BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

Battle of StalingradYear: 1942 to 1943Armies: Nazi Germany (Hitler) vs Russia (Stalin)The BattleLeading up to the Battle of Stalingrad (the bloodiest battle in history) at the end of 1942, Hitler was f*cking up everyone who stood in his way. He had bulldozed through Poland, annexed other parts of Europe, occupied France, and was blowing Great Britain to hell before plowing into Russia. Hitlers army had decimated Stalingrad and had occupied all of the city for a long time, but the fierce and legendary resistance by Russian soldiers and civilians alike prevented Hitler's armies from advancing through Stalingrad deeper into Russia. The resistance held on for so long that it allowed Soviet Russia to launch a two pronged attack to cut off the Nazi troops in the city from their supply lines, and that was where the tide of the war turned. The battle of Stalingrad had bled Germany dry and forced them into full retreat, which is why many historians claim that Stalingrad was the turning point of WWII."The God of War has gone over to the other side" - Hitler in the aftermath of Stalingrad http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...^ just for the quoteHitlers mighty 6th army was reduced to 90,000 prisoners and 750,000 dead soldiers, and that revealed that the previously unstoppable Nazi War machine had shown they were not invincible. It demoralized the Nazi's but more importantly it energized the Russian armies to retake all of Russia, plow into Germany, take Berlin, and eventually cause Hitler to blow his own brains out. "Remember Stalingrad" was to Russia what "Remember Pearl Harbor" was to the US, and the Battle of Stalingrad became Russia's way of saying "HEY HITLER, F*CK YOU!!!"Had he won?Technically for this one the question should be "what if Hitler was able to keep going?". Had Hitler easily annexed Stalingrad, his armies could have continued to plow into Russia and possibly take Moscow, or he could have created a defensive line, wait out the winter, and resume his conquest of Russia once summer had come about. The allies had not landed on Normandy yet so Hitler could have used all his forces to go deeper into Russia until they eventually gave up. Had that happened there would not have been a two front war that squeezed Nazi Germany into submission, and Hitler could have very well Won WWIIhttp://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

Battle of WaterlooYear: 1815Armies: French (Napoleon Bonaparte) vs. British-Dutch-Prussia (Duke of Wellington and Gebhard von Blucher) The BattleIn 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte returned to power in France. He had been the emperor before, but was forced into exile during his failed conquest of Europe. Now back, the powers that had defeated him returned. Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia were all against him. British and Dutch troops commanded by the Duke of Wellington landed in Belgium and were suppose to meet a Prussia force commanded by Gebhard von Blucher. Napoleon decided to attack and take each army one at a time. At the battle, the British and Dutch occupied a ridge which stopped several frontal assaults that Napoleon launched. Soon Prussian troops from Blucher were on the field and Napoleon was being forced to split his army. After a failed attack by his elite Old Guard on the British and Dutch line, he withdrew and was eventually forced into exile again.Had he won?Napoleon would have likely been unstoppable. He had nearly conquered Europe before and he could have possible conquered all of it if he was given a second try. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

Hello, this is 1Historygenius and YOU have been challenged to my seond most important battles challenge!RulesWe 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!
Most Important Battles Challenge (2)

The Battle of TroyYear: 1240 BCArmies: The Greeks (King Agamemnon) vs the Trojans (King Priam)The Battle:The Battle of Troy is one of the biggest battles in history prior to the Birth of Christ. In 1240 BC King Agamemnon felt that Troy, the most powerful city in Asia, was a vital ally to have in his pocket, but when the bride of Agamemnon's brother was taken to Troy buy Prince Paris, Agamemnon used this as an excuse to invade Troy to be remembered as the first great King of a United Greece. When the Greeks arrived on the Trojan shores, the Trojans took refuge behind their mighty city walls that the Greeks could not overcome. The Trojans thus started a bloodbath as Greek Soldiers couldnt get through the walls, but Trojan attacks against the Greeks out on the beach were ineffective and only united the Greeks against the Trojans even more. The climax of the battle came through the greatest deception of all time, the Trojan Horse. Designed by Odysseus himself the Trojan Horse was the trick that allowed the Greeks to sneak into the city, open the gates, and let the Greek Army raze the city of Troy. The battle led to the deaths of Achilles, King Agamemnon, and King Priam (Prince Hector had died before) which led to the dissolving of what would have been the first United Greece, and it also led to the sacking of the ancient city of TroyHad the Trojans wonHad the Trojan army won, Greece would have suffered a horrible defeat, all its armies defeated in one battle would have left Greece open to easy occupation from other ancient powers. Greece would have become an accessory to another empire, the Battle of Thermopylae fought 600 years later may never have happened, Democracy would have died as a dream, Troy would still be a city, and the course of the world could have changed foreverHad the Greeks wonIm adding this because technically both sides sort of lost since Troy was burned but the Greeks lost their King and did not stay a unified empire. Had the Greek King not died he could have been an earlier version of Alexander the Great, creating a great ancient empire that would have led to an Era of Greek monarchy. There wouldnt have been an environment for Democracy to be born, and once again the course of history could have been changed. http://www.youtube.com...I would like to personally thank 1historygenius for such a glorious debate, I hope that everyone reading this enjoyed this debate
Beyonce's labor arrangements

Im sorry to say that you do not have basic english skills. You stated "a lady had to go to the burning area of the hospital to have her baby". If you meant to say that she had to have her baby in an area for burn victims you should have called it the "burn unit of the hospital" or "the area for burn victims". What you said meant that the area was burning. I would also like to know where you got that information from. I have not read or heard anything about that. In every news report I have seen, a man complained that he was not able to get to his infants that were in the NICU. His complaint was looked at by the health department and found to be not credible. It is obvious that he is just trying to get some money. He is the only parent that complained he could not see his kids and it is very unlikely that his kids were the only ones NICU. If he was stopped, why werent any other parents stopped? The security cameras were only taped over when a security guard was present so none of the other patients were in danger. Beyonce did what she had to do to protect her child. Also, if she can afford to rent out more than one room, she has the right to. I hope you can come up with a logical response and use basic writing skills this round.
Abortion should be illegal.

You seem to think that we live in a Utopian society where everything "is okay and people forget and we all live happily ever after". This is not the case. For a teen mother to experience the full term of pregnancy, sacrifice her education and destroy all potential of a better life is a big price for a small mistake. And isn't it ultimately a mother's choice whether she wants to have the baby or not? What happened to democracy? As for rape victims, for a woman to be raped is one of the most horrific things ever. Do you think that she wants to hold on to a peice of that incident for nine months? I think not. I hope that we let go of the belief that we live in a world where everything is magic and think about the issue in a practical way. Thank you.
Abortion should be illegal.

You are mistaking a baby for a burden. Having a child does not necesarily mean that the mothers' life will suffer. There are adoption facilities that take care of children that are not able to be taken care of by their mothers. To restrict a person from living because the mother is unwilling is unjust. Rape victims can sometimes become pregnant and that is part of what happened to them, it is very sad but she cannot just restrict that person from living because something happened to her.
Abortion should be illegal.

Abortion, though quite an unpleasant idea, is a necessary one. We all have things we don't like to do but must and abortion happens to fall in with these things. Abortion signifies the only right that an unwilling mother has to her own life. Teenagers, rape victims etc... do not want to hang on to the memory of something stupid and horrible. Through abortion, unwilling mothers can have another shot at their own life. Something that they are in charge of and asked for. They should not be held responsible for something that was outside their control; something that could possibly damage the rest of their life.
Resolved: PCs are better than Macs

The age old argument, PC or Mac. Well it shall be discussed here. I will be arguing PCs are better than Macs. My opponent will argue Macs are better than PCs. BOP, thus, is shared. This debate is limited to the computers/laptops no handheld devices such as Ipods. Please no semantics, we're debating over the respective computers....not whatever else PC and Mac could stand for... If my opponent wishes they can begin this round, but, if they do so they must give up their last round.
School Uniforms

My opponent states that, "people don't want to wear uniform because they have to wear it. If they were allowed to wear what they want then they would soon get bored of it. " Look at almost any school where people are not forced to wear a uniform. Do they wear uniforms? No. Do you know why? Because they don't like uniforms, whether they are enforced, or not. If you bring up the point of JROTC, they only wear it once a week, which is different from a full time uniform. My opponent then states, "you should be proud of the school you attend and should be willing to wear part of the uniform so as people know which school you go to and that you are proud to. " I am not proud of my school. Not at all. Why should I be forced to wear the uniform? The only reason I don't trandsfer to a different one is because of certain classes only offered at this high school in my area. If you want to wear you school colors of red and gold (or whatever they may be) then go right ahead. I have no problem with that. That is your CHOICE. However, when it becomes a mandate, not a choice, then I have a problem with that, as it takes away my right to expression of self. Also, if people know what school you go to, and they hate all members of that school, because they got beaten by them in a sports game or something, you could get beaten up for wearing that uniform. I await my opponents next argument.
School Uniforms

You said, "if you were to go to school without a uniform then anyone could easily walk in a do anything! " However, I disagree with the exclusiveness of this applying to only schools without unifroms. Anyone with enough money for a school uniform could go buy one, then walk in. The same thing happens in Boy Scouts. Last summer, when we went to Scout Camp, they made us check in for wristbands, as well as wear the uniform, so they knew A) we were scouts, and B) we had checked into a campsite that was reserved. So obviously, the unifrom doesn't actually prove you are a student. A student I. D. would be more effective. For your second argument, "i mean it would also cause alot of groups/gangs because you could tell who is gothic, neddy, ect. .. " I believe you meant that it would NOT cause the gangs/groups you mentioned. i disagree, for the following reason: if you want to do something, and you are prohibited, will you not try to find a loophole to try and get around that hole? If a gang wants to make itself seperate, they will give themself a different marker than baggy jeans, like bracelets, necklaces, rings, etc. A point I would like to bring up is that of actual education. You may not think that a school uniform can interfere with an education, but consider this: in America,there are an average of 180 school days a year (according to . http://ask.yahoo.com...), if you spend even only 20 minutes inspecting a class of thirty students to make sure their uniforms are all being worn correctly, assuming it takes about forty seconds per student, then you have wasted, on average, 2 hours per class the students are inspected in. Now some schools may only do the aforementioned inspection during the first class. Others may do it for all eight periods, adding up to 16 hours. People already complain that education money is being wasted, what will they say when so much time is being wasted on inspection. It doesn't contribute to your education in the slightest. I await my opponents next argument.
School Uniforms

Well i think that for a start if there was a evacuation then you can tell who is at the school, and who is not. Also with what is going on in the world then if you were to go to school without a uniform then anyone could easily walk in a do anything! I mean people don't want to wear uniform because they have to, i mean it would also cause alot of groups/gangs because you could tell who is gothic, neddy, ect...
Putting stray dog in Thailand to sleep is necessary

The resolution reads, "Putting stray dog in Thailand to sleep is necessary." In other words, it is necessary to put stray dog (who the hell is stray dog?) in Thailand so that he can sleep. If my opponent wanted to talk about euthanasia, the resolution should have read, "Putting stray dog, in Thailand, to sleep is necessary."I'm going to argue that stray dog can sleep outside of Thailand, therefore it is not necessary to put stray dog in Thailand to sleep. As evidence I offer a photographic proof of dogs sleeping outside of Thailand. If these dogs are capable of sleeping in Thailand, then it is not necessary to put stray dog in Thailand for stray dog to sleep. Stray dog needs to suck it up and sleep wherever he is. Thailand obviously don't want him.
Putting stray dog in Thailand to sleep is necessary

Thai people don't agree with putting dog to sleep while there are cruel dog meat treat in their country. The dogs that are released, don't have people to take care. Thai people carelessly birth control their dogs. There are a lot of stray dogs in Thailand. This lead to dog meat trade. Dog meat trade in Thailand is very cruel. The dogs are crowded in small cages. They squeeze dog to eat to get good weight for sale. They hit dogs heads and skin them in boil water. So I think how to solve the stray dogs problem in Thailand is putting to sleep. Moreover, set a responsibility system to have dog.
Evolution

Since he has not provided definitions, I will set definitions that I assume my opponent will agree to. Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. I will be arguing that evolution has occurred and is the cause of the diversity of life on Earth. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support it, including evidence in DNA, vestigial structures, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, transitional fossils, among many others. Microevolution can be observed when bacteria mutates to resist antibiotics, when animal offspring gain advantages through mutation of the DNA survive and the less fit die out, and when humans are observed to have slightly different traits (such as free earlobes, widow's peaks, hair on fingers etc) Even macroevolution has been observed, there is a link at the bottom about macroevolution observed in a laboratory. If small changes over a short scale of time are observed, then how are large changes over a large scale of time - millions of years - impossible? Now I'll let my opponent present his arguments. . http://www.talkorigins.org... . http://www.talkorigins.org... . http://www.dbskeptic.com... . http://www.dictionary.com...
Football teams shouldnt tackle hard

I WILL FIND YOU THEN RIP YOUR SPINE OUT YOUR AR*E AND USE IT AS A SKIPPING ROPE, THEN I WILL RIP YOUR HEAD OFF YOUR BODY AND SH*T DOWN YOUR THROT, PULL IT OUT YOUR AR*S AND POUR IT ON YOUR BODY, THEN I WILL FIND YOUR FAMILY TIE THEM UP AND MAKE THEM EAT YOU. ye wankstain
Football teams shouldnt tackle hard

This is not a debate about why football players tackle but why they tackle hard. In the game of football there is something known as turnovers, this is when the team that doesn't have the ball at the beginning of the play ends up with it at the end of the play. The harder a player is hit, the more likely they are to cough up the ball, if while catching the ball a receiver is hit hard the odds of them completing the reception are lowered. By hitting hard the entire game this gives receivers something known as "alligator arms" where they're scared to extend because they'll be exposed, resulting in more incompletions. This is why they tackle hard, this is why they should tackle hard.
Being a Fatty is Worse than Being a Ginger

I gladly accept. If this is a troll debate, please refrain from mentioning that fatties have legitimate health problems as opposed to gingers, because in reality I agree with you on this resolution (but for the purpose of the debate I'll stand opposed). In exchange, while I feel like the fact that fatties are flying aliens from mars is a legitimate claim, I will refrain from using it by your request. Loser buys lunch. Good Luck! :D
Being a Fatty is Worse than Being a Ginger

BRING. IT. ON. I purposely challenged MassiveDump seeing that not only is he the most famous ginger on DDO but he would know what being a ginger is like more than most of us! This is a troll debate! Telling the truth is not required, but let's at least try to make it relative to being fat or being a ginger. No going, "EMEMGERD FAT PEOPLE ARE FLYING ALIENSFRFROM MARZ THEREFORE THEY ARE BETTER." Or anything like that! Let's keep it real bro. Innapropriate language is also allowed! First round is for acceptance.Note to all viewers: this debate may be found offensive, especially to fat people and gingers. Viewer discretion is adviced. And don't say I didn't warn you.
Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets.

It is very unfortunate that Pro could not conclude his arguments, I have really enjoyed this debate. Anyway, in this last round I will only present my conclusion. In the first round it was agreed that it cannot be said that "Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets", what, from my point of view, was a victory for my side. But for the rest of the debate, we focused on the question of whether it was possible to say that it is at least even odds of life existing or not in other planets. Although Pro has given solid numbers stating that there are an enormous number of planets in the universe, when you compare this numbers to the equally astonishing small odds of life succeeding in each of this planets, those previous numbers don't look so impressive. I do like to believe that we are not alone on the universe. But I realize this belief is based mostly on faith, because as I demonstrated, the odds of that being true are negligible, and the odds of another civilization making contact with us are much smaller.
Semi to intelligent life exists on other planets.

PRO seems to have made a small confusion. The numbers you presented only state that there are a great number of planets in the called "habitable zone", but that does not mean this planets can sustain life, and absolutely does not mean that they do have life right now. As I have shown, mathematical odds are not in life's favor at all, it is by a fortunate accident that there is life even in Earth. Contrasting the great number of habitable planets, the odds of life existing in each one of this planets are extremely low. Dr. Morowitz estimates that probability of a protein molecule being formed by chance is 1/10236, or about the same as throwing 4 billion pennies into the air and having them all land heads-up[1]. That is for just one molecule. For this to become life, it is another unlikely step. For that protein to evolve to become intelligent life, there are at least another 4 steps, not as unlikely as the first, but still very unlikely. If we assume the odds of each step occurring in due time to be about 0.1% (which is pretty optimistic), the final odds of intelligent life evolving is around 1 in 10,236,000,000,000,000 (1 in 10^16). I said "in due time" because, as we know, planets are only habitable for a certain time. Life on Earth will likely cease in about one billion years or so, as the Sun becomes hotter[2]. Most planets life sustaining periods shall also be around a few billion years, so it makes no sense to believe that, left alone, life will inevitably evolve to intelligence at some point. Concerning the claim that animals can live in different environments, that does not change much. Life can come in many different ways from the ones we are used to, maybe there can even be non carbon based life somewhere. But whatever kind of life there is, it will still require a quite specific set of unlikely conditions. Thus, I have shown that the probability of life arising in a given planet is very tiny, almost zero. So, even though there may be an enormous amount of habitable planets, the combined odds of one of them presenting life still is not significant. References: [1] http://ontherightside.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net...