BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
SC2 Terran are too overpowered against Protoss

I actually play Toss as well, but we'll see how this goes. 1. MMM MM(M) is easily countered by a strong zealot/stalker mix backed by either HT's or Colossi- A few good storms will obliterate a ground force, especially if he's teched to Medivacs rather than ghosts, and colossi guarantee that even if he attempts to kite your zealots he'll get melted. Earlier pushes can be easily defended by a sentry or two at the ramp, with a few Immortals to eat the Marauders if you please. 2. The Marauder is a ground to ground anti armor unit and the stalker is a ground armored unit- the stalker is meant to be countered by the marauder. Furthermore, the Stalker is meant to be warped in- if he'd getting marauder's faster than you're getting Stalkers it means you haven't gotten warpgates which means you deserve to loose. 3. Terran is free to mass marines and marauders only, but he will be obliterated by either HTs or Colossi. Vikings are eaten alive by blink stalkers. 4. I'd claim the ramp layout benefits Toss quite significantly as well- you often see players like HuK using a FF at the ramp to keep stuck in his main as his expos are obliterated, or vice-versa. Defensively, a single sentry stops all early aggression.
SC2 Terran are too overpowered against Protoss

First of all, i expect that my opponent plays Starcraft 2 and second, that he should have knowledge of terran and protoss units. My arguments of Terran being overpowered: 1. The MMM strategy. The MMM is known as the Marine, Marauder, Medivac which completely destroys any protoss resistance by the time the Terran army comes. Even without the medivac, the protoss gets destroyed easily as the Terran basic infantries are known to own all races basics. 2. The cost. For example a marauder which cost 100 minerals and 25 gas. It completely owns a stalker on its own while it costs 125 minerals and 25 gas. To make the fact even worse, marauders are even faster to produce. 3. Counterstrategies The terran has so many counter strategies against protoss, even more then the protoss has against terran. For example, the basic infantries. Terran just has to mass marines and marauders. Or if they use air units, terran only has to produce vikings which owns all air units. To make it even worse, terran can add reactors to double the production speed by allowing 2 constructions at the same time. 4. Map layout. All maps are builded with only a ramp as an entrypoint. The most advantage a person gets is a terran player as Terran could just wall of his base to prevent attacks. Protoss can wall too but in the end, his own units cant get out. Zerg can wall too, but serves no advantages as the zerg has the fastest unit production and the largest masses in begin. I await the response of a fellow SC2 gamer.
SC2 Terran are too overpowered against Protoss

1. Stalkers and zealots alone, no. Which is why you use sentries to either gimp marine damage or, more likely, use forcefields to make sure he can't kite your zealots. Zealots actually tear through Terran bio when the Terran is backed into a wall. Yes, the Terran is at your front door while you're researching Storm, but the good news is you can drop a forcefield and keep him stuck out there- or better yet, only allow a few of his soldiers in and kill them while the rest are trapped. Two colossi with extender thermal lances are enough to turn most battles to your side if you've been keeping up in macro- if you fire them at the same place, that's *60* damage, enough to kill 8-9 marines with *every* attack and bring marauders down to 5 health with 2. If he's used stim (he has) then those marauders are dead. I generally don't recommend Immortals except against early Marauder pushes or again Terran mech, but you don't "always" have more marauders than marines. 2. The stalker does not get 'owned' by marines, only by marauders because, again, the marauder is built to fight armored units. Sentries do not 'suck' and zealots will only get shot to death before they reach the opposing army if you choose to engage him in the open. You let him run some of his guys up your ramp, throw down an FF and kill the stranded troops. 3. If the attack is MMM then yes, you should be at T3- the medivac is a tier 3 unit. If he comes at you with just marines and marauders, you have to abuse forcefield. The idea behind blink stalkers is that you, if you mix them into your army, you will be more then prepared if he sends vikings at you (or any other air unit honestly.) 4. My mistake, I excluded the words "the opponent" The post should have read "I'd claim the ramp layout benefits Toss quite significantly as well- you often see players like HuK using a FF at the ramp to keep the opponent stuck in his main as his expos are obliterated, or vice-versa. Defensively, a single sentry stops all early aggression." What I mean by this is that, while the Terran can wall off, the Protoss player can take advantage of the ramp as well by blocking it with forcefield. This serves two purposes-: first, if the Terran has expanded to his natural, you may divide up his army by placing a forcefield at his ramp- any troops in his main will be unable to reinforce his natural, giving you the upper hand. Furthermore, early in the game you can use a forcefield at your ramp to cut his army in half and defeat it or to keep him out of your base all together. So, the ramp benefits you as well.
Blunts are better than bongs

To clarify my view, I'm not arguing that in a given instance I would rather smoke a blunt rather than take bong rips or that I would rather be in the possession of small sheets of tobacco pulp over exquisite glass works. I'm simply stating that in general and in the long run smoking blunts is a more sensible form of using cannibus. My reasons are as follows: 1) Affordability: A pack of Swisher Sweets costs $3.99 in most smoke shops and conveniance stores. A single swisha costs a buck. Glass bongs range in price from $30-$40 to $2000. 2) Conveniance: Bongs often have multiple pieces that require initial assembly and reassembly after cleaning. Bongs require water. Blunts are created using only saliva and good rolling technique. It is also far easier to hide or discard a blunt if law enforcement were to approach. Can you imagine getting pulled over and having to throw a bong out of the window. 3) Recreation: It's more fun to pick out a blunt wrap, roll to the park, and pass a fatty L around the table. I haven't come across too many individuals who would, without great hesitation and dismay, bring their bong to a park or outdoor event. 4) Praciticality: I can list at least three instances where one could smoke a blunt while a bong would be out of the question. First, while walking down the street (preferably on the sidewalk). Second, whilst driving in the car (on your way to eat or a party perhaps). And for my third example I employ my previous account of the park, and passing around a fatty L. I hope for a worthy contender, who is cultured in cannibus and well versed in smoking etiquette.
Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared)

"High IQ comes from being brought up, as a baby and toddler, in an environment (such as a nursery, kindergarten or intelligent parent's home) that enables one to be far more challenged intellectually than the average baby." Maybe you can post a study that proves this? "The evidence for straight edge kids was that they were a group of punks who all grew up in a time of drugs, punks and alcoholics (ironically straight edge groups ended up being drug-free punks who were just as violent). I hate to be straight edge because some drugs can be nice hahaha." Drugs: "Pharmacology . a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being."[1] Can you please clarify if you mean illegal drugs or medicine? "Yes. THere is no need to dwell on this debate. It is nurture." Dwell:to live or stay as a permanent resident; reside. [2] You cannot live in a debate. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared)

High IQ comes from being brought up, as a baby and toddler, in an environment (such as a nursery, kindergarten or intelligent parent's home) that enables one to be far more challenged intellectually than the average baby.The evidence for straight edge kids was that they were a group of punks who all grew up in a time of drugs, punks and alcoholics (ironically straight edge groups ended up being drug-free punks who were just as violent). I hate to be straight edge because some drugs can be nice hahaha.Yes. THere is no need to dwell on this debate. It is nurture.
Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared)

"Your IQ argument is ridiculous. DO you think that children in the impoverished regions of this Earth have a high IQ? Of course not. All poor starving children will grow to be relatively unintelligent adults do you wish to know the reason why? If your brain is starved of nutrients as it grows, it will not turn out to have a high IQ. " First, I'll make something clear: An intelligence quotient, or IQ, is a score derived from one of several standardized tests designed to assess intelligence.[1] Knowledge:acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. [2] And another source also confirms this (although it does say that nurture also has a role in knowledge, but the IQ, is largely from nature and separate from knowledge.) "And in fact, researchers have discovered that parents with high IQ"s tend to have children with high IQ"s, while parents with low IQ"s tend to have children with low IQ"s."[3] "The tendency to alcoholism is also simple to explain, genes do not affect alcoholism. If they did, why is there a lot of straight-edge children of alcoholics? Because despite inheriting genes from an alcoholic father, they were environmentally affected to despise alcohol." Well, although the father may drink in front of his son/daughter, you still do not have proof that the child will copy that behavior. You need a source, at least, because baseless claims aren't really convincing. Plus, there are many other things that nature does do to behavior and your body, not just alcohol! "Different versions of the gene CYP2A6 dictate the number of cigarettes a person smokes. Those with one version of the gene metabolize nicotine, and thus, need to light up more often. Some 80 percent of a person"s risk of developing Alzheimer"s disease is genetic. Sprinters are more likely than endurance runners to display a certain gene variant that is thought to cause the skeletal muscles to contract more powerfully at high speeds. The genetic influence to alcoholism has been studied since the 1970s, when twin studies first revealed this link. In April of this year, a team led by Susan Bergeson at the University of Texas at Austin found 20 gene candidates that could influence excessive drinking." [4] So, with these, let's count it up. Nurture:Knowledge Nature:Addictions (e.g. alcohol, smoking) ,IQ , diseases. Nurture:1 Nature:3 [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://iq-test.learninginfo.org... [4]http://www.livescience.com...
Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared)

Sorry, I misunderstood the title. I'll argue for nature this time. Now to the arguments "People's mind and opinion are shaped by their environment and who they grew up with, etc." (very brief summery) Well, let's see if that is always the case. First, studies have shown that the IQ of siblings are somewhat similar. "Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6."[1] "My point is also related sexually. It is commonly believed, in this day and age, that sexuality is something you are born with, but I say it is not." First, the definition is "The ways in which people experience and express themselves as sexual beings; the awareness of themselves as males or females; the capacity they have for erotic experiences and responses. "[2] So, the knowing of what gender you are isn't born with you? The way you can express you have genders isn't born with you? I doubt it. The genetic influence to alcoholism has been studied since the 1970s, when twin studies first revealed this link. In April of this year, a team led by Susan Bergeson at the University of Texas at Austin found 20 gene candidates that could influence excessive drinking.[3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.definition-of.com... [3]http://www.livescience.com...
Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared)

I would argue that nature and nurture play equal roles in people's life, as there is a shared BOP. First, I would define this: "The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits." [1] Second, nature also does play some role in mood. "When discussing the significant role of genetic heritability in relation to one's level of happiness, it has been found that from 44% to 52% of the variance in one's well-being is associated with genetic variation. Based on the retest of smaller samples of twins studies after 4,5, and 10 years, it is estimated that the heritability of the genetic stable component of subjective well-being approaches 80% ." [1] Plus, nature also plays a role in IQ. "Adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6". [1] Education is an example of nurture. It is very effective in allowing people to learn knowledge. So, nature and nurture both play an equal role, both mentally and physically. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared)

I am EXTREMELY sure that everything I am and have been is due to what my environment, society and friends turned me into. Although a lot of of what I am is determined biologically, I believe that my environment altered me mentally (depending on food I ate, how much water I consumed, abuse as a child, bullying, skin colour in relation to the skin colour of those in the environment I grew up in) I think that almost all nature factors are merely affecting one's personality only because the environment they grew up in enabled this reaction to occur.I am almost 100% sure that if I hadn't lived my exact life the way I did, I would have grown to be totally different person, perhaps axe murderer, rapist, perhaps member of Taliban, Osama Bin Laden's Right hand man or if all my genetics (other than the XY chromosome) were kept in tact I think I'd also have been a willing sex slave or an unwilling rape victim, it all depends on the environment I grew up in. Also I think that if I had been a girl and lived my exact life I'd merely have become a tomboy lesbian (perhaps in the closet though) so I honestly believe in nurture vs nature.
The theory of evolution , beats religion every time

My argument is valid , because at no point did I say all Christians or religious people , I merely said Christians. Yes it is valid because you have conceded that most religious people to oppose the theory of evolution , while I accept that quite a lot do not. This argument is based around those who do , so lets no change the subject. If science , backed by millions of years of evidence and fact is not considered good enough to be true , what is then ? I also understand that you say these arguments are not of your own religion , as you are Jewish , but yet again you should not have took this argument up if you were not prepared to argue in the case of religion V's Evolution. Now back to my point , I have yet to make much claims but here I go . Charles Darwin , traveled to the Galapagos island around a hundred years ago , he noticed that the birds varied from island to island . Why ? because they were shaped by nature to adapt to their surroundings . He also noticed that the locals could see a lot further than he could , why ? because he had bad eyesight ? no because the lies they lived required them to. Evolution is very clear. If you look at the bigger picture you will notice an incredibly strong resemblance from monkeys to humans , they way the act as well. Nature dictates the survival of the fittest , not god. Christians argue that god did this , god did that . Yet there is little evidence of the existence of god never mind what he done , infect you could say there is none. I would like everybody to vote , not on what their believes may be , understandably if you believe strongly in something , then you will find it hard to listen to an argument that is heavily criticising it , but if I saw an argument that was incredibly good in the favour of religion with facts and everything , I would be going to my local church tomorrow.
The theory of evolution , beats religion every time

You have a basic premise that religion and evolution are not compatible. To this point you have not supported your argument. I have merely shown that are many religious people that believe in both G-d and the premise of evolution, as a theory. Belief in one does not conflict with the other, thus your argument is not applicable to all religions, but only to Literalist believers of a religion. Thus, your argument that evolution always beats religion is shown to be false in the millions of believers who do not claim a literalist dogma perspective. The problem is that your argument is based on the premise that evolution and G-d are incompatible. My argument is centered around the idea that just because evolution is a theory, doesn't mean that it has to include or exlude G-d. The theory of evolution does nothing to disprove G-d. Science, by its very nature never proves anything. It has theories which are heavily supported by evidence but they are NOT proofs. It disagrees with the concept that some people might have had about G-d. That the story of Genesis in the Torah, is a literal story and that G-d created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, with man being created in that span. Obviously, a literal telling of this story is not compatible with evolution as evolution teaches that man has evolved over a period of time that far surpassed six days. All evolution does is show that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not likely correct. That since light was not there in the beginning of the first day of creation, there was no concept of how long such a process would take. It does not directly conflict with the idea of evolution. Even if I was to take a literalist perspective, which I clearly am not--the carbon dating has such a range with it, that one could argue that it isn't undeniably proof of anything. Yes, the Bible emphasizes that G-d is the creator, but there are lessons to be learned in everything that is said as well. You're arguing this from a literalist perspective, and I would argue such an argument is incredibly dangerous and not really the intent of any Holy Book. And again I'm not Christian, but Jewish so their claims are not mine.
The theory of evolution , beats religion every time

However , it is your job to prove that the idea of god creating the world is more realistic than evolution. I will continue my argument , scientists can technically prove that the theory of evolution is true. The remains of fossils and rock formations cannot be argued against . If people attempt to argue against them , it makes no sense because these are fossils and evidence from the time . I agree with what you said about science and religion . However the main point of the bible , is not to teach lessons , well my abe it is , but the biggest point is to show how god is the almighty and created everything. the bible cannot be used as a valid argument against the theory of evolution , because its just a book , passed down over centuries and always being changed. Fossils and rocks never really change , unless they are destroyed. so I will remind you , your job is not to argue about what religion teaches you or what science can or cannot prove about religion . It is to prove that what Christians believe about god creating the world is more believable than evolution.
The theory of evolution , beats religion every time

I'd like to point out that evolution doesn't prove the Bible wrong. Science technically can't prove anything. There's considerable support for the idea of evolution in the scientific community, and that isn't something I would attempt to argue with. I'd argue with the idea that evolution disproves the Bible. Evolution supports the idea of people evolving. It doesn't support the idea of G-d having nothing to do with it. You have to keep in mind that the Bible and modern science as we know it, are seperated by over 1,000 years. How could modern science and the Bible be compatible? How could the Bible teach us about science? It can't. It's seperated by too big of a period. The Bible is a story that is meant to teach people lessons. We read the Bible through our own human minds and hearts, and since we are all imperfect beings we easily can reach conclusions that we thought were once true, but clearly were wrong. Science is there to do that. Science in itself isn't perfect either, as there have been theories that many scientists held onto that have later been proven wrong. Neither one is inherently perfect. To imply that either one, is kinda like a plague. Religious people can decide if they want to oppose science or not, but such an action is not particularly intelligent. So, my argument is not centered around the idea of religion beating science, as I find such an argument as silly as the counterargument would be. It's centered around the idea that religion and science are not incompatible, and the theory of evolution has little to do with proving G-d wrong. On the contrary, G-d can't be proven or disproven with science.
The theory of evolution , beats religion every time

what the title says , I never thought I would post a debate like this , but I am sick of ignorant religious idiots who are single minded and refuse to accept to even to listen to the theory of evolution , your job if you are one of those idiots or just somebody up for a debate , is to prove me that the theory of evolution is wrong , and the theory of Christians on how god made the world is , no offense meant to the religious community , but I am sick of the occasional moron , mocking evolution and not proving afterwards how religion is true , they just say , "because god made the world " where's your proof ? " because it says so in the bible "
WW2 would not have been won without USA Involvement (official and unofficial)

Since the Germans would be invading from Europe, the Japanese would probably see it as an opportunity to invade an undefended Siberia to help out their allies. And about El Alamein, Catalinas, I don't think that the allies losing there would cause an Axis victory. Remember, Russia was a very powerful and tough foe for the Axis and they probably still would've invaded into Germany and capitulate it.
WW2 would not have been won without USA Involvement (official and unofficial)

First of all why would Japan attack Russia. What does it have to gain Japan attacked US to get fuel from the Philipines and to stop the Us from interfering. Japan had witnessed the might of the Soviets in the 1939 border clashes. But Japan had not seen the USA industry which is why it attacked it. You must also consider the unofficial support the US gave to the Uk and USSR in non rationed food Sherman tanks which won El Alamein, Catalinas to fight the u boats so they could get supplies from the US and other nations.