BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baltic War Debate

Thanks for passing that round, i actually was really sick and unable to do anything. Now, on to my response I am going to say that the use of the bat bomb was improper, as while incendiary weapons are useful, they wouldn't destroy a city . Besides, i have a much larger and better trained air force, how did you manage to make constant air raids on my capital if my air force is scrambled to deal with any threat. Therefore, i am going to void the bombings and air raids on my capital. July 15th: Poland realizes that that this war can only be won once the skies are captured. Poland sends a request to the United States to allow for Polish manufacture of the F-16 fighter jet. As Poland already as several in it's inventory, the United states agrees on the terms that Poland ends construction once the war is over, and does not export any built. Poland accepts this pays 500 million dollar to the United States. July 16th: Poland shifts their manufacturing focus from tanks to aircraft. Poland also signs an agreement with Denmark and Norway to station military in their countries. Poland pays both nations 300 million each for this. July 17th: Poland launches operation Blind man Gambit. Phase 1 Polish cyber warfare teams break into Swedish radar and starts broadcasting false signals and attacks. (I started my attacks on may 26th) Sweden is completely unaware, and deploys their air force to what seems to be an easy target of Polish cargo planes. July 18th 6 am: Phase 2: As the Swedish air force is distracted, Poland launches a massive offensive, sending 80% of their fighters and bombers (200) to Sweden. July 18th 11 am: Phase 3: in order to break the morale of Sweden, Poland begins massive bombing campaigns on Swedish cities near the coast, targeting Halmstad, Goteborg, and Malmo. Civilian causalities are over 300,000. July 18th 5pm: Polish planes head back to Denmark. They are intercepted by vengeful Swedish planes who are now back in position to deal serious damage. In their assault, I lose 50 planes, and Sweden loses 22 planes. July 20th: In order to prevent Sweden from regaining the ability to use of Radar, Poland places a numerous amount of malware, trojans and viruses on Swedish radar. It'll be months before Sweden regains control. Poland now turns their cyber attacks to the Swedish electrical grid. I only fought air battler, but i took an offensive against you in order to bring pressure off of my sea border. Every city now has detachments of AA guns and missiles in order to counter a Swedish air threat. I also see my reserves expand by 100K as men and women sign up to defend their home.
Baltic War Debate

My WMD is 1000 mosquitos infected with Yellow Fever. http://www.globalfirepower.com...May 27th Sweden relises that he had better read up on the Art of War. May 28th Sweden pays Russia 40 million to not sell natural gas and oil. This accompanied by a promise of buisness. May 29th Sweden calls up the reserves and begins instituting propaganda posters. June 1st Sweden pays Germany to cut off Polish border and to allow Swedish troops into the country. It is payed 20 million. 5 million is payed to slovenia, czech republic, Bulgaria, and Ukrain for the same reason. Production on boats and tanks begins.June 3rd Sweden sends a fleet of all of its ships except for its coastal defense craft and begins to smash Poland's fleet. July 5th Poland has lost 4 submarines 1 frigate 1 corvette and 65 other ships. Sweden lost 3 submarines no frigates 3 corettes and 25 other ships. The rememnts of Polands navy is bottled up in Gdansk by 100 Swedish ships. July 6th 40 tanks have rolled off the line. Artillery is purchased from Russia. Sweden gets 40 towed arillery for 40 million. 50 attack aircraft is purchased for 100 million. July 7th 10,000 men have joined up. Sweden makes a deal with Estonia to allow planes to fly there. July 8th Sweden makes constant air raids upon fire stations in Warsaw.July 9th Bat bomb detonated in Warsaw, the city has been burned to the ground with 93% of all buildings destroyed. Morale plummets for Poland. Sweden has an influx of enlistment. It now has an army of 70,000July 10th under cover of 50 planes the full Swedish navy attacks Gdansk. All but three Polish boats are smashed, and 18 airplanes destroyed. The lone submarine escapes but is being pursued. Sweden looses 21 planes and 14 boats. July 14th All Poland ports are mined and a blockade, backed up by Swedens air surrounds Poland's coast. 40 tanks and 4 boats have rolled off the line.No land battles only sea and air battles. Your capital is destroyed our air is superiour and you cannot get natural gas or oil. Good luck winning without a fleet.
Baltic War Debate

Okay, this should be fun! Here are my numbers Total Population: 38,346,279 Available Manpower: 18,830,448 Fit for Service: 15,583,917 Reaching Military Age Annually: 433,061] Active Frontline Personnel: 120,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 515,000 Tanks: 1,009 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 2,608 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 443 Towed-Artillery: 72 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 240 Total Aircraft: 467 Fighters/Interceptors: 99 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 99 Transport Aircraft: 263 Trainer Aircraft: 76 Helicopters: 255 Attack Helicopters: 29 Total Naval Strength: 83 Aircraft Carriers: 0 Frigates: 2 Destroyers: 0 Corvettes: 1 Submarines: 5 Coastal Defense Craft: 3 Mine Warfare: 24 Oil Production: 34,200 bbl/day Oil Consumption: 580,000 bbl/day] Proven Oil Reserves: 156,500,000 bbl/day Labor Force: 18,220,000 Merchant Marine Strength: 9] Major Ports and Terminals: 4 Roadway Coverage: 423,997 Railway Coverage: 19,428 Serviceable Airports: 126 Defense Budget: $9,360,000,000 External Debt: $365,200,000,000 Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $107,800,000,000 Purchasing Power Parity: $814,000,000,000 Square Land Area: 312,685 km Coastline: 440 km Shared Border: 2,845 km Waterways: 3,997 km I will take the defensive here in this war my WMD is VX nerve gas 15 parts-per-million May 16th: Tensions flare up between Poland and Sweden over territorial boundaries regarding the seas May 17th: Relations further deteriorate when both sides send in their navies to force the other to accept a boundry May 19th: A Swedish trade merchant ship is sunk in disputed waters, Sweden blames Poland. Sweden demands payment and an apology May 20th: Poland refuses. Tensions are high May 22nd: NATO realizing that a war between two countries near Russia could encourage further Russian aggression offer's to mediate the dispute. May 24th: Both sides refuse outside help. Poland begins defensive preparations in case of an invasion. They lay a defensive minefield near there coastline, splits their navy up at several ports along the border, and starts basic mobilization May 25th: Sweden angered by Polish mobilization and pressured by internal calls to war declares war against Poland. May 26th: Many countries declare neutrality. Poland scrambles their air force, ramps up fighter and tank production, as well as small arms. Poland also starts cyber warfare. They start to fortify the northern coast with 80k men and 800 tanks. They also start to place anti air guns and anti naval missiles behind the fortified lines. Poland also starts a propaganda campaign in order to bolster voluntary enlistment. I'm currently holding back the rest of my forces to deploy as I see fit. I'm going to stop here and allow you to respond. Good luck
why is the govt spending so much money

I see this as in points that Obama is just increasing the national debt by millions of dollars, I also think that the nations bills/laws should be brought into proportion that most of them make the U.S.A lose more money then we have to. The reason I chose this topic is not to see people make a joke of me (I know your not) but instead bring up a national crisis. I feel that if we would lower spending cost we could be out of debt, I can also ratify that not all people like Obama Point proven before. As I feel that I would also feel if u can in-depth explain your rebuttal just a little more Imabench and Thank you for your time. sincerely Dragon_slayer489
why is the govt spending so much money

Its a combination of a couple things but I think most people can agree that the reason the government is spending so much and causing the debt is so high can be because of the following: 1) Massive spending on the new War on Terror combined with the untimely worldwide depression caused the government to be put into a squeeze since they could no longer fund the massive amounts of spending by taxing people since such taxes would only worsen the effects of the depression.... 2) Since taxation can only fund so much, the only other tactic the government can use to lower spending is to make cuts to certain programs. But with such a divided Congress, its impossible for anyone to agree to cut anything, which is why spending remains so high. 3) Economic Stimulus's from the last 2 presidents meant to jump start the economy at the expense of the national debt fell flat on its a**, had little effect on the economy at all, and only raised the national debt to horrendously high levels. 4) Rather then try to put together an effort to significantly reduce spending, administrations just blame the one before them for being so fiscally irresponsible and then proceed on doing nothing very significant to try to reduce the debt.
Poetry battle

When peace, like a river, attends my way;When sorrows, like sea billows roll.Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,It is well, it is well with my soul!My sin, oh the bliss of this glorious thought:My sin, not in part, but the wholeIs nailed to the cross and I bear it no more!Thank the Lord, thank the Lord, oh my soul!And Lord, haste the day, when my faith shall be sight;The skies be rolled back as a scroll.The trumpet resound, and the Lord shall descend,Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord! oh, my soul!There was no throne for him of silver or of gold, there was no diadem for Him to hold.But blood adorned his brow, and proud it's stain he bore.And sinners gave to him the crown he wore.A rugged cross became his throne, his kingdom was in hearts alonehe wrote his love in crimson redand wore the crown of thorns upon his head.He did not reign upon a throne of ivory But died upon the cross of Calvary. For sinners there He counted all He owned but loss And He surveyed His kingdom from a cross. No purple robe He wore, His bleeding wounds to hide But stripes upon His back He wore with pride. And from the wounds there flowed a crimson, cleansing stream That was a cover for the soul unclean.When I survey the wondrous crossOn which the Prince of Glory died.My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.See from his head, his hands, his feet, sorrow and love flow mingled down.Did, e're such love and sorrow meet?Or thorns compose so rich a crown.Were the whole realm of glory mine, That were a present far too small.Love so amazing, so divineDemands my soul, my life, my all.Low in the grave he lay, Jesus my Saviourwaiting the coming day, Jesus my Lord.Up from the grave he arose! With a mighty triumph over his foes!He arose the victor from the dark domain, Now He lives forever with his saints to reign!He arose! He arose! Halleluiah, Christ arose!He's coming again, this very same jesus!First came as a babe, in a manger was laid, the Son of God.He's coming again! With power and great glory!He's coming to take us, those of His own.
Poetry battle

"Eulogies of the blessed one" Poem Darkness seeps through this heart of mine As sin corrupts the tranquility of soul O serenity! Make your way into this body of restlessness I walked too far...too far into a path...not knowing...not thinking The ruins of a past life, a desolate sanctuary, the deepest places of myself A reflection of my own humanity painted so beautifully like music flowing through the windows of heaven itself into eternity I see my future..i am resurrected...i am complete, a fallen paradise is restored from ashes destined to be laid to waste I see fallen brethren, those that lacked faith, and my soul cries out for compassion The same compassion as justice extends her hand to execute retribution I can only fall into the hands of a loving savior, the sum of all beauty The heart of all goodness, the creation, my beginning, my end, my everything! My evil nature reigns for only an age...Christ reigns for an eternity as i slumber forgetting the pains that i once endured...and may it be that when i triumph Let the angels take me above...away from scars....from waging war on diabolical fiends Grace ever so elegant, so faithful carries me home...to the place where the face of God can finally be unveiled to his bride...the one destined... perhaps doomed to be forever enslaved to nothing..not evil...or the limits of this temporal world... but eternal Love and an endless world which sings of I AM...
Affirmative Action

I will be arguing against Affirmative Action. Afirmative Action is a program that allows lowering of standards because some believe it gives minorities a better chance to succeed. I not only believe this is untrue but it is an insult to minorities everywhere. And is racist in and of itself. Here are the points I wish to bring out. #1 Affirmnative Action is racist #2 Affirmative Action does more harm than good #3 Affirmative Action not only reverses true progress but also causes minorities to question their abilities Rules for debate: 1. Address all points before making new points 2. Be respectful 3. Last statement should be summations. Not new arguments. 4. Have fun
The Founding Fathers' Were Anti-slavery

This has truly been my mistake brother. I am very sorry that i accused you of being a liberal simpleton, When it is clear that you are in fact, An intellectual conservative. I have become to zelaous in my pursuit of a liberal-free plane of existance, That i have began to turn on my allies. Now that you have straightened my path, We may work together towards our dream. As disciples of ben shapiro we shall rise up against the liberal masses and own all libtards with facts and knowledge.
Resolved: Alcohol should be prohibited in the United States.

Contention 1: No legittimate need exists for the consumption for alcohol. Much like how hard drugs such as crack or cocaine are illegal because of the harms they impose on the user, alcohol should also be prohibited. No medical use exists for the consumption of alcohol; the only thing alcohol can do is impair one's ability to make logical decisions. Contention 2: Alcohol related deaths. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has prevented thousands of DUI-related deaths from occurring. Making it illegal is a much simpler solution. The only dangerous abusers of alcohol are those who inflict harm on others. After a new prohibition, if alcohol abusers inflict harm on others, it will be obvious. Contention 3: Today's America is different than the America during the Prohibition My opponents will likely use the Prohibition as their prime example of why alcohol should remain legal within the United States. However, today's scene in the United States is much different than that of the Prohibition era. Much like how drug use is fairly minimal within the United States, alcohol use will be the same. It won't be a perfect system; people will get away with sneaking it into the US, producing it at home, and abusing it, but like drug-abusers, these incidents will be both rare and obvious. Unlike other drugs, alcohol cannot be snuck in small packages in clothing or hidden in other baggage, making it much harder to sneak through air travel. Contention 4: Any Prohibition Era-like backlash will eventually dissipate Even if Prohibition Era-like backlash occurs, it will eventually dissipate. Alcoholism is passed down from one generation to the next; children who are around parents or peers who abuse alcohol are more likely to drink in the future. By prohibition alcohol, the number of adults consuming alcohol will decrease. A black market will inevitably be created, and a few wealthy who can afford to purchase alcohol illegal may continue. However, the overwhelming majority of alcohol abusers tend to be from low-income areas, thus removing them from the picture. Holistically, few adults will continue to consume alcohol after a prohibition; consequently, the number of children growing up to consume alcohol illegally will decrease with every generation.
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

IntroductionThis debate is about if Climate change is anthropomorphic (man made) in origin (the start). I am negating this.Note: this is not semantics,as these are the common understandings of the topic. To claim that changes in the climate from over 4000 years ago is caused by humans is quite ridiculous. Climate change has been happening for millions of years. Saying it has on balance, been caused by humans is false.http://lovecraftzine.com...http://www.nhm.ac.uk...We have only been around 200,000 years. To put that into perspective, we have only been on Earth for a minute compared to total Earth time. ConclusionIt is ridiculous to suggest we are responsible for change happening millions of years ago
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

Select winner. 2k. 2 weeks. == Definitions == Global warming: The average increase in temperatures since the late 19th century. Man-Made: The literal definition is fairly obvious. In terms of this debate, man-made factors to climate change would be the emission of greenhouse gasses. Or, as the IPCC would describe man-made forcing, "changes in the concentrations of radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols)" [1]. To clarify "on balance", I am not arguing that climate change is entirely man made. But that it is predominately (50% or more) human caused. ==Structure== R1: Acceptance R2: Present case. R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and conclusion == Some abbreviations == AGW -- Anthropogenic global warming [G]CR -- [galactic] cosmic rays TSI -- Total solar irradiation MWP -- Medieval warm period LIA -- Little ice age == Rules == 1. No forfeits 2. Nullifying the traditional rule 2 bsh uses. Sources can be put in outside links. For this topic I sometimes need the room :P 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic 8. The BOP is Shared; Pro must argue for independence and Con must argue against 9. Pro must present their case in round one 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss 1. http://www.grida.no...
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

Alleged Rule Violations: 5. No trolling How hurtful! trolling:make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. (Google) I am not trying to offend anyone deliberately. If anything, you are offending me by accusing me of breaking rules. 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) The resolution is not about global warming, which was defined first round by 16k. The debate right now is about climate change, which since it has been undefined, I define as "a long-term change in the earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature:" (dictionary. com). I assumed we were talking about climate change as the resolution stated so. Even though he claims ">R1 established "global warming" (synonomous to "climate change" in the literature) ", climate change and global warming are completely different, the Little Ice age was an example of climate change but not global warming. Not all change = warming. 16k thinks climate change = global warming because global warming is an example of climate change and they are therefore the same. That would be like saying because all squares= rectangles are rectangles = squares. 7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic The common understanding of climate change is changes in the climate, not necessarily warming. The definition of origin is "the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. (google)", which basically means beginning of something, which means the start. The start of CLIMATE CHANGE dated back to millions of years ago. "Con's debate strategy is immoral, unfair, and rule breaking. " To what morality system? Back up your assertions. Unfair? Well you instigated it and made the resolution so, not I. I am adhering to the rules. I explained why I followed the rules. Conclusion Climate change (not the same thing as global warming) has been happening for millions of years before humanity was alive. To say that humans affected the climate so long ago is patently ridiculous.
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

- kingd breaks two rules in this debate. He breaks #6 -- no K's of the topic -- #7 -- no semantics -- and arguably #5. Based on rule #10, I win the debate. - kingd drops both consensus and sensitivity, conceding them as true. - I refuted paleoclimate, showing that past records actually support AGW and that he misrepresented his sources > showed today was abnormally warm for this recent interglacial cycle > king's graph shows correlation - his whole argument is a semantical ploy on origin and climate change. But is fails. >R1 established "global warming" (synonomous to "climate change" in the literature) was defined to the late 1800s - present. > so the origin of that climate change was indeed mankind > pro wins > king assumes I am talking about change over the past 500 million years. R1 proved this to not be the case. Con's debate strategy is immoral, unfair, and rule breaking. Not to mention incorrect.
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

16kadams has misunderstood the debate. This debate is not whether modern climate change is due to humans. This debate is about whether the ORIGIN of climate change is due to humans. As I have proven and 16k not rebutted, climate change has been happening for millions of years, and we have only been here for 200,000 years, making it ridiculous that humans cause the earliest climate change. https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com... https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com... My rich text isn't working, but you can see form the graphs that global warming has been happening for over 550 million years. We have been around for 200,000 and could not have started that change from 550 million years ago. P1: This debate is if climate change has started because of humans P2: Climate change has been happening for over 550 million years P3: Humans have been around for 200,000 years Conclusion: We are not the origin of global warming Defense of P1: See resolution Defense of P2: See graphs Defense of P3: http://www.universetoday.com... Conclusion Everything 16kadams has said is irrelevant. We are not arguing about modern climate change; we are arguing if humans started climate change. Since climate change has started before humans were even on the earth, it is obvious we haven't started it.
There is at Least One Problem with the Notion of a Catholic (Christian) God

There are a myriad of problems with the Christian god, depending on you present it. For instance, the Creation Account is pretty inaccurate in how the Earth actually developed, the World Wide Flood lacks any compelling evidence, and some silly things like how the great all mighty creator of the universe can be stopped by something so basic as iron chariots (Judges 1:19). There are also moral problems to contend with. God is in favor of things like slavery, the rape of women prisoners of war, the execution of male prisoners of war, and the very idea of infinite punishment for a finite crime is horrendous. But I won't go very deep into this, as it is the first round.Of course some of these things depends on the Christianity one puts forth, and as I am unsure of the specefics of Catholicism I would ask Con to present some of the things that he considers Catholic belief.