BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War Game Scenario: Russia vs Chosen nation

Sorry that I had to leave and such it was very disappointing that I had to kind of abandon this right in the middle. Now I will help END THIS. August 5 Revolutionary forces now far outnumber counter revolutionary forces. Russia planned to end the revolutionary forces along with Ukraine's Crimean fortification until the pro revolutionary forces attack a base with tanks that were to be soon go off Into battle. They are able to steal many tanks and kill many anti revolutionary forces there despite losses. August 7 Hearing from a defector Russia might use cyanogen chloride they request from America for anything they can use that won't get them killed by it. The USA then supplies them. August 10 1000 of the most skilled pro revolutionary forces plan stage a daring raid to kidnap Vladimir Putin while the main force tries to stall anyone from helping them. They urge Japan and Ukraine to at least try to stall them while they either kidnap or kill.Putin August 29 With the plan in place it begins. Ukraine attack several Russian fortifications along the border to about 5 miles in with this offensive. Japan's superior airforce engage the Russian's in a series of dogfights and captures several islands. The main pro revolutionary forces engage in several battles while the 8000 attempt to get close to either killing or kidnapping Vladimir Putin. With most of Russia's military occupied they can not `all for assistance. Unfortunetly the entire elite 8000 are killed with the cyanogen chloride, but they were able to kill Putin. October 1 The pro revolutionary forces now outnumber anti revolutionary forces over 5 to1. They see the war will end soon. America says if the anti revolutionary forces do not surrender they will help along with Japan and Ukraine for having this war with Japan. You win if you can think of a realistic way to finally end this (can't be that hard) . Sorry I couldn't stay with debate this whole time. I'll do another one of these later on
War Game Scenario: Russia vs Chosen nation

July 4th Ukraine receives shipments of Japan's chu-SAMs as Ukraine refortifies Crimea. July 5th India and Bangladesh's military junta surrender to US led coalition July 7th Japan continues to fortify the home islands successfully defending against frequent aerial skirmishes with the Russian Air Force. July 9th Japanese subs successfully mop up and finish off the rest of Russia's Pacific Fleet diverting attention to North Korea and the Miyako strait July 15 Japan sends a marine expeditionary force retaking the Kuril Islands and pushing into the Sakhalin island. July 20 Japan installs CHU-SAMs and patriot pac-2 and pac-3 missile batteries on the Kuril Islands and the Sakhalin island July 21 Japan also installs type 88 anti-ship missiles on the recaptured islands August 1st Japan and Ukraine urge Russia to negotiate an end to the conflict.
War Game Scenario: Russia vs Chosen nation

Wow, good job I must say! Finally someone who is actually good at these. Now time for a surprising plot twist that you must overcome in order to win this war because unexpectedly I am not going to be on for at least 3 days if I'm lucky.Likely not for 6 days. Revolution in Russia! Pro revolutionary forces:74,261,982anti revolutionary forces:62,934,238the rest are neutralYou can use your minor ally along with Japan and Georgia,Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, other former Soviet states, South Korea,(America and the rest of Europe probably in round 4 or 5 when India and Bangladesh are defeated.Bring the pro revolutionary forces to victory and defeat North Korea and China(allies). Basically keep it realistic and get Russia back with the world community because of my unfortunate change of plans. Other wise i would have said a few counter-measures and such. Sorry for unexpected change of plans, but I'm going to be elsewhere.
War Game Scenario: Russia vs Chosen nation

Japan MANPOWER Going beyond military equipment totals and perceived fighting strength is the actual manpower that drives a given military. Wars of attrition favor those with more. Total Population: 127,103,388 Available Manpower: 53,608,446 Fit for Service: 43,930,753 Reaching Military Age Annually: 1,214,618] Active Frontline Personnel: 247,173 Active Reserve Personnel: 57,900 LAND SYSTEMS Tank value includes Main Battle Tanks, light tanks and tank destroyers, either wheeled or tracked. AFV value includes Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs). Tanks: 678 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 2,850 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 202 Towed-Artillery: 500 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 99 AIR POWER Includes both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft from all branches of service. Total Aircraft: 1,613 Fighters/Interceptors: 289 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 289 Transport Aircraft: 529 Trainer Aircraft: 432 Helicopters: 741 Attack Helicopters: 122 NAVAL POWER Aircraft Carrier value does not include dedicated "helicopter carrier" vessels. Total naval strength includes all known auxiliaries as well. Total Naval Strength: 131 Aircraft Carriers: 2 Frigates: 0 Destroyers: 43 Corvettes: 0 Submarines: 16 Coastal Defense Craft: 6 Mine Warfare: 29 RESOURCES (PETROLEUM) Despite the advances made in battlefield technology, oil remains the lifeblood of any fighting force as well as local economy. Oil Production: 133,000 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 4,470,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 44,120,000 bbl/day LOGISTICAL War is as much a battle of logistics - moving man and machine from points all over - as it is direct combat. Labor Force reflects possible wartime industry strength. Labor Force: 65,620,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 684] Major Ports and Terminals: 10 Roadway Coverage: 1,210,251 Railway Coverage: 27,182 Serviceable Airports: 175 FINANCIAL (in USD) Regardless of military strength in numbers, war is still driven by financing as much as any one leader or weapon. Defense Budget: $41,600,000,000 External Debt: $3,017,000,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $1,268,000,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $4,729,000,000,000 GEOGRAPHY (in km) Geographical values primarily figure into a defensive-minded war (i. e. invasion). Square Land Area: 377,915 km Coastline: 29,751 km Shared Border: 0 km Waterways: 1,770 kmThe WMD that I will use is Mustard gas using a modified M-V rocket as a delivery system. Mustard gas is a chemical agent that causes severe burning of the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. It can be absorbed into the body through inhalation, ingestion or by coming into contact with the skin or eyes. However, because Japan is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Party it will have very limited stocks of chemical weapons because it is in the midst of destroying chemical weapons until 2022. Japan's objective for this war is simple, to defend the homeland, retake the Northern territories and force Russia to the negotiating table for a diplomatic solution to the second Russo-Japanese War. Sources:. http://www.globalfirepower.com...; . http://www.livescience.com...;
I, MASTERDRAVE, am the best there ever was AND ever will be.

How about some evidence that Ash Ketchum was a raging sausage jockey? First of all, let's look at his "Poke Ball". You really don't realise what these mean, do you? Wait, how old are you again? Oh, 15. Well, much more is clearer to me now. How fitting that a teenaged virgin who's obsessed with Ash Ketchum's balls would be arguing that he is top dog. Anywho, seeing as though you attacked my cinematic pleasures, why don't we have a look at yours. I quote: "Pixar and Dreamworks, mainly." Well, isn't that special. Why don't you go and suck Donkey's cock then, coward? Give Shrek an ogre handjob while you all sing along to Frozen. Oh and what's this? Sports teams. Again, I quote: "I don't watch sports. But does "Punch Out!!" and Mario Sports games count?" Well if you want an answer, no, they don't count. All they count towards is you being a cunt. God, why must I always deal with these incessant imbeciles? I mean, by god, this "debate" alone should be evidence enough that this website pales in my shadow. You're all weak. If only your father wasn't so eager to finish that fateful night, and he'd done what your mother had urged him to do ("cum on my back and leave through the window, I can hear my husband pulling into the garage"). But, alas, your coward dad wasn't clued in on the whole "semen into vagina equals human life" thing yet. And here we are, a decade and a half later, and he wishes more than ever that it had stayed that way. Well, I gotta take a dump. Drave out.
I, MASTERDRAVE, am the best there ever was AND ever will be.

ALRIGHT FOLKS, I'M BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK! After my lengthy hiatus I'm finally back where I belong - on this glorious website to expose more 12-year-old trolls and cripple further virgins.GOD this will be FUN. Will anyone dare challenge me? Haha, of course not. Everyone on this pathetic home base for "free thought" is naught more than a self-absorbed fiend. WHO DO YOU THINK GOT THIS WEBSITE ON THE MAP? ME. That's right, your one and only MASTERDRAVE. Never forget the name, rapists. I am the best there ever was AND ever will be. Alright, time to stretch these debating muscles baby. Haha, not that they'll need it, of course. It's essentially Cassius Clay going up against Brian Sutherland in this ring. Haha. This'll be good, mark my words infidels.
KrispyKreme is Superior to Dunkin' Donuts.

There is a great divide between American citizens that is not often addressed, or for that matter heard of, or even argued over: it is the schism of donut choices. I intend to prove in this debate that KrispyKreme is a superior donut establishment to Dunkin Donuts. Considering that a restaurant such as this should be judged on its most prominent product, an attempt to debate coffee or cinnamon rolls (or other irrelevant consumables) will result in forfeit. Anybody can argue this debate, just start. This is a debate significant to be discussed because otherwise, America will obviously split apart from disagreement on the issue in the year 2070. In this debate, you do not have to cite ALL facts if it is a simple one that is common knowledge or easily proven. Now that the basic intro to the debate has been covered, I have but 3 reasons for my opening argument (which I hope will prove to be cogent): 1. KrispyKreme gives you a more substantial amount of glazing, which is a positive thing. 2. KrispyKreme has a better price (which is indisputable, just look at the menu) 3. KrispyKreme will always have an assured superiority to Dunkin Donuts because of two simple phrases/things: "Hot n' Ready", and "Free Samples".
KrispyKreme is Superior to Dunkin' Donuts.

In closing, the classic and iconic Krispy Kreme is superior to Dunkin Donuts in a multitude of ways that far outweighs anything Dunkin Donuts has. Krispy Kreme has free samples, the ability to see your donuts being made, and a substantial more amount of glazing (which is a widely accepted key part of the donut, as it gives it flavor and the addictive quality of sugar). Additionally, Krispy Kreme offers its customers better prices and more promotional offers (i.e grades for donuts). Krispy Kreme also has a classy, 1950's type logo and gives the customer the feeling that they can trust to buy their donuts from Krispy Kreme. In conclusion, I urge you, the voters, to make the decision you are obligated to by your family, your city, your country, and the world: choose Krispy Kreme and not Dunkin Donuts.
KrispyKreme is Superior to Dunkin' Donuts.

I will indeed yield the fact that dunkin donuts has more variety, with over 50 flavors. However, in any food restaurant quality is valued over selection. I could have a million different donuts, but if they all taste inferior to KrispyKreme I will always stray away. Additionally, not only has my opponent presented a shaky rebuttal but has failed to logically explain why people prefer variety over all else. Only the explanation of "therefore" is given.
human rights is superior to religious laws.

okay firstly for the status quo, as we know religious laws and right were made up a long time ago according to the situation at that time. right now, after several years passed, many things has changed for better or worse. I believe that laws of religion can no longer keep up with the dynamic of mankind itself, therefore become obsolete. another thing is, right now there are many situation where one religion's laws are contradictory with other religion's laws. this result in disputes between the two or more religion. we need something that we could all agree on for the sake of peace, in this case the universal human rights
human rights is superior to religious laws.

As my opponent said him/herself. That Muslims (also not being racist) must dress the way the Quran/Kiran told them to i.e. head scarf full coverage of the body clothing and so on.. but in the modern society, that is no longer needed as all people could dress according to thir desire. Maybe, those headscarf and full body clothing were needed in the time those rules were mad. Therefore the rules were customed for that time and place (arab and middle east). This means in the age of globalization where anyone can go anywhere at anytime. This rules are no longer relevant, due to the different customs and culture around the world. But, in other hand, the human rights has already been agreed on around the world and is more or less conforms with local traditions, due it's fundamentality..Extension: some religions are very strict in prohibiting things (Islam can't eat pork, Hindus can't eat beef, Muslim women can't go around without covering their whole body including hair and can't even touch the opposite sex, Christian have to go to church on sundays). But in modern times, pork and beef becomes a delicacy. A handshake is important in business deals and friendship. Also some jobs require it's personel to be on duty on Sunday. This proves that religious laws can't be used and tolerated anymore.. so in place of those laws, we believe that human rights should and must takes it place.
human rights is superior to religious laws.

The relation between religion and human rights is a contested one, as they appear to compete with one another. Religion is often considered to represent a tradition of heteronomy and subordination in premodern times. Human rights emerged from early modern and modern times and stand for principles like human dignity, autonomy, equality.I do not agree that human rights are superior to religious laws. Religious laws were the first things men kept in mind that led them to a more successful economy. E.g, there were many holy churches, buildings and Ideas that helped us become more civilised. Without Religious laws (or something that would make us civilised), human rights would be nothing if there was no order. For example, Muslims(I am not being racist) have this religion where they are very strict about many things. E.g the way women dress, the way women dress is a symbol of modesty and privacy. It was said in the Kiran/Quran(however you like to call it), and it says that it concerns both men's and women's "gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia. In this case, Religious laws rule over the human rights of the people of the middle east; specifically Muslims.
God of the Bible (which I am for) vs Atheism

I would like some arguments from the other side, as he failed to do so. Unless that only question is the only argument. Firstly, don't get me wrong but this is not as simple as a yes or no unless my opponents do not understand the depth of this debate. You don't even need to know what the answer is, you already know from reading my paragraph of "fanciness" but because you don't get the simplicity of the answer I'll just say it: No. What if I said yes? I know nothing according to the instigators logic. My opponents stated I could be wrong in everything I know, but that contradicts his side too. He could be wrong with everything he knows, therefore not making credible reliance. But however, this debate is not focused around that matter. One thing I know for certain? You really want me to talk about that? I will if you answer this question: what is one thing you are certain?
God of the Bible (which I am for) vs Atheism

I see what you're saying, but I did ask you a simple question that I'd like a yes or no to - I don't want a tu quoque fallacy from you. :) The question was: Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? Please don't waste a round. If you say "yes", then it logically follows that you know nothing. If I told you"the speed limit outside is 60k/mph, but I could be wrong." then I don't *know* the speed limit. In the same way, if you could be wrong about everything you think you know, it follows that you know nothing - in which case you can't know what I can know, which you started to talk about... If you say "no", then I would like you to tell me one thing you can know for certain.
God of the Bible (which I am for) vs Atheism

I am sorry to see that you are not happy to debate against me. Nonetheless I will state my first argument and answer my opponents questions. "Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?" Firstly, this context is very contradicting to my opponents side. There are many answers I could tell you but I will ask you a question that answers your question: Could YOU be wrong about everything YOU think YOU know? I agree, you could be wrong, but that does not prove that you are right. The bible can have false information and context in. What if Noah never built an ark? What if there never was a flood? What if..? and it carries on. But let me reason you into thinking about it for a second. We do not have credible sources of the Bible. The bible has been made centuries, maybe thousands of years ago. Throughout those years, many people can change the context of the real story. [For example, the game called telephone. Lets say the statement you start off with is "Sally is funny" but it ends with "SAT's are fake."] This is like the bible. It has been retold my many people, and you never know what the truth is. Long story short, the bible might be fake. Basically summed up my argument into this refutation, but I will still show you my argument. My first argument is on the false information. As I stated before, the bible can have false and misinterpreted information on it. You can't just say it is real because God is. What if there is no heaven or hell? You do not have source on the fact that Jesus/God is real. It could all be fake. Whereas, scientist have actually studied and tracked down everything, therefore bringing in more reliable sources and evidence that earth might be made in a big bang and that humans were made from evolution. We can't rely on one source, which is the bible in Christian/Catholic stances. My second argument is on the fact that there might not even be a god. Just think about it for a second. If you are Christian, you think that Allah isn't real. But vice verse is still the same. We may never know which God is real or not, which also leads me into false information, like my first argument. But atheists don't believe in a God. Maybe Christians are wrong about God, and that there is no God and we don't know if that's real or not. Islam's might be wrong about Allah, that Allah isn't real as well. But Atheists do not believe in any god, therefore narrowing down the reliable sources. It would be better to not believe than believing at all Again, please do not refute against the fact I am going against my religion, for that is irrelevant to this case. Nonetheless, I again ask God for forgiveness. Thank you for letting me debate
God of the Bible (which I am for) vs Atheism

My position is that God created the world more or less as we know it and everything in it, approximately 6000 years ago. It is my observation that everything we see in nature shows this, and also - very doubt in Creation proves that God exists. An agreement to debate proves that God exists. A debate presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God. You cannot get truth from an evolved meat machine. Open a shaken up can of Coke and a can of Sprite. The winner of this debate is the drink that produces the most fizz. What"s the difference between that and our debate, if there is no god? Your thoughts are simply brain fizz. How do you get truth from that? So I would first ask - how do you get truth without God? Until you answer that question, you're borrowing from my worldview, which states that God exists. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1-7 (KJV)
God of the Bible (which I am for) vs Atheism

My opponents have been ignoring my answer all along, I have provided it to you in my last round, so please read again. I said no. You do not know that God exists, that he revealed it through making this world. The bible could be wrong. Even I could be wrong, but if we weight out a balance, with one side of knowing God exists and another side believing scientific reasoning what weighs it out? We only have the bible for evidence on the left side, and it could be historically inaccurate for telling ancestor by ancestor can change words like the game called Telephone. We cannot trust the bible, it could be altered in many ways yet your side fails to realize that. However on the right side, we have evidence. They studied non-stop about his, and made diagrams charts etc. They gave us clear reasoning that shows more reliability as the Big Bang My opponents have not stated any argumentative statements supporting his side other than a question. He has not refuted my arguments and all of my point and reasoning still stands. Please vote con. I ask God for forgiveness Best wishes to pro.
God of the Bible (which I am for) vs Atheism

This simple question is going on for much longer than I expected. Yes, I really would like to know this: "What is one thing you know for certain?" If at all... I'm confused - could you be wrong about everything you think you know, or not? Now - what's one thing *I* know? That God exists. How do I know that? Because he revealed it to us through his divine revelation. Please answer the question. Could you be wrong about everything you know - yes, or no.
Should Abortion be Illegal? (My Computer broke so I wasn't able to finish)

Have you ever been to foster care? it's horrible not a good home for children and incredibly overpopulated as it is there's reason most kids from foster care end up with all kinds of problems it's a very unstable living. While it sounds nice to put a child with family or guardians the sad reality is many people don't have family to give the child to or the family simply doesn't want the child so this isn't a very viable option. My previous comment about female anatomy was cut off what i meant to say is look up the female fertilization process is
Should Abortion be Illegal? (My Computer broke so I wasn't able to finish)

Firstly, you provided no evidence to why my masturbating at a playground analogy does not compare to abortion. Secondly, your 3rd reason makes no sense. Thirdly, although many kids might not get adopted they are still cared for and supported in foster homes. There are also many other alternatives to adoption, such as giving your child to a family member or placing the child in a temporary guardianship. You should not end the life of a innocent human being just because you don't want it.
Should Abortion be Illegal? (My Computer broke so I wasn't able to finish)

there may be enough people to do it but there not doing it as i said adoption is an expensive and lengthy process and most people can't afford plus most people want there own children. second off your comparison between masturbating on the playground and having an abortion doesn't even compare. The only thing that would be accomplished by making abortion illegal is more unsafe backalley abortions and an increase in the amount of unwanted children in foster care. 3rd of all you can look up any fertilization process you wish to understand female