BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Korps of Krieg would defeat any military force in a battle on land

Well, rest assured, Fish of Fury's dead. However, if Krieg digs in, Rough Riders die to massed volleys and then it's a question of how many troops this particular commander is going to waste trying to push his drinks cabinet six inches closer to the enemy HQ. Hydra Flak Tanks, while performing admirably in Anti-Air, are treated to the Manta being represented in Battlefleet Gothic with a save against dedicated anti-starship weapons. If one is deployed in your neighborhood, the place is going to be smoking crater very soon. The Hammerhead is going to laugh at Krieg lines when it Overcharges and Blasts with S10 AP1. Tanks? What tanks? Markerlights can zero cover saves and increase BS, making the entrenching pointless. The Tau Barracuda/Tiger Shark is tougher than the S7 at BS3, which means that fully half the shots miss, and the other half have a reasonable chance of shreking the bombers. Then the bombers get to deploy their payloads. Basilisks are fun, but ungodly fragile, and suffer from Scatter and Indirect Fire causing them to not go where you want them to go. In short, a sufficiently large Tau task force will win, especially if they get Turn 1.
Death Korps of Krieg would defeat any military force in a battle on land

In straight infanty-on-infantry, what with their AP5 weapons, needing only two die rolls to wound (To Hit, To Wound, Cover (if applicable)), compared to the Krieger's three (To Hit, To Wound, Armor Save/Cover). In vehicle-to-vehicle, everything from the Leman Russ, Macharius, and Baneblade up to the Emperor-Class Titan can say hello to the Manta, which the Tau brought in specifically to make superheavies and Titans up and die, and Railguns also have the cheerful tendency to possess Ignores Cover. Unless Krieg artillery has Skyfire, Tau WILL have air superiority on Turn 2 at the earliest, and then it's a fun game of "Blow up the Heavy Support", making that Basilisk battery die RIGHT NOW. Now, the Kriegers have one semi-advantage over the Tau, and that's the Psychic Powers. For example, they can use Sacrifice to summon dedicated (Daemon) melee attackers with a free 5+ invuln save courtesy of the Daemon USR, maybe to soak up more fire than the psykers were taking. Also, knock knock. Who's there? Markerlights. Markerlights, who? Markerlights saying hello to your cover save. Wait, what cover save? To recap, if you're a Krieger and you Go to Ground, you get Template weapons to the face. If you assault, Tau get to demonstrate why they're the best gunline army. If you tunnel, it counts as Deep Strike and you can't assault, and, well, gunline army again. Bye. However, Kriegers can win through objectives IF they Forlorn Hope intelligently, but the Tau would get a lot of kill points in the process. Basically, it's a gunline army with some assault and sweet Deep Strike options vs. the best gunline army in the entire game. Of course, this is assuming Battleforged. In an Unbound list, it's going to be nothing but Mantas and Objective-camping Fire Warriors. But Tau get roflstomped by Dark Eldar, because death is my meat, terror my wine, and allying with Craftworld Eldar gets me better jetbikes and Banshee Masks, which gets me cool Assault tricks like Overwatch-cancelling.
Death Korps of Krieg would defeat any military force in a battle on land

Another game debate. Everything is simple and straightforward, I will be debating for the side of the Death Korps of Krieg from the Warhammer 40k series. My opponent will be allowed to pick an organized military force from any game, novel, movie, etc. All we must do is prove that, when fighting on land, why our military force would beat the other. First round is for acceptance and statement of what military force you pick. All further rounds are fair game as long as we defend our side and attack the opponents. Lore would play a great deal in information of your force. Restrictions: No profanity, let's try and keep this peaceful. The Flood may not be a military force, nor the Xenomorphs, Tyranid, or anything of those sort. Any questions please voice in chat, be it about what force would be acceotable or definitions and so on.
school uniforms

Uniforms are held to a specific standard when they are given to the school for reuse, just as if you were donating clothes to the needy. Children will not receive uniform that are stained or worn down, they have to be in a moderate shape. Kids at public school wear spandex to school and ill fitting clothing that isn't appropriate to wear to school. If the school isn't strict with their dress code, then children will be able to dress more freely.
What if black holes...

Brilliant! What does Saturn have to do with anything, any way? Yes, things broke up. This was a collision scenario, and the gravity had nothing to do with the disintegration of the given commit, asteroid, or spare TARDIS. I do hope you don't mind, but since your comments seemed to me like extensions of your case, I would like to address them. Thank you and your welcome. Firstly, There is no video footage of black holes imbibing things. Probably because black holes, as of now, are not even scientific observations. This is to say, they do not exist, at least not necessarily. Also, dimensions have very little to do with anything wibly-wobly-timey-wimey-spacey-wacey. Humans live in all of the dimensions, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Time, Dimension, all of them. Sure, we cannot influence the latter two with the precision that we can the first 3, but we still exist. Also, the 6th Dimension is not... whatever it was... you were trying to... convey... it... as. Hmm. Anyhoo, cheerio! VFD
What if black holes...

You dont need 2 sets of force to tear apart an object, according to http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...- you do not need 2 forces to tear objects apart. It states that "Saturn's rings probably formed when objects like comets, asteroids, or even moons broke up in orbit around Saturn due to Saturn's very strong gravity. The pieces of these objects kept colliding with each other and broke into even smaller pieces. These pieces gradually spread around Saturn to form its rings. The rings are thought to be short-lived compared to the age of the Solar System, meaning that if we lived at a very different time, we may not have seen rings around Saturn." which doesnt make my theory entirely wrong.
What if black holes...

You said this wasn't a debate, but as this is a debate website... perhaps you should have considered the implications. So I'm taking you on. Deal with it. In all actuality, you are not that far from the truth. Black Holes do compress bits of matter into minuscule proportions. However, they do not in any way tear things apart, at least, not fully. Black Holes squeeze every amount of mass an object possesses and makes it fit into a smaller area, increasing density, not lowering it, as tearing apart matter would. Your hypothesis is not a terrible one. You clearly have thought about it and given it great contemplation. However, from what science can tell, Black Holes are not very big, perhaps the size of the Earth. Considering the mass of our sun (which is far to small to ever become a Black Hole) is 333,000 times as large as the mass of Earth, density must be increased, not decreased. Besides, a tear requires two sets of forces, acting in relative opposite directions, each being about as strong as the other. So, conceivably, if two Black Holes somehow were pulling on the same object, your hypothesis would make far more sense. VFD
What if black holes...

What if black holes, don't actually pull everything in. But instead it tears everything apart into atoms or maybe even smaller considering on how immense the gravity of a black hole is. The black hole would tear the atom 1 by 1 until it is so small you cannot see it, at all! As the black hole dies out it spews out a great amount of energy. This energy could be particles surrounding the black hole, and because the black hole is so hot it heats up the particles and blast them into space. Think about it when objects such as asteroids get close to planets they get shredded up forming a ring around the planet. When a star dies out it dies by collapsing on itself. This is caused by the immense GRAVITY possible making the sun or what's left of it teleporting to whatever opposite to it. The reason I think this is because when it collapses on itself it disappears than the size of it is in the negatives therefore teleporting it? It sounds like a sketchy idea but, you get the point. Than in turns into a black hole depending on the size of the sun, going back to gravity it pulls objects in it doesn't suck up objects, its gravity tearing particles into pieces. It pulls it in so fast it tears the object into atoms shredding into atoms than atoms infinitely tearing apart the object. Wait, that just made me think of something if it infinitely tears into pieces than, a black hole doesn't make stuff disappear , but it probably just tears apart objects infinitely making it so we cant see it, the particles could still be there just very very small. Until it finally spews everything it ate out unable to tear apart the pieces. This might all seem sketchy but then again im only 13..
The USFG should help save the planet by flooding Death Valley with sea water

Death Valley is a huge graben, which is the geological term for a sunken fragment of the Earth's crust. It covers 200-square-miles and is surrounded by mountains. Death Valley is virtually parched of water because it receives less than 2 inches of rain per year, all of which evaporates very quickly in temperatures that can reach as high as 134*F. Death Valley also has the lowest elevation on the American continent at 282ft below sea level. So how much water do you think it would take to fill Death Valley? Don't worry, I've worked it out for you: it's 9,828,731,802,298 gallons, which is really quite a lot water. To put that volume in perspective, if that liquid was diesel instead of water, it would be enough fuel to drive a Ford Focus 1.6 Duratorq TDCi 81,572 trillion miles, that's equivalent to 32 billion times round the Earth. Or put another way, if that liquid was vanilla milk shake from Crown Candy Kitchen in St Louis it would take Adam Richman out of Man v Food 9,828,731,802,298 hours to drink it. Or think of it like this, if the water was in ice form it would represent a significant proportion Greenland's ice sheet, the melting of which has contributed +8.0 mm to globally-averaged sea level rise since 2002. But what if a pipe were built from the Pacific Ocean approximately 120 miles to the west,, through the Rockies into Death Valley to fill it with sea water? The water could be gravity fed into the Death Valley to flood the depression and continually replenish the water that evaporates, and thus lower global sea levels to offset the increase caused by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Not many people live in Death Valley, and most of those who do live there, live in shacks and trailers so it wouldn't take much time, effort or money to relocate them. Furthermore, once the new inland lake was created resorts could be built around its shores to provide accommodation, watersports facilities and entertainment for tourists attracted to the area by the guaranteed sunshine and the cool, calm waters. In conclusion, flooding Death Valley would be relatively cheap and simple and would provide valuable employment and attract visitors from around the world but, most of all, it would help save the planet by lowering global sea levels. Vote Pro. Thank you. Death Valley Map: http://maps.google.co.uk... Death Valley National Park Guide: http://travel.nationalgeographic.co.uk... Geology of Death Valley: http://geology.com... Ford Focus Fuel Efficiency Statistics: http://www.ford.co.uk... TV's Man v Food Programme: http://www.travelchannel.com... St Louis" Crown Candy Kitchen: http://crowncandykitchen.net... Greenland Ice Sheet Data: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov...
Eating dog meat is sick

Is eating a pet any worse than eating a different animal? Yes! It is, as you said, sick and appalling. Former pets are mingled with farm-raised pets and former fighting animals. [1] This is worse than normal meat-animal farming. And the trend in countries like China and South Korea is ... that the old generation is still clinging to the traditions of eating dog, but more an more of the younger generation does find it appalling. [2] You asked what makes it so appalling? The answer is right there... our morals. We see these creatures as pets, because they are pets. When a meat farm buys dogs on the market, it buys former pets. When one is mercifully closed, the dogs that would have been sold as meat, typically go on to be adopted as pets. Sometimes our culture might look down on arbitrary, unreasonable things as taboo. But our reasons for not eating dog meat are very reasonable. They are companions and pets. Unlike the animals that we consider it normal to raise for food, we do not have a multi-millennia history of companionship that traces to the beginnings of human civilization. And that's where the question of eating dog meat should be easy enough to settle: Does companionship matter? Should the history of companionship, the habits we have of treating dogs as companions, not just in Western countries but all over the world, make a difference when deciding what to eat? If not-eating-companions matters, the answer is simple: Dogs are companions. Let's not eat companions. 1. "Former Pets Slaughtered For Dog Meat Across Korea". The Korea Observer. N.p., 2016. Web. 26 Dec. 2016. (http://www.koreaobserver.com...) 2. Sang-Hun, Choe. "From Dog Farms In South Korea To New Lives As Pets Abroad". Nytimes.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 26 Dec. 2016. (http://www.nytimes.com...)
Eating dog meat is sick

Well, firstly I did read your argument about how pet dogs are sometimes stolen, and yes, I do find that horrible. But, is eating a pet any worse than eating a different animal? Most might say yes because one has an owner that cares for it properly and loves it. But we are talking about the mainstream dog eating business here, and it is a very rare occasion that a pet is stolen for meat in official dog meat factories. Otherwise, they would not be able to sell as much, as the public would find it sick, and appalling. There would not be enough income for the factory owners. They would shut down. Anyways, as I said, what makes dogs so special that we cannot eat them? Our morals are extremely biased because of our history. Compared to cows, dogs are sacred. But they are essentially the same thing. And an argument may be that the term sick is moral-related, and for the most part it is. But the definition of 'sick' is "having something unpleasant such as death or misfortune as its subject and dealing with it in an offensive way". Is eating meat sick? Most will say it is not. Are they dealing with it in an offensive way? Well, that is a matter of opinion. So, the term sick cannot apply well to something like eating dog meat. Also, it is also cultural. For example, the majority of western folk think eating beef is fine. But in places like India, cows are sacred and majestic creatures. So, if you were born in a dog eating country, you would most likely believe eating dog meat is fine. It is all about perspective.
Eating dog meat is sick

Well, most of your argument was about humanity regarding dogs as companions. But the reality is that, although your dog may be the best in the world, it is all an figment of human mentality. Dogs are only special because in ancient times humans hunted alongside wolves, and the domesticated canines were bred to have specific traits as humans evolved. So basically, man tames wolf, wolf is bred to be more efficient, and then that ferocious wolf is converted into your fluffy little poodle. But what if they decided to tame an animal such as a bull because of its bulky exterior and horns? We would probably be walking around with fluffy little cows with floppy ears and curly tails. And, who knows? Dogs might be in place of those cute fuzzy cattle. It all depends on which animals humans favored when we had only just developed sentience. Hell, we could be walking around with miniature giraffes if humanity decided. But they chose wolves because hey? Claws and teeth are good for hunting, right? Also, with the stereotypes of chickens being bird-brained and cows being walking hamburgers, that has the exact same answer as my first rebuttal. It is all about humans morals. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is true. It is only because people rarely keep livestock as pets. But if we did, our viewpoint would be completely different. We would see cows, pigs and chickens as friends, not food, and then this argument would be about why eating cow meat is not sick. Your last statement abut the conditions the dogs live in are lacking, as, like in my previous argument, it is hardly different to the conditions pigs and other livestock live in. I'm pretty sure every animal in a factory farm lives in their own filth. And although transport may be a bit more cramped, it isn't notably different enough to make an argument about.
Eating dog meat is sick

Well this will be interesting. Well, your statement about dogs being human like is a common bias. Pigs have complex emotions too, and in intelligence tests they are proven to be more intellectual than the furry canines. Pigs actually make quite good pets, and I would gladly take a pig into my care. However, there is more than just pigs. Cows have been proven to have groups of best friends, and usually stick around with that group. Chickens are very social, and interact with other chickens like you would a person. Every animal has something to them that makes them special, and farmed animals are no exception. Dogs are not much different from pigs, and they share many similarities. Therefore, dogs are as human like as any other animal, be it pig, rat or chimpanzee. Dogs are fed different diets in farms. Do you think a pig would hesitate in eating what dogs eat? The thing is, they are fed specific diets and I doubt much vomit-eating goes on in those farms. They are likely fed things that will enhance their taste, like cows eating corn or grass. Also, even if they DID eat the things they usually ate (vomit, poop etc.) it wouldn't change very much. Our farm animals probably eat it too. And now I would like to discuss the cruelty in this business. Many websites state the horrid conditions these dogs live in, and for the most part it is true. But, if you looked into the slaughter in America, there is not much of a difference. A common argument is the transportation methods, and it is exactly the same as ours. We stuff living animals into small, confined spaces with no food or water and cram them onto trucks. Then we transport them over long distances to be slaughtered, where the animals are probably dying already. This is identical to our methods, so nothing here. Another common argument is the beatings these dogs endure. Well, I would agree it is disgusting. But I doubt you care about the things our livestock face every day. After being forcibly impregnated with artificial insemination, the mother cow has her calf dragged away, and the cow is forced back into the paddock/tiny cage. If it is a male, it is immediately killed, living for only a few hours. Piglets have their testicles ripped out after birth, and cannot even make contact with their dying mother. Chickens are forced to live in cramped, filthy conditions where they can't even walk. Then they get murdered after a tiny portion of their lifespan because they cannot lay any more eggs for the farmers to sell. I doubt this is better than what dogs go through. I look to your argument
Eating dog meat is sick

Hi Krookednook, thanks for offering this interesting topic for debate! It looks like a fun one. I appreciate your thoughts so far.Meat that comes from different animals is not all the same. Even a child in a meat-eating household, given an option of turkey, chicken, pork, or beef, understands the differences enough to tell them apart as distinct types.Even two of the same kind of animal, raised on different diets, will have notably different flavor. For example, grass-fed beef has a flavor from the grass, and different health characteristics than corn-fed or grain-fed. Out where some of my family lives, they have "wild hogs" that live in the woods and eat mostly acorns. Their meat tastes notably different from domesticated swine. It is affected by what they eat, and by where they live.A key reason it's so natural for a human to feel uncomfortable at the prospect of eating dog, is not just because they are "pets"--I've kept pet birds and fish, and still eat plenty of chicken and tuna--but because they are so dang human-like in their affection. A dog knows who you are. He'll bark in anticipation of seeing you, will lay his head in your lap when you're down. If you are in a position where a wild animal is threatening you, many a loyal dog will step up and fight the beast, regardless of the odds, out of heartfelt dedication to their human. Dogs are not just human-like in their personality, they could even be said to be examples of the best of humans. They forgive; they defend; they show unconditional affection. Dogs are, in many ways, what many humans aspire to be. Like a higher version of ourselves. If it's wrong to eat a human, surely it should be grotesque to eat this mini-caricature of everything right about humanity.And in contrast to that, after (or ... yuck, sometimes before) affectionately licking your face, a dog will eat incredibly disgusting things. Roadkill? No problem! Dead rat that the cat turned down? Why not! Particularly odorous, maggot-infested garbage? Dog will turn your can over and make a mess of everything else, just to get into that (to it) "good stuff." It's own poop? Another animal's poop, even? Dog considers it open season for snacking. You call it vomit? Dog calls it "re-heated leftovers." Diet affects taste of meat, and for all their pleasant social qualities, dogs have absolutely disgusting dietary habits. Between that and the personality that makes it an assault on your own humanity to wilfully harm it, you can't say that it's just like any other meat. There are good reasons to consider dog meat to be stomach-churning.Thanks again for the discussion. Hope the day turns out well, and happy holidays.
Eating dog meat is sick

Eating dog meat is not sick. That is obvious. We eat pigs flesh on a daily basis. We tear off the limbs of turkeys and eat them as as a meal. We butcher deceased hens and steal their eggs, while other farmers stick their hand up cows butts and steal their babies. If you eat meat, you should accept that dog meat is a delicacy. Otherwise you are a complete hypocrite. Dogs might be a pet in your country, but in other places your mutt is a cherished meal. Get over it. Random people try to stop dog meat festivals and traditional festivities like 'heroes' and then run home and stuff their faces full of other animals flesh. This is just idiotic.