument, or the journal. I believe it might have been associated with Cambridge, but can't remember. The argument is a logical theory as to why the likelihood of ET life is very close to zero. I am wondering if anyone can help me remember the author/title/journal of this argument. This is as much a summary of the argument as I recall -- and I am seeking more details provided in the original article: The idea is that if *intelligent* life were possible elsewhere in the galaxy, then we'd have been aware of it a long time ago. That intelligent life would really only have to succeed on one other occasion to propagate throughout the galaxy by this present point in time. That the speed with which our own human life sprung up was so quick, that if it were easily developed elsewhere in the universe, it would have had many opportunities in the distant past to do so, of which at least one other species would have succeeded by now if it were possible. That it has not, or that we are not aware of any, suggests that either it has never happened, or has happened in a way in which we will never be aware. And that therefore our understanding of ET life is not likely to ever change. Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com...
Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

If you have payed any attention to Cryptozoology: the study of creatures that no one knows if they are real or not (http://en.wikipedia.org...), then you can see that there is some proof that aliens do exist. Although it is not fact, aliens, or anything other that's falls into the Cryptozoology section, are a reasonable judgement: they cant be proven true, but are supported with cold hard facts. I will explain more next round.
Animal Rights

Good evening. In lieu of opening arguments, I think it would be more appropriate to set parameters (and a topic) for this debate. Unfortunately, "Animal Rights" alone is too vague to have a solid argument on. I understand that as Pro, you are in favor of "Animal Rights", however there are no specifications as to which animal rights you feel should be preserved. Might I propose this topic: "Animals should be entitled to the same basic natural rights as humans." If you reject this statement, then I ask that you please substitute one with a similarly specific idea. This is YOUR debate, so I would hate to shift it to anything other than what you originally intended. Due to lack of idea, this is my official forfeiture OF THE FIRST ROUND, so that Pro may choose an adequate topic for me to argue in the second. I would like to present the opportunity to Pro for him to clarify his point, as well as defend it.
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Con fails to prove to us that the system doesn't get taken advantage of. Instead, he agreed that it does get taken advantage of and that "The poor steal from the rich". Con simply agrees that the system gets taken advantage of.You take my quotes out of context, in this arguement it is for you as the instigator to show me facts a figuers that prove your right as the burden of proof is on you and you have failed to do so. althought as a realist i did agree with you on very cirtane matters you have only said that charities that are privatly owned and have no gaurenteed funding will sort out the problem while showing me no sistics on how offten they succeed or fail. If poor people steal from the ritch they obviously dont do a very good job. my arguemnet is for such a small amount of money welfare does help alot of elderly disabled and children, your arguement is that the welfare system is taken advantage of and people should all go to univercity to get better jobs, yet you didnt show me proof that this would help anything, you dismissed my outsaucing and techinlogical agreement that we need welfare more than ever now because of outsaucing and machines that do the working class jobs, and the fact that their are less jobs now than ever, this you can not denny. My argument is that if you take away peoples welfare they will most cirtanly turn to crime as their arent enough jobs for the people on welfare to do. This si my first debate on this site so thank you very much Pro it has been fun.Vote con!!!
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

This round calls for conclusions. I have shared the voters with reasons why Welfare should be abolished, and how we should replace it. Con fails to negate my argument. For the most Part, Con agrees with most of the points I was making. Con fails to prove to us that the system doesn't get taken advantage of. Instead, he agreed that it does get taken advantage of and that "The poor steal from the rich". Con simply agrees that the system gets taken advantage of. Con doesn't provide any reliable sources or facts to prove *any* of his points. Instead, all of his arguments are based merely on his opinion. And Pro, I have sucesfully shown how the system gets taken advantage of, why, and how we can solve and replace it! Sorry for keeping this so short, but that really summarizes the debate. Thanks to Con for debating this with me! :)
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

What would happen to the poor if welfare was eliminated? What would happen is a small percentage of them would find employment with no medicare and most likely not making enough to support a family. We are also living in a technilogical revolution which is making it so machines can do alot of factory work that has employed people for generation, other job such as ones provided by GM motors, the biggest USA employer in untill the 1980s, have outsauced dew to globalisation. NY State Police-Malone said via WPTZ that those arrested were using their food stamp cards in a manner that was against the law.Well how canwe judge what the poor, desperate, mentally and phyically sick spend what little money they are given on? And to take the byass of a NY Police officer as fact without shedding light on the disabled and starving familys that feed themselfs with food stamps in NY everyday. If you need help with paying your rent or bills, including your electric or heating bills, you can look into the following local and national charities and non-profit organizations. Charity's are not as affective as the federal govourment and cannot be relied upon to support yourself and a family and take away small digneties which i believe everyone is entitled to but espesially the children and pentioners and the disabled who deserve it.
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Getting Rid of welfare would help very few, but it would harm many. Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare? Do you believe that it would help people on welfare find the motivation to find work? Study s show that an average person in the USA if missing two paychecks could be homeless. Without welfare their would be a lot more homeless people and alot more empty houses, to put it short homeless people don't do well in job interviews. Maybe your argument is favorable to the tax paying citizens? The average tax payer in the US pays $13,000 dollars anually in tax, 1,820 of that goes to welfare. This welfare helps the sick and keeps people from being so desperate that they kidnap the rich like they do in other countries with a large gap between the billionaires and the incredibly desperate. For example it happens 74 time a day in mexico and 91 times a day in Brazil, and if you make people desperate it will happen in the US aswell.
Welfare Should Be Abolished.

Resolved: Welfare Should Be Abolished. Definitions: Abolished: "formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)." Welfare: "A government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves." R1. Acceptance R2. Argument's/ Rebuttals from Con R3. Argument/Rebuttal's R4. Conclusion Sources; Abolish (https://www.google.com...) Welfare ( https://www.google.com...)
Legalize Cannabis

1. A census on 21 years and older, what does that prove? The China you know today is not the totalitarian worker's state that it was under Mao but an Authoritarian center for globalized cheap labor.2. Of course I am talking about a dictatorship I want to solve problems not compound them. Corporations can most definetly be defeated by the state, we do not live in a world were the corporations are all powerful. Furthermore even if corporations were immovable forces that does not make it right to bow before them so they can exploit marijuana just as they have many other substances.3. Activity is everything. The problem is there are so many among us that do not seek change or betterment of mankind. The only issues that matter are tolerance and economic perfection, the polls reflect it! There are so many forces in this world that restrict us from engaging in this struggle for a better tommorow, agian why would we want to add or increase another detremential factor?4. Well if we lived in a world were nothing mattered but pleasure and pain then I would stand beside you in a heartbeat.But there is more then just pleasure and pain we have virtue, ethics and morality. We must maximize virtue and seek a societythat has that.I am being kicked off the computer, I hope that was sufficentVote CONthank you my opponent for the fun and civility.
Legalize Cannabis

1. What we are dealing with here is a conflict between idealism and reality, and using the government to regulate harmful substances is a slippery slope! First I would like to add that I personally would not like to live in china! that is why I ignored your statement about the government successfully winning the war and because of the age group you mentioned. Find me the census on 21 years or older because I do not condone children smoking pot! 2. I feel that I am a responsible adult and can make decisions for myself! Addiction and health problems are indeed a concern, but where do we draw the line? Driving your car is both dangerous and addicting, football is dangerous and addicting, swimming, sun tanning.. etc The kind of control you are talking about comes from a dictatorship. (Any form of government works on paper until you add in people!) The flaw in your proposition is that I really don't see you taking down Phyllip-Morris or Budweiser! Although I do agree with you from an idealist perspective.. But in reality, it is a contradiction and marijuana is less harmful than a lot of things people love! 3. I do wish people were lazier, think of all the terrible things that happen when people get motivated. It may seem like a weak excuse at first but think about it, how much of our life is truly necessary? Drink water, Eat, sleep, poop, vitamins, exercise.. etc I think we complicate life with our obsession with being motivated! I think that thriving is far more important than getting things done! Now this better world you describe, I would say that if you met me, you would know how much I preach about how much we could accomplish if we could all set aside our differences, drop our daily comfort zone routines and create something amazing! But I am awakened by the realization that I am living in a chain of 7 billion, and its possible, this chain has about 2 billion weak links! 4.Again, the idealist in me is finding it hard to debate your logic, however the reason I pointed out "The thing you love" is because not everyone is like you.. there is something about you that is a part of the "consumer machine"! (Like having a job). despite our reasoning and foresight we are a creature of pleasure and pain, for some people pain is their pleasure! I have a hard time telling people what to do with their bodies until it harms me! Some people are obviously creepy and a danger to themselves and others, but that hardly describes people getting high from marijuana! 5.Cannibalism? Really? You are gonna have to be clear why you think eating human flesh and smoking weed are comparable! I would pull it way down the scale of danger to around drinking a red bull and scuba diving! You are also going to have to give me evidence for people smoking weed and hurting other people! No offence but, that was a poor analogy! 6.In conclusion, I think you have good moral values that parallel my own, However my extreme idealism involves having no government and complete freedom with education and understanding, not enforcement and incarceration!
Legalize Cannabis

1. Are you insinuating the penalty for distributing marijuana should be death? I don't understand your argument here because you are comparing opium to marijuana! Opium can kill you and long term affects wreak havoc on your bowels! The war on drugs is not my issue here! The war on marijuana is my concern! It is far more irresponsible and dangerous to drink and smoke cigarettes... where is the war on consumerism? Where is the war on everything that makes people fat and gives them diabetes! Why not outlaw energy drinks and fast food? The key here is moderation, self control, and education.. Not a Nanny slapping my hand when i'm going to make a "mistake"! The laws are very strict already, even more so than Drunk Driving in some cases! Putting people in prison for smoking weed is far more sinister than actually smoking it! 2. I made it very clear that "Health reasons" isn't gonna fly in this debate! If you are going to school and smoking marijuana your parents should be very angry seeing as how they are paying for you to get an education! I think that certain regulations can help to decrease marijuana use on our campus! Let the Schools regulate their own drug problem! I mean we tried the stick, it didn't work, now we can try the carrot (If you want to get an education you have to be clean) I wish people were lazier.. maybe dad would have been home more, maybe they will stop going to bars to get wasted on mixed drinks instead! 3.The government doesn't care about the detrimental effects of marijuana.. There is so much more to it that is has nothing to do with the drug itself! You would have to be insane not to see that this is about money! People have tried very hard to make marijuana the "Boogieman" since the late 30's! That campaign has not yielded despite the changing times... Hmmm someone is making money here! Think of how much money surrounds this "Plant"! Then think its not being taxed! Then think of Free Enterprise! Most importantly think Freedom! People hate what they do not understand, and want to destroy what they hate! Realize that sometimes that something you don't understand is something that somebody loves! If you try and take it away from them! They will find what you love and try to take it from you! btw that something you love could very well be worse than a plant!
Legalize Cannabis

Thank you, lets begin, I assume you mean to legalize the recreational use of Marijuana. 1. The war on Drugs can be won. 2. Recreational Cannabis is a substance that is harmful. 3. The Government's duty is to better society and protect the population. 1. The United States of America's policy has been working within the United States and the war on Drugs has worked in the past else where and ought to be stregnthened not weakened. "The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure. " http://www.cnbc.com... While it is true that we live in a culture that is tied with Marijauna and is to a large extent pro-marijauna I ask you to examine how China solved an equally wide spread problem with Opium. Opium was so widely used that is was causually smoked in Shanghai resturants and would be offered to guests as we today would offer a drink. Opium however was defeated. It was defeated by Mao Tse-Dong's government policies. The punishment was Opium was death, smugglers faced death and enforcement was absolute. This resulted in an end to Chinese Opium culture and nearly all Opium use. http://revcom.us... If we applied similiar policies here we could liberate our country from Marijuana use just as Chairman Mao had done to China! 2.Also it is universally known the effects of Recreational Marijuana are negative to society. It's purpose is indeed purely recreational, It is no secret that Marijuana use makes one lazy, irattional and habitual use in some can lead to decreased achievement in school and work and to some we know it is certianly a gateway. It is equally negative in the same matter as Alchohol which is universally accepted to lead to a lower quality of life in users that consume too greatly. I would not dare to debate the obvious health benifits but the detremental social effects are equally as prevalent. 3. Since government has the power to assist in liberating people from the detrimental social affects of marijuana and the purpose of the government is to protect the populace and improve society then it is absolutly logical that we ought to keep Marijuana illegal and further fund programs of irradiation and punishment to keep our generations and all future generations safe from such elements.
Legalize Cannabis

I don't really believe that marijuana is illegal for health reasons, or addiction! I don't believe that pot is any more dangerous than most products that are readily available! Without going into my argument against the Pharmaceutical companies or the alcohol and tobacco industries, I have to point out the amount of harmful substances that are mainstream and extremely addicting that cause serious health conditions! Sugar is the wolf in sheep's clothing while cannabis is the sheep in wolves clothing! Preservatives are in almost everything and even meat has been known to increase tumor growth! The cotton industry along with the tobacco industry forced out marijuana (competition) with propaganda and dogma surrounding the plant to stir up a malicious campaign against Hemp and Marijuana! If you watch refer madness now its good for a laugh, but back then it manipulated people with racist and ignorant messages! Apparently they were stupid enough to believe it and now we have the biggest contradiction in the history of America, and a prohibition that simply cost the tax payers money with very negative results!
Printed journalism is still a relevant and worthwhile medium

This debate is over whether printed journalism (i. e magazines, newspapers) are worthwhile and relevant in this heavily technologically developed age. I am pro and my opponent is con. Instead of defining "worthwhile" and "relevant" individually, I will make the claim that, if printed journalism were to cease to exist, it would have a large and mainly negative effect on the world as a whole. Con will be arguing that, if such a thing were to happen, there would be a small or largely positive effect on the world.
We should play ping pong all day long

First off, I would lie to say that it has been total waste of my 13 minutes arguing against you. THANK'S SO MUCH!!! Anyways, Think about it. Would you want a world where everyone is forced into (basically slavery, but not working) doing the same task over, and over and OVER again? Or would you want to world that we live in right now, having fun and doing a lot of different things? If you do, VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP VOTE OPP V
Drug Use in the US Should be Fully Legalized

Drug legalization is a danger to humansI do not refute this point. However, we sell a lot of dangerous things to humans. Cigarettes are dangerous, yet they're still legal. Alcohol as well (as acknowledged by the Government during the Prohibition era). If we were worried about the health of Americans, most of the processed food that we eat would also be illegal. The issue isn't whether or not drug are dangerous. The issue is whether or not the Government should be able to tell you what you can put into your own body.By Pro's logic, the Government should be able to decide that fatty foods are dangerous to humans, and thus decide that Americans can no longer eat hamburgers and fries, or drink soda and juice. Just imagine the outcry that would occur if that were to happen. The government is in their right to tell us what is bad for us. Informing the public is part of the government's duty. However, the final decision should be left up to each citizens on whether or not they want to eat burgers, knowing the risk involved. Likewise, citizens should be able to choose what goes inside of their own bodies.
Vampires beat werewolves in a war

PRO claims I haven't researched hte topic. It's as though he hasn't read my arguments--there is no research on the topic, because vampires and werewolves do not exist, and the topic has no truth value, so PRO's BOP is impossible. This has been brought up several tiems and dropped throughout the debate. Voting for me isn't taking a stand on technicalities, but merely opting for conventional, tried-and-true debate practice whereby the BOP always falls on the positive claim. PRO continues to drop my burden analysis *and* my refutations, so you have to extend them and vote PRO. He thinks that dropping arguments, and then saying he "destroyed my arguments" is sufficient, but it's not. I did follow the rules of this debate, because PRO supplied no rules. I negated the resolution. He *did not* state this would be based on mythology. The plagiarized piece he copy and pasted used the word mythology. He still hasn't proven his identity on this website, which is impossible, because anyone can comment as Damnien Mulkrin without verifying one's identity. For this *alone*, you vote CON.I provided a *definition* of "war." PRO provided no such thing; prefer my definition to PRO's post-hoc rationzalition. He says I baselessly accused him of changing the goalposts. This isn't true; the first post was *plagiarized*. He did not list a single rule in his OP, because he did not write the OP. Here is why you are voting CON: 1. PRO plagiarized. This is never acceptable comment, and he has refused to prove otherwise. He says he can "prove it within a week." This is rubbish. 2. He claims that he "set a rule" in Round 1 whereby we're arguing only mythology. This is untrue; Round 1 was plagiarized. The resolution is "Vampires beat werewolves" in a war. This is a positive statement, fo which he has the sole burden of proof.3. PRO does not even engage my burden analysis, and after libelliously accusing me of not having access to a dictionary, I provided a definition of "War." He did no such thing.