BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
More Gun control or less Gun control

There should be more gun control, because there are way to many crazy people in the world for there not to be. Less guns mean less crimes and murders! In other countries like Canada, they have stricter rules on having/carrying guns, and they have WAY LESS crimes and murders then the united states. Guns can be used for hunting, but is it reasonable to carry an AK-47? If we have stricter gun control then people who have a mental illness would not go around killing people. THE GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE THE PEOPLE KILL THE PEOPLE WITH THE GUNS!!!! I've never needed to use a gun in my entire life, to defend myself. There are other ways you can defend yourself besides guns. If someone comes on my property with a gun and starts shooting isn't there other weapons I could use besides a gun? I could use a knife to defend myself, why do we need the guns. In the Second Amendment it does say we have a right to bear arms, but this right should be limited. We cannot have people going around buy guns and killing people. When you buy a gun , you have a background check, but what about the people who get the guns illegally? What are we going to do about them, there are billions of people in the world how are we going to stop this person from buying illegally a gun. This is exactly why we should gun control. America has a very low level of gun control already, and if we have people buy guns with bad intentions they are putting others in harm. THE WORLD ALREADY HAS SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH GUNS ARE WE HONESTLY GOING TO INCREASE THE PROBLEM BY LETTING PEOPLE BUY MORE AND MORE GUNS? How many people have been killed by a gun in the past year alone, does it matter? NO IT DOESNT BECAUSE GUNS ARE GUNS AND THEY ARE USED TO HARM, THREATEN, AND KILL PEOPLE. They need limitations on fire arms.
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Ave.Topic: Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.Position: Pro/ForCategory: ScienceRounds: 4Voting Period: 1 WeekTime to Argue: 72 HoursArgument Max: 8,000 CharactersVote Comments: YesI am taking the Pro position. It is my burden to prove that Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism. It is the burden of Con to prove that Big Bang cosmology supports theism over atheism. The winner of the argument will be the side that demonstrates their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if 51% of the evidence favors one side, that side should win arguments.There are four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance of the rules and framework. I will present my opening statement in the subsequent round, and the next rounds will be devoted to rebuttals.The voting period will be one week. Each side will have seventy-two hours to post each round. The maximum number of characters is eight thousand.Using pictures in order to demonstrate concepts is allowed. General expectations of conduct should be followed. I will be taking my argument from a debate I instigated with a different account. Please do not accuse me of plagiarism. It is my own work.God is defined as the personal being which causes the initial state of the universe.Vale.
Most Important Battles Challenge (3 Redo)

The Battle of StalingradYear: 480 BCArmies: Germany and other Axis Nations (Friedrich Paulus) vs. Soviet Union (Vasily Chuikov) The BattleWhat started a small battle led to the most important battle of World War 2. In 1942, the German 6th Army made up of 270,000 men was sent to attack Stalingrad, a Soviet city named after the nation's leader near the Volga River. The small amount of Soviet defenders did their best to stop the German army and soon the city was deadlocked for months. German and Soviet troops fought around the wreckage of the city. Soon the Germans and Soviets had millions of troops in and around the city.By late 1942, the Soviets launched Operation Uranus which was an operation involving massive amounts of soldiers surrounding the Axis troops. The German commander, General Friedrich Paulus, asked Adolf Hitler allow a withdrawal, but Hitler refused. The Luftwaffe (German air force) tried to re-supply the 6th Army from the air, but failed. Two German Panzer divisions under the command of General Erich von Manstein were sent to try to breakthrough the Soviet troops, but failed. Eventually, the 6th Army was forced to surrender. Had the Germans won?If the Germans won, they would have won a great victory against the Soviets. Most Soviet oil fields are in the south near Stalingrad and if the Volga is captured then the Soviets would be unable to transport their oil up the river. The Soviets would lose a very valuable resource to the German war machine.The Germans would likely then continue their campaign in the south, further spread out Soviet forces as they moved on which would contribute to the campaigns in the north and the center. This means the USSR would have a major problem and if the Germans capture Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow, then this likely would have led to the Soviet surrender.http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (3 Redo)

Battle of ToursYear: 732Armies: The Franks (Charles Martel) vs. Umayyad Caliphate (Abdul Rahman) The BattleFor many years, Islamic forces in the Umayyad Caliphate (or the Moors) were expanding all over the Middle East and North Africa. Now it was time to conquer Europe. One of the most key battles in which the Caliphate tried to take Europe was a battle between them and the Franks led by Charles Martel. Martel had a total of 20,000 troops. The Caliphate army led by Abdul Rahman could have been as small as 30,000, but as high as 300,000. It was vastly larger than the Frank army. However, against all the odds, Martel and the Franks held off the Caliphate. It was at this battle that Charles Martel may have earned his nickname, "Charles The Hammer."Had Rahman won?If Rahman won, chances are they won have taken over Europe. Many people credit Martel as the savior of Europe. The defeat of the talented Martel would open up Europe and even just taking France would have major effects in history. It does not seem possible that other, more mediocre generals, would be able to do what Martel could not. http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (3 Redo)

The Battle of LeipzigYear: 1813Armies: The French Empire and its Protectorates (Napoleon I) vs. The Sixth Coalition (Alexander I) The BattleIn 1813, Napoleon was in grave trouble. He had led his Grand Army into Russia in 1812, but Alexander I's schorched earth policy, the retreating of the Russian Army, and winter forced him to make an infamous retreat that led to the end of almost his entire army. He was able to create a new Grand Army by 1813 through conscription. By then, the Sixth Coalition was formed to defeat him. On October 16, Napoleon met Russian Czar Alexander I's Coalition Army. Over 195,000 men from Napoleon's Grand Army met the Coalition Army made up of 380,000 Russian, Prussian, Austrian, and Swedish troops. The battle lasted for several days, but the allies numberial advantage started to come in and Napoleon was forced on a retreat. Had the French Won?This was a major opportunity by the new Coalition to severely weaken Napoleon's power and force him to retreat and lose parts of his empire. The ultimate goal that many European nations wanted was for Napoleon to no longer be an emperor. Had Napoleon won a major victory here against the four Coalition nations, it would have been incredibly demoralizing.They no doubt could rebuild their armies and try again, but chances are they would be spread apart and divide and conquer was one of Napoleon's favorite tactics. Napoleon could then focus on defeating each Coalition army in detail forcing them to surrender and accept French power again. He could then move forces to Spain to stop the British, Portugese, and Spanish troops. Even if he crushed the Spanish and Protugese, his last enemy would be Britain because of the Royal Navy and they would likely stay there (unless Napoleon intended to build a Grand Navy). However, everyone else would likely be subjected to Napoleonic rule.http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (3 Redo)

It's a bit unfortunate not being able to give refutations to my opponent's claims, but I hope that people look into them anyway because most of them aren't true. Nevertheless I thank my opponent for a good round.Battle of KalingaMy opponent begins with an ancient battle - well then, so will I.Kalinga was, in 262 BC, the site of one of the deadliest battles in history. 2,000,000 people, most of them civilians, were slain. Ashoka the Great, the Mauryan leader, led an army of 400,000 against the tiny republic of Kalinga, in modern north-eastern India. According to Pliny the Elder, Kalinga's numbered only a little over 60,000 (including 700 war elephants - some estimates, however, put the number at upwards of 150,000). Ashoka won the battle but at a heavy cost, losing around 100,000 of his own men. The battlefield itself was beside the Daya river, which ran red with blood when the battle was finished.When the battle was finished, and Ashoka had his victory, it is said that a woman approached him, wailing. When she was asked what her problem was, she told Ashoka "Your actions have taken from me my father, husband, and son. Now what will I have left to live for?" From that day forth, Ashoka decided to accept Buddhism, and stop fighting wars. He went on to lead his empire through many decades of prosperity. On a hill besides the battle site, among his other edicts, Ashoka had carved an apology for conquering the Kalingas. It remains there to this day.Why was this battle important?First, the acceptance of Buddhism by Ashoka and the Mauryans generally was one of the principal catalysts for the spread of Buddhism. Had it remained only a minor thing in a few monasteries, it seems extremely unlikely that it would have had so strong an influence on the world as it did, if it had survived at all. Buddhism continues to be a major force in the world today, and this battle is the one that inspired a man to nurture its growth.Secondly, as a consequence of that, it changed the nature of the Maurya Empire. Previously military conflict was believed to be the main way for an emperor to attain greatness. From that day forth, it was the Dharma. This led to a flourishing of the arts in India - an era of happiness and prosperity, much like the golden age of, say, Greece.Third, it was a really deadly battle, one of the deadliest in human history (depending on how exactly it is measured, perhaps THE deadliest battle ever). The sheer depopulation of the region had enormous ramifications for centuries to come. Remember this was at a time when the total population of the world was much smaller than it is today.Finally, the battle's outcome created one of the first unified Indias (well, the very south excluded, but even they paid Ashoka tribute). This unification provided a model for countless future conquest and disputes that continue to this day, but also a model for peace and prosperity in the region.
Most Important Battles Challenge (3 Redo)

The Battle of SalamisYear: 480 BCFleets: Greek City-States (Eurybiades + Themistocles) vs. Achaemenid Empire (Xerxes I) The BattleAt this battle, a fleet from the Greek City-States commanded by Eurybiades and Themistocles fought off the Islamic Achaemenid Empire fleet (Persia) commanded by Xerxes I. The Persian fleet was much more larger than the Greek fleet (some say it was 1,000 Persian ships vs. 378 Greek ships). When the Persian ships entered the Straits of Salamis in cramped conditions, they were easily defeated by the Greeks. Some say if they won it would have change a lot.Had the Persians won?They would have likely changed history by defeating the Greeks here. As it would have effect Greek progress in civilization and thus change progress in the western world. Chances are, the Greeks would not be able to expand through colonization if they were under Persian rule they would be giving taxes and looking to a Persian emperor. Chances today we would be looking at a different kind of democracy, likely from Scandanavia which founded its own democracy. So instead of learning and following Hellenistic democracy we would we learning and following pre-Harald in Norway. This would have an impact on all democracies across the world in the future. http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (3 Redo)

As per usual, I accept. I'm going to pretty blatently plagiarise our last debate for now, cutting off any rebuttal.I know you said no sematics, but I think it's only fair to define important, as having the greatest impact on the course of history. I don't think that will be a big issue in the debate, but it's just a common framework we can work with. I also assume that by battle we mean a military engagement. Rap battles, for instance, or the cold war, may be important but not battles.I wish my opponent good luck. LET THE BATTLES BEGIN!
Most Important Battles Challenge (3 Redo)

Hello, this is 1Historygenius, the Master Historian of this website, and YOU have been challenged to my third most important battles challenge (well, really a redo of one)!Rules:We will debate battles for different wars and time periods. What happens is that every round a battle will be placed by each person. The voters will decide who has the more important battle for that round. Who ever has the most will get the most points from the votes and thus win. Sieges are not included in this. Just land and naval battles. No semantics or trolling!Round 1 is for acceptance!No refutations! The Winner of the debate will simply be decided by the voters!Too avoid any further confusion, here is a previous debate I did that people can use as a guideline: http://debate.org...
George W. Bush should have won Bush v. Gore

As much as I did not want G. W. Bush to win the election, I can find no fault in the SCOTUS for their decision. Appointing an official to determine the "intent of the voters" or allowing counties to recount votes under an arbitrary system would have violated the Equal Protection Act. The time constraints on the Court did not allow for much wiggle room on this one and they did the best they could in a case of first impression.
George W. Bush should have won Bush v. Gore

On January 20th, 2000, a man was sworn in as president of the United States of America. This man lost the popular vote fair and square. He also would have lost Florida if all of the counties had counted their votes consistently with their standard [1]. The Florida supreme court even called for a recount. By a series of political maneuvers, however, this issue made it into the supreme court. Issues like this are not supposed to go to the supreme court, as they are state law [2]. Somehow, this went to the supreme court anyway, and it got even more dubious from there. Somehow, all of the GOP-appointed justices (with the exception of Stevens) voted with Bush. If it couldn't get more dubious, the conservative judges tend to rule to protect state laws, yet they voted to overturn Florida's law, while the liberals voted to keep the state law intact. That is a dubious ruling if I've ever seen one. Not only that, but Bush was ruled the winner based on the equal protection clause [3]. Anyone with any knowledge of equal protection would know that it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and if there was a violation, it is because not everybody's vote was counted. A recount would do nothing to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" [4]. Still, George W. Bush won, and he served as president for eight years. But should he have won? No, he should not have, and I look forward to debating this topic. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) http://www.law.cornell.edu... "When questions arise about the meaning of state laws, including election laws, it is our settled practice to accept the opinions of the highest courts of the States as providing the final answers" (Stevens). 3) http://www.law.cornell.edu... "With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause" (Per curiam). 4) http://www.usconstitution.net...
Story writing debate

(have to get this in now because i fly out to la with my family tomorrow so forgive me if its rushed) "Ok everyone activate all of the projects, de-cryo the saved specimens, ready the weapons! Go! Go! Go!" the CIA officer yelled. "What the h3ll are you talking about?" I shouted at him. "Son ,your in area 51," he answered. Weapons and species of all kinds started to be gathered in the front courtyard and one of the officers told us to grab a weapon to defend ourselves with. I picked the large blue sword. I hit a button and it energized. We were all prepared and lined up on the courtyard. The air started to fill with thr sounds of wings flapping and dragons roaring. One alpha appeared over the horizon, then another, and another. Soon, the sky in front of us was filled with them. They came closer at an alarming speed. One of them reached my blade, and everything went black
Story writing debate

Then it all got worse. There was news of attacks in small villages. The bodies were scorched, frozen, or blown apart. "Skirmishers," I thought to myself. Skirmishers are a race on Xeno Prime that actually look like dragons. They come in fire, ice, and electricity breathing breeds. There were more and more attacks in closer time proximity as the weeks progressed. They also got worse. There were even sightings of Skirmishers. Then the CIA came. The official who came said, "Mrs. Rexter, you and your family must be hidden." "Why?" my mother asked. "Working without authorization of the president we have found the origins of your recently later relatives, it is a matter of Earths survival that you come with us." "Dang," I thought to myself, "I hope we aren"t attacked." As the days after progressed things started to die down. There weren"t as many attacks, and my family and the CIA thought the worst was over. About a couple weeks they said that we could go outside. No one but me wanted to. Now the CIA new that I could feel the presence of Xeno Prime and its technology. That day, that horrible day when I stepped out the door, I felt it and collapsed. I felt the power of the alphas trying to home in on me. I told them that. The CIA and my family thought it was nothing, but about 15 minutes later, we got a call from the president. He was on his plane. The call went like this: "Mayday! Mayday! We are going down! I repeat we are going down! The radar shows multiple enemy units attacking all over the world! The White House has been swarmed by dragon like creatures. CRASH! Who is the one who killed our people? Did you kill them? No I don"t what you are talking about. Tell me who killed our people. I don"t know who did it. Tell me! I don"t" sqshhh. Whoever is on the other end of the line, we will find you and we will kill you. Kshhhhhhhh."
Story writing debate

this is sort of high fantasy. Ch. 1 Reckonings of death It all started 5 years ago, when things started to change and I learned that strings were being pulled by something else. It was New Year"s Day, 2084, in New Zeros, Antarctica. Yeah I said Antarctica. I was called Drake back then before it happened. As I said it was New Year"s Day and the city squared was flooded with people. We were waiting to hear the status on the sentence of my dad and uncle. "The sentence for Drakom and Zekor Rexter is"" the sentencing officer announced. We had more than enough evidence to prove them innocent. My dad and his brother had wise guy grins because they knew it too. ""Death, the sentence is death." The sentencing officer finished. There was an uproar of anger from square and my heart broke. They executed them right then and there, shooting them both twice in the back of the head. "Death," I thought to myself, "Why the heck were they sentence to death?" Then something even weirder happened. My dad"s body started floating and his eyes started glowing. "Members of the human race, you will pay for crimes against the balance of the universe. Some of you will be spared, others will die." He said. He spoke like Aang did when he was in the avatar state, like he had thousands of voices speaking with him. "Crimes, what crimes?" I thought. I was absolutely puzzled by this and so was my family. We already knew that my father"s father was an Alpha, A humanoid dragon creature from the planet Xeno Prime. We had questions like "What the heck happened, are the Alphas fed up with the human race, and what comes next?" It seemed like the government knew what was coming to because they turned the CIA into an alien police force, with much objection to Director Telljohann. Secretary of Defense, Jeremy Greenwald, volunteered to change the title to Secretary of interstellar defense. Mackenzie Frank, the first lady, divorced the president because of these extreme countermeasures. It was hectic there had to be something going on.
Is Pakistan Really a Terror Hub in World nd a threat to whole world

Pakistan is not a hub for terror when comparing its clandestine operations to those of any other nation. For example the CIA, http://www.huppi.com... Need I remind the people of debate.org that the FBI's most wanted terrorist of all time "Osama Bin Laden" was a CIA asset in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion? I doubt Pakistan could even be considered a major player on the global stage of clandestine operations.
President Nixon was a good president

The final argument: -It is true, Nixon did indeed do a few good things, but a majority of what he did was downright illegal. In all the examples you brought up the President's questions were definitely questionable as to whether they were ethical, but none of the Presidents broke the law. -Nixon flat out broke several laws including improper auditing, illegal wire tapping, accomplice to breaking and entering, spying, and fraud, not to mention lying about all of these things and then planning on committing perjury. Just as two wrongs don't make a right, so it is that a few good acts do not justify all the criminal acts that Nixon committed. Many far greater and lesser men and women than Nixon will be remembered unjustly for things they did not do, and have their reputations forever tarnished. Nixon actually did do all of the things he was accused of, so he therefore deserves the ridicule that comes with it. Giving him anything less would be unjust.
President Nixon was a good president

The things that president Lincoln and FDR and etc did are not agreed to as right by a lot of people. Your not going to find alot of people jumping to the fact that Lincoln put people in jail for no reason because he thought it was good for them. The people in jail didn't think that way. Majority of the people do not even remember the flaws in our great presidents they just remember the good they did. Nixon dose not have that luxury he will forever be looked at for the Watergate scandal. If you look at all Nixon has accomplished for the people in America I think it can outweigh what he tried to do to win a election in a America who was already favoring Nixon during that time. Nixon gave us a time of peace with the Soviet Union easing tensions with China. Nixon gave signed off on so many bills for civil rights so women could be treated equally in this world like men do. Nixon worked hard to desegregate schools and he did so decreasing the numbers in all black schools. Nixon's environmental policies were also a revolution to better our environment. These are the events that are not shown or highlighted as much in his presidency. So think about the majority of the products that comes to America that come from china thats from Nixon. Nondiscrimination when getting a job is because of Nixon. You have clean water and air is because of Nixon. The good Nixon did during his presidency greatly affects us today in a positive manner and i say any president who does that is a good one.