BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spain is the worst colonizer.

Section 1: There wasn't always a war. The British were taxing their people heavily before and after the war. The French and Indian war lasted from 1754-1765. The British Colonies were around long before that. They started colonizing in 1607. The American Revolution started 10 years after the French and Indian war ended. That's 10 years of heavy taxation right there, and because the British wanted to. Then add the years from 1607- 1775 (not including the war). That's a long period(s) of taxation.Section 2: Yes. But a lot of slaves throughout history. The major cause of death for the slaves was disease. Spanish slaves actually lived longer than the slaves up North. They had better a better healthcare system, they were allowed to get married, they were allowed to buy their own freedom, and they were allowed to hide and/or run away from a cruel owner. Though the last one was rarely enforced, it still existed. The British slaves weren't a privileged, and were often killed if they attempted Either of the last two. Not to mention the Spanish slaves had a better family life than the British slaves.Section 3: True. Then I shall amend the statement to say British.Section 4: This is true, but the Dutch had is worse. I'd like my opponent to know that I am aware that the Dutch didn't colonize America.Section 5: Actually it does. It is proving a point. By asking a question, I'm attacking your reasoning. This "digs a whole" in your argument. If you can't answer it, then you can't support your statement.Section 6: True. And by listing those events, my opponent is helping me in my debate. The Spanish didn't do that to their people, they actually cared. What my opponent said, added to my point and proved further that the British people had it rough compared to the Spanish.Section 7: That myth has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And if it does, its not proving anything. https://www.google.com...http://www.historyworld.net...https://www.google.com...https://www.google.com...http://www.public.iastate.edu...
Spain is the worst colonizer.

Statement 1. Wikipedia and ask.com can be trustworthy if you double check the information which I did. Statement 2. Did you even watch the Youtube video I said to watch? The reason the British were taxing them highly is because they needed money for the war. Statement 3. Yes, I know this was just an accident. Also lots of their paid slaves died. Statement 4. America isn't even part of the list of colonizers a gave you. Statement 5. Yes, but Spain returned with the most gold so much even it caused inflation. Statement 6. Asking me what government isn't corrupted doesn't count as a good argument. Statement 7. Do you mean the Boston Massacre when they injured six people and killed five ? If so you're wrong like many hisory books the dramatic shooting is described as the spark that ignited the Revolutionary War. Perhaps one of the reasons is the loss of human lives. In reality there were several other historic milestones although less dramatic, that moved Boston towards the revolution. Townshend Acts, Stamp Act and Boston Tea Party were some of them. One of the most interesting myths is that the scuffle on King"s street started from the accusations thrown at one of the British officers that he did not pay the wigmaker"s bill. This makes an interesting story and many of us may speculate that perhaps the most famous protest would not have occurred if the bill had been paid on time. But on the contrary to the popular myth, the British officer Captain John Goldfinch in fact settled his bill the day earlier.
Spain is the worst colonizer.

Section 1: I'd like to state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and can not be trusted. It is extremely rare to find true information on that site. I would consider ask.com an unreliable source because you get a lot of different answers, most of which have nothing to do with the topic, and its difficult to figure out which is the correct answer. Section 2 The Spanish economy wasn't poor. They thrived on minerals, land, farming, and slavery. This doesn't sound like economic failure. And if they did have less money than the others, they were still better off. At least the Spanish weren't taxing the life out of their people. Section 3: I'd like to begin this section by stating that their cruelty with animals has nothing to do with their colonies. They aren't even the only people who are cruel to animals. There are probably tons of others. And when it comes to their slaves, they weren't infamous with beating them like America was. Some of the slaves were even paid. They were paid little, granted, but some of them still made some form of currency. Section 4: This goes back to the last section. They treated their people well. Though my opponent still may think that, but I have to direct his attention to this... At least their "slaves" weren't considered property, but people. American thought their slaves to be tools, property. Section 5: Their greed doesn't make them the worst colonizers. Almost all the colonizers of the New World were greedy. Look at Britain, they came here for gold. Only gold. That seems to be more greedy than the Spanish. Section 6: I'd like to ask my opponent. What government isn't corrupt? Throughout history, just about every country has a corrupt government. Section 7: The only time they ever hurt their people was the time when they rose up against the converting. The British beat their people because they feel like it. Just look at the beginning of the American Revolution, so far its believed that the British troops fired first, if this is true, then that would mean they started the war they feared. http://www.shmoop.com... * Numerous history textbooks.
Spain is the worst colonizer.

My My statements: Point number 2. Spain's colonies today are poor compared to France and Great Britain just take a look: Frances's Colonies http://www.answers.com... Great Britain's colonies http://www.answers.com... impressed good but don't be cause here's Spain's colonies http://www.answers.com... Point number 2. Spain is the most cruel hers a link Black Legend http://en.m.wikipedia.org... and this http://www.animal-rights-action.com... My arguments to your statements Statement 1. Your right Spain earned the most cause they took the most they treated the colonials like slaves and were greedy like Bortolom" de les Casas said in his book The History of the Indies. " The Indians... were deprived of their freedom and put in the harshest fiercest most horrible servitude and captivity which no one who has not seen can understand. Even beasts enjoy more freedom when they are allowed to graze in the fields. But our Spaniards gave no such opportunity to the Indians and truly considered them perpetual slaves." https://m.youtube.com... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Statement 2. As I've said earlier the Spaniards are greedy people the reason they filled the city with soldiers is not to protect the the colony but to enslave their people. Statement 3. Yes, they have a good system but their government is corrupted. Statement 4. Though I am very thankful to the Spanish for making people Christians they did it using force they hurt people who believed in another religion and it did cause the revolution in New Spain..
Spain is the worst colonizer.

Section 1: This section will be on settlements. While the English's colonies were set up by their royalty, and the French built trading posts, the Spanish were busy on paid expeditions and conquests. If you think about, at this point Spain was doing better. The English, gained very little land but got nothing out of it. The French gained a little more land, but also gained nothing yet learned how to survive out in the wilderness. The Spanish gained tons of land, money and gold. They weren't oppressed or abandoned, they were supported. Another thing to think about is; if the Spanish hadn't stopped, or been prevented, from expanding further upward, the United States probably wouldn't exist, and we'd all be speaking Spanish, if not English. This is because Spain was one of two world powers. Section 2: This section will focus on population sources. Of all it's colonies, English colonists were recruited farmers, artisans, and tradesmen to sail over to the Northern parts of the New Land and colonize it. Following them were indentured servants, other useful professionals, and convicted criminals. That sure sounds like a fun place to live, especially with the criminals. The French colonies consisted of fur traders, merchants, and missionaries. The Spanish had conquistadors, soldiers and missionaries. Traders and farmers eventually followed. Looking at these facts, you can tell that the English colonies were bred to be a living hell and unprotected, the French were peaceful and also unprotected, the Spanish on the other hand, already had a set military. They were practically ready for any thing, and no matter what was thrown at them, they probably would have over come that. The other countries weren't. A good example of this would be Roanoke: this was an entire colony that went missing in a matter of Months. Unlike the Spanish, they didn't have any one there to protect them, or help them in any way (depending on how you believe they disappeared). This probably would never have happened to the Spanish. Section 3: This section is about government. The English were ruled by a monarch, but do to a frugal parliament and the king being far away, they were allowed small branches of government within the colonies. Eventually this would lead to England's downfall in America. The French were solely subjects to the French king, they didn't have rights at all, they couldn't do what ever they wanted. This lead to their downfall a good several years later. The Spanish were ruled by the king through appointed government officials. Sure, looking at the other colonies you may think that this would have led to their downfall, but obviously not. In fact the Spanish rarely saw any unrest among their colonists. Section 4: Religion. The French and the English consisted of a wide variety of them, but the Spanish were strictly Catholic. This causes very little problems because it tends to be a little difficult for people of the same religion to disagree on the matters. In the other colonies, hundreds of people died due to the different points of view. . http://www.granburyisd.org...http://www.nationalcenter.org...
Most likely, the human race will not last much longer

most likely = more than 50% chance much longer= much less time than we have up until now (2013) ^ much in this argument is not specifically defined but can be argued on within the debate (however, it's not very important) I want to debate people who would like to debate the topic at hand, NOT try to debate the definitions of words. last= continue as a species in roughly its current state. Not viable for semantics. No semantic arguments.
Most likely, the human race will not last much longer

"Just because this is an experimental theory does not mean it's false." Of course not. You are correct. Your theory maybe even correct but that is not the argument. The argument is "most likely". By saying most likely you are giving a legitimate assumption. By giving a theory it is not a good way to prove an assumption. For example, most likely the Sun will shine tommorow even though I cannot prove it. A theory is more like the emperor of Rome was to blame for the great fire of Rome because he wanted more room in his palace. Bottom line is, you are supposed to provide a most likely argument while you are giving a theory automatically not fulfilling the BOP. "The human race has to end someway" First of all the human race does not have to end you have not proved your claim. "This is not at all what I am arguing. Please actually read my idea. It has absolutely nothing to do with overpopulation." I am sorry if I misinterpreted your argument but I think you hinted to overpopulation here: "If the human race is to continue on for millions of years, and has hundreds of billions of people yet to be born, it's quite extraordinary that we are living in a world that has only existed as it is now (lots of people) for a few hundred years" My opponent used the words "lots of people" which is basically the definition Overpopulation- the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash. Meriamwebsterdictionary.com To have that dense population you need lots of people. Consider me using my opponents argument as a source. I thank my opponent for debating but I appologize if I mistinterpreted your argument. I also thank the voters for reading :)
Most likely, the human race will not last much longer

Thank you for your response. The BOP is on my opponent to prove that the human race will not last much longer. "My argument is probably like nothing you've seen before. It's an experimental theory" As we agreed, my opponent believes that most likely the human race will not last much longer. Based on this statement, my opponent seems to contradict himself and this could be interpreted as a forfeit. How could an "experimental theory" be the same as a legitimate assumption or in other words "most likely"? "If the human race is to continue on for millions of years, and has hundreds of billions of people yet to be born, it's quite extraordinary that we are living in a world that has only existed as it is now (lots of people) for a few hundred years." You do realize how long it will take for the world to start getting crammed? Have you felt that there were too many people on Earth? Even if there were, have you ever felt that it has affected you to the extent that you would die? Have you ever felt that it is too big that all of those billions of people you mentioned will die also? "Therefore, it is mathematically likely that the human race is more than half over (time-wise), and mathematically likely that the human race is about half way through all the people to ever be born" Unestablished and unproven point. "When we think about the possible threats that face humanity, (for me, nuclear war comes to mind), it's not impossible to see how the human race COULD end." I don't think a nuclear weapon exists that can destroy every human. And anyway, wouldn't the person who launched the nuclear weapon be alive(Unless he committed suicide and wanted to eradicate the Earth and everyone which is highly unlikely as opposed to "most likely")? "It is nearly mathematically impossible for the human race to progress more than 100,000 years because it's statiscally unlikely that we'd be in such early stages of development and population" You cannot know for sure. Just think back to 1456 (random). Do you think, if I were to go back there and tell them that there is a flying contraption called a plane that can take you anywhere, do you think they will believe that is possible? They will probably laugh in my face. My arguments and conclusion: I have short points I would like to add. Development: If you look at how much science, technology, medicine etc. has developed, it is unpredictable how many more improvements will come in the future. Based on my opponent's argument which is basically saying that there will be too many people and everyone would die, that is a bad argument. If the Earth got too crowded, and everyone started killing each other, they will eventually stop once the Earth is not too crowded anymore (Again I am responding to a very unlikely scenario and my opponent is suppose to provide a "most likely" scenario).
Most likely, the human race will not last much longer

My argument is probably like nothing you've seen before. It's an experimental theory that I've been wanting to share for quite some time and I hope I do a good job of expressing it. One does not choose when to be born, correct? A person is born into their consciousness when a baby is born. Think about the span of the human race. We started out with very low population and slowly progressed to where we are now (seven-billion people). Your place in society (i. e. when you are born) is directly related to how many people are born during certain times. For instance, it's quite unlikely that you would be born in the first one percent of humans to have ever lived. It's more likely than not that a human is born somewhere relatively close to the very middle of all humans to ever exist. If the human race is to continue on for millions of years, and has hundreds of billions of people yet to be born, it's quite extraordinary that we are living in a world that has only existed as it is now (lots of people) for a few hundred years. I argue that because of how many babies we are having today and how many will be born in the next few hundred years, that the time it takes to reach the second half of all humans to ever have existed is far less than the previous half. Therefore, it is mathematically likely that the human race is more than half over (time-wise), and mathematically likely that the human race is about half way through all the people to ever be born. When we think about the possible threats that face humanity, (for me, nuclear war comes to mind), it's not impossible to see how the human race COULD end. It is nearly mathematically impossible for the human race to progress more than 100,000 years because it's statiscally unlikely that we'd be in such early stages of development and population. I hope you can understand my argument.
Using highly frangible ammunition in warfare is less ethical than using hollowpoint ammunition.

As long as it kills A-RABS I don't care how we do it. I don't care if we use sulphuric acid at them as long as they are elimated. Along with Arabs Homosexuals Communists Gay People Lesbians Bi Sexuals Transsexuals NAZIS Zak Eisenberg Ukrainians- The Ukraine is weak!!!!!!! Soviets Liberals Democrats Michael Moore and his army of America Haters Anti Bush Nation Zak Eisenberg- Cannot stress this threat enough Cavemen- Yes they are a threat Stem Cell Researchers Hippies Skaters Ellen Degeneres Rosie O'Donell- That Fat Cow The Devil Worshippers who commit sins like abortion, masturbation, beastialty, watching Oprah Winfrey and premarital sex However we kill these guys I don't care. Frangible- (is that even a word, get your facts straight)
The nation state is the most moral form of government.

My opponent falsely prescribes statelessness and lack of nationality as moral. Not only is the breaking down of national identities unrealistic it is also immoral. Many groups have fought subjugation throughout the ages, oppressed by larger stares. The Polish, The Irish, The Jews and native Americans come to mind. To deny these people their own land where they can guarantee themselves civil rights and sense of self is immoral as long as no other group is displaced. These people groups did not fight empires and larger more powerfully states to have their national identity eraser to become the same as the people who once oppressed them in the past. To certify that, the destruction or assimilation of these people's distinctiveness in their own lands , as the larger power they fought would have gladly desired decades or centuries prior as progressive or moral is false. Globalismand statelessness is merely another form of imperialism that leads to the destruction or subjugation of smaller powers by bigger ones. Not only is it immoral it is unrealistic. Attempts to scratch national identity have lead to disasters like the Yugoslav war. The kudish conflicts, Irish Plantations etc. The reality is all humans have a sense of self that has evolved through the ages, primarily influenced by geography and events in history. For instance the Polynesian people's. All racially the same, yet upon their discovery they were so vastly difference influenced by theither mere surroundings and they only culturally diverged a few centuries prior. Some, like the Malaori or New Zealands south island even regressed to hunter gatherers while on New Zealands North island the Maori formed advanced army and social stuck res and could fend of their he British for months. They were so close that the Maori could easily invade (they did in 1836) but thet were so different. They came from the same race and culture. Mere distance and local geography ensures humans will always culturally diverge no matter how many times you establish a universal culture.
The nation state is the most moral form of government.

My opponent did not set forth any detailed definition for morality, so I'll argue against it as best as I can and allow the readers to judge whether I did a good job despite having to argue against vague terminology. I do not believe that a discussion of morality needs to preclude the ideal. Realism does not need to be factored in with a discussion about whether something is "the most moral". As such, I would argue that the most moral form of government would be any government or lack of government agreed upon among peaceful and unified human beings who no longer feel it necessary to differentiate between self and other using drawn lines in the sand. The reality of the situation is that my opponent admits that human beings tend towards conflict, and human beings tend toward conflict because they seek to preserve a false sense of self. An ego. A carefully constructed notion of who they are as individuals, banding together with some like minded individuals while also taking care to exclude others lest they have their identity watered down. It's a psychological affliction as old as time and it is the primary cause of conflict. The problem is that all of this stuff is imaginary. We all have the same capacity to love. To dream. To be. Recognizing our shared humanity and eliminating arbitrary divisive concepts like "nationality" or "race" is our only shot to a moral future as a globalized community, not my opponent's proposed system of further grouping and dividing people. In fact, doing so won't prevent conflict. It will escalate it. Conflict happens when things get in the way of recognizing our similarities and more succinctly, the fact that we really are one large organic being made up of smaller parts. My opponent tries to argue that it will somehow create more cohesive countries and lists a handful of supposed benefits but creating "nation states" would do nothing but displace small hostilities between individuals of a country into major hostilities between nations that will inevitably lead to war. It is far easier to convince people to murder each other when you harp on your differences, and that is exactly what my opponent's proposal would do.
The nation state is the most moral form of government.

The Nation State is a form of government where each people (nation) have their own state for that cultural group. Nation States as a concept emerged in noteriety after the European Enlightenment and birth of nationalism and was fundamental in the formation of states for single cultural groups, particularly in Europe. I believe this is a great thing. I think we can clearly see that stability is lacking in diversity. Fake states as we see in Africa with arbitrary borders encompassing many ethnic and cultural groups spawns conflict. Conflict is much lower in European stye nation states. Where as the Czech Republic is unlikely to collapse into civil war anytime soon, grouping people's together from many groups about three hours away in what was once Yugoslavia lead to as deadly ethnic and cultural conflict. Nation states tend to be more tolerant, peaceful, wealthy and productive and this more moral. They also ensure that no nation has an empire or rules over other people's as each nation purely governs their own cultural group. Nation states avoid racial and cultural conflict and domination.