BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WAR GAME SCENARIO: Russia Versus Chosen Nation

Overview:Military:Noord-Brabant:Active Frontline Troops- 11,915 men and womenActive Reserve Troops- 8,050 men and womenArmored Fighting Vehicles(AFVs)- 270 AFVsSelf-Propelled Guns(SPGs)- 13 SPGsTotal Aircraft- 40 total aircraftTotal Naval Strength- 14(in Noord-Brabant)Frigates- 1 frigateSubmarines- 1 submarineNoord-Holland:Active Frontline Troops- 11,915 men and womenActive Reserve Troops- 8,050 men and womenArmored Fighting Vehicles(AFVs)- 270 AFVsSelf-Propelled Guns(SPGs)- 13 SPGsTotal Aircraft- 40 total aircraftTotal Naval Strength- 14(in Noord-Brabant)Frigates- 2 frigateSubmarines- 1 submarineGelderland:Active Frontline Troops- 11,915 men and womenActive Reserve Troops- 8,050 men and womenArmored Fighting Vehicles(AFVs)- 270 AFVsSelf-Propelled Guns(SPGs)- 13 SPGsTotal Aircraft- 40 total aircraftTotal Naval Strength- 14(in Noord-Brabant)Frigates- 2 frigateSubmarines- 1 submarineFriesland:Active Frontline Troops- 11,915 men and womenActive Reserve Troops- 8,050 men and womenArmored Fighting Vehicles(AFVs)- 270 AFVsSelf-Propelled Guns(SPGs)- 13 SPGsTotal Aircraft- 40 total aircraftTotal Naval Strength- 14(in Noord-Brabant)Frigates- 1 frigateSubmarines- 1 submarineResources:Oil Production- 71,720 bbl/dayOil Consumpution- 1,010,000 bbl/dayProven Oil Reserves- 243,900,000 bbl/dayLogistical:Labor Force- 7,895,000 men and womenMerchant Marine Strength- 744Major Ports and Terminals- 7Roadway Coverage- 139,295 km.Railway Coverage- 3,013 km.Servicable Airports- 29D.P.N(Defensive Plan of Netherlands)Phase One:- The Netherlands will be split into four regions(I'll have it in the lbum later, but I will show my oponent first so he knows). Phase Two:- Mines are to be placed 10 km. away from the shoreline, with being spread from each other 1 km. apart from each mine. - Trenches, concrete bunkers, and concrete stakes on the coast to slow down troops and tanks. - 4 anti-airgun fields are to be placed in Netherlands(this won't hold them forever but it can slow them down).Phase Three:- Production of regular day goods will be cut down by 12%. So that military weapons can be produced.Phase Four: - Recruitment of militiamen and minutemen will soon commence. So that if everything fails we can try holding with these small forces.This is my plan so far, and I will have some maps soon hopefully by tommorow night.
History / film

My opponent has forfeited on numerous occasions and has not presented any arguments. Therefore, I can only present me points.We should colour historical footage because:1) when we convert old historical footage from greyscale to multi-tone, these people of those professions still have that remaining version and copy it so that they can convert that copy; meaning that the original is still intact.2) Converting the copies to colour scale allows people to accurately visualise what the course of war(s) was actually like.reasons for this:P1: This is a photo of a Canadian trench in Vimy ridge, ypres. Now, due to lack of colour, we dont actually know what the conditions of the trenchs, weather, misc etc would be like. There is the misconception that life was always raining, miserable and depressing during the war. This was debunked by photos such as the one below by proving that it hardly rained during battles and could sometimes be very sunny and hot in the trenchs. s://californiaac.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />Vote me!
Chess should not be an Olympic sport

The first reason why chess should not be considered an Olympic sport is it is purely mental. I am saying that the Olympics are all about athleticism. The Olympics according to the Greeks anyway are about athletic perfection or arete. Due to the expanding nature of the mind, one cannot have a perfect chess game. Also where would it be placed in the Olympics? I"m not referring to location. I am talking about whether it would belong in the summer or the winter due to the indoor nature of sanctioned competition. Further, chess is not a team sport neither in the classical or modern Olympics sense. Who would watch over competition? Who will be the governing body in Olympic chess? These are the question and answers s that prevent chess from being an Olympic sport.
Walmart is beneficial to the US

I have sent a message to my opponent stating that we will skip the last two rounds because three is enough. I will start by refuting my opponent's points. "The opposing team said that Wal-Mart has same prices then target and other prices, and dosen't have any health care benefits. First of all health care dosen't usually come with any store workers but only high positions like the headquarters get benefits. " While this may be true, Wal-Mart is the only chain that encourages their workers to seek government benefits. This is costing American taxpayers $1.4 billion dollars that Wal-Mart could have paid itself. "Second of all Wal-Mart has bigger bussiness and more famous than target. Also your completely right Target has the same prices than Wal-Mart. Great, the topic we are debating now is "Is walmart good for America? " not "Which store has better prices, Wal-Mart or Target? "" My point is simply offering a solution for those who are wondering if there is any alternative than Wal-Mart. You also stated that Wal-Mart has bigger business. This is true but only because the workers are underpaid and do not recieve the benefits that most workers should have. "The opposing team also said Walmart is paying minimum wage and its not helping the economy. True its paying minimum wage. That is completely true. But think about it the workers at Walmart usually didn't have any job at first, when they come to Wal-Mart at least its a job. Think about no money to little money that is still a big difference in todays economy because 1 cent is whole new thing. " A few hundred now have a job when a new Wal-Mart is opened. But HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of workers are now unemployed because Wal-Mart sent their manufactured goods job oversees (mainly to China). Think of 600 vs. hundreds of thousands. "The opposition side had said they are sending workers to china. That possibly could be true, but thats also helping other countries now Wal-Mart also has stores in the U. S now its starting to help other countries and the U. S which is even better. And now the whole U. S is being influenced under Walmart because of its chinese influence. If china has a Wal-Mart then that means world wide which means bigger bussiness and more money for Wal-Mart and the American economy. " You are assuming things that (being frank), should not be assumed. Wal-Mart IS sending jobs to China and this is HURTING the US economy. Wal-Mart is not beneficial to the US. It is sexist, does not have health care benefits and is sending jobs to China. Is this really beneficial to the US.
Walmart is beneficial to the US

Thank you nickjack and all voters once again for successful debate. The opposing team said that Wal-Mart has same prices then target and other prices, and dosen't have any health care benefits. First of all health care dosen't usually come with any store workers but only high positions like the headquarters get benefits. Second of all Wal-Mart has bigger bussiness and more famous than target. Also your completely right Target has the same prices than Wal-Mart. Great, the topic we are debating now is "Is walmart good for America?" not "Which store has better prices, Wal-Mart or Target?" The opposing team also said Walmart is paying minimum wage and its not helping the economy. True its paying minimum wage. That is completely true. But think about it the workers at Walmart usually didn't have any job at first, when they come to Wal-Mart at least its a job. Think about no money to little money that is still a big difference in todays economy because 1 cent is whole new thing. The opposition side had said they are sending workers to china. That possibly could be true, but thats also helping other countries now Wal-Mart also has stores in the U.S now its starting to help other countries and the U.S which is even better. And now the whole U.S is being influenced under Walmart because of its chinese influence. If china has a Wal-Mart then that means world wide which means bigger bussiness and more money for Wal-Mart and the American economy. The American Economy is growing, its creating jobs and affordable prices for family. Do you want to buy something but you can't afford. Are your parents under pressure because of no jobs for the family and do you truly want to help the American Economy where your friends and family live, if you do vote for the pro side of Walmart is beneficial to the US. Thank you voters and NickJack my opponent
Walmart is beneficial to the US

Walmart does not depend on the U. S. The U. S depends on Walmart. Walmart is good for the U. S because it has cheap prices which is good for the U. S economy. That is why the U. S economy needs it. It lets poor people buy from Walmart creating better bussiness for Walmart and better economy for the U. S. Yes, it may destroy small bussinesses in town but they can work at Walmart earn more money and then buy from Walmart. When they had there own small bussinesses they may not have earned as much as Walmart may not have food to eat that is affordable too. When Walmart wasn't here nothing was good but when walmart came 2 advantedges came. Walmart offers jobs. Nothing is more inportant in this economy crisis than getting jobs and thats what Walmart does. iIn this ecomy crisis most people don't have any job at all. But walmart does. Walmart is offering you a job to keep you surviving. Do you want to die of hunger or hydration or not. If you don't vote for me, if you do vote for the opposing team. If you want to save lives from hunger and hydration helps small bussinesses and also help the U. S economy then vote for the proposition side of this debate. Thank you
Abnormal women should be made to wear unfashionable uniforms whilst out in public

Thanks again to the Pro for this fascinating debate. I only hope that leaders around the free world are tuning in. I believe they would find this discussion to be both informative and instructive. This debate comes down to three issues: (1) BMI. I will concede that female bodybuilders and shot-putters should wear the aforementioned uniform. Not *all* abnormal women, but definitely women in those two categories. Because, I mean, seriously. (2) The alcohol-induced poor decision. A wise friend of mine once declared that the male genitalia's reaction to alcohol, known in some circles as "whiskey dick," is a protective by-product of evolution. This decreases the likelihood of being stuck for life with the product of a poor decision after dollar pint night. Moreover, alcohol is also sometimes termed "liquid courage." Maybe a guy has always wanted to get with an interestingly-shaped woman, but was scared he would be mocked by his friends. Enter alcohol. The excuse "I was drunk" is acceptable up to, but no more than, two weekends in a row (See Guy Code, chapter 12B). Uniforms would stigmatize the right to make the occassional poor decisions. It would also prevent male "charity work." Because sometimes you just have to get with a less attractive girl to give a little something back to the world. (3) Viewing the internal organs of anorexic chicks. His alternative is to go to Europe to see these ladies in their natural state. But I can't afford Europe right now. Will there be a webcast? Thanks to all and please preserve a man's right to choose!
Abnormal women should be made to wear unfashionable uniforms whilst out in public

I would like to thank B-Money for accepting my challenge to debate and for approaching this delicate subject in such a mature and sensitive fashion. I'm glad that he resisted the temptation to make any trite, sexist comments. My opponent's first point was that "BMI is a terrible measurement...because it does not take into account whether that weight is fat or muscle." So, a female shot-putter or body-builder might fall foul of the rules? Oh well, no system is perfect and, anyway, I suppose they could always appeal against the decision. He then went on to defend "a man's right to choose...fat chicks (or) spinners." With regard to skinny girls, yes, some men go for underweight females and some men go for underage females, but do we really want to encourage this sort of thing? At the same time, a bloke may have a few beers and be lured in by a bosom that resembles a dead heat in an airship race and decide to take it's owner home, only to wake up in the morning to discover he is lying in a nocturnal embrace with some great sweating pile of flab and, attempting to escape without waking her, chew his own arm off in desperation. It's all very well to be "pro-choice" but the government has a duty to protect breast-obsessed gentlemen from themselves. Finally, with reference to anorexic girls' camel's foot swimsuit thing, I would advise any men with enquiring minds to take a trip to one of the many naturist resorts in Europe when they can observe the items of interest in their totally uncovered state. Thank you.
Abnormal women should be made to wear unfashionable uniforms whilst out in public

While the uniform from Wikimedia *is* duly hilarious, I must voice my opposition for two reasons. (1) First, BMI is a terrible measurement of "underweight" and "overweight" because it does not take into account whether that weight is fat or muscle. (2) Second, and more importantly, I am pro-choice, meaning a man's right to choose. Some men like fat chicks, and we call these men 'chubby chasers.' Some men like anorexic chicks, and these women are called 'spinners.' Sometimes a guy who normally likes normal-sized women wants to venture outside of his comfort zone. Making these "unique" women all wear a silly uniform will stigmatize the men who dig interestingly-shaped chicks. Plus, if we make all the fat women wear the uniform, they will never be able to wow us with their gigantic cleavage. Similarly, medical students will be disappointed when they can no longer see the outline of an anorexic chick's vital organs whenever she is in a swim suit. Diversity is the spice of life, and with that, I negate.
Abnormal women should be made to wear unfashionable uniforms whilst out in public

For the purposes of this debate, unless otherwise challenged, "abnormal women" shall mean adult females with an unhealthy body weight, viz. being either underweight or overweight according to the body mass index scale (1) and "unfashionable uniform" shall mean one similar to the garment pictured hereunder: http://upload.wikimedia.org... The fact is, being underweight or overweight can present women with serious medical problems and they should obviously aim to be within the normal weight range in order to remain fit. (2, 3) In addition, women who are not too fat and not too thin are typically more attractive to men and are, therefore, not only the healthiest but also the happiest too. It is the type of female role models such as those normally portrayed in women's fashion magazines and adult male interest periodicals that girls and women need to aspire to because if they achieve this healthy body image they will be both healthier and happier. Furthermore, their husbands will be less tempted to run off with some properly fit Asian babe whilst on a business trip in Hong Kong which will lead to fewer marital breakdowns when his wife later hacks into his personal email account while he is out at work earning the money for her to spend on designer clothes. In conclusion, because women are typically really interested in fashionable clothes, forcing women who are too fat or thin to wear an ugly uniform whilst out in public will be a huge incentive for them to either lose or gain enough weight to be allowed to wear attractive garments of their own choice instead, and I therefore commend this resolution to the House. Thank you. (1)http://www.caloriecounting.co.uk... (2)http://www.womenshealth.gov... (3)http://www.womenshealth.gov...
Is Trump a good president?(Pro is yes)

To my esteemed, if not so eloquent, opponent: I do not believe you understand the question of this debate which is- Is Trump a good president? We are not debating if Clinton would have, but rather how well our current one is doing. I will ask you to think about the fact that a right to bear arms in our Constitution, and the only way to amend the Constitution is if YOU and the rest of America vote to change it. As to that ridiculous campaign slogan- "make America great again"- when was it ever not? Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, bigoted piece of s*** that had his Twitter taken away by his campaign staff because they knew he would totally not get elected if he posted any more of his Hitler-like ideals. So consider- is there any reason besides your right to guns that he is a good president?
Rap Battle

Bruh what was that? Hella lame No thought put into it, and u say I don't have a brain By the time ur done reading this you've bled Realizing that ur a deadman, cuz I'm ahead man You got no life and that's crystal clear Now you've realized I'm your biggest fear It's ok you can ahead and shed a tear, And I'll do your dream girl while I drink a beer Since you ain't gonna make it and won't presevere I'll make sure to go to ur casket and leave you a nice souvenir Compared to you I'm in a higher place I'll make you look like a disgrace And erase you from the face of this place To u this is your sanity at stake But to me it's just another award in my trophy case
Rap Battle

People like you who can't even tie their own shoes Are usually expected to epically lose. Their smart department seems mostly shut As far as I'm concerned, you can kiss my g*ddamn butt. When you go find a brain When doctor sees your sane Only then could you register this motherf*cking pain! Prepare to get your a** thrashed What's left of your head smashed Coming down, burning and screaming "My ego's crashed" Next time your on the street Go kiss some f*cking concrete It's the only thing left that respects you Now get and the corner; Don't touch my ballin crew!
I Will Prove God's Existence

: At 2/1/2016 4:29:40 PM, Jerry947 wrote: : How else would you recommend I prove God's existence over the internet? A debate seems the best way to go. http://www.debate.org... Jerry947 has graciously offered to prove God's existence, and rather than doing so on the forums, he has insisted on a formal debate platform. I wish him all the best with presenting his proof. Since this should only require one round, this will be my only opportunity for argument. But, since Jerry has assured me his proof will be compelling and convincing, I leave the floor to him. Good luck.
Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

My opponent appears to be under the mistaken impression that I've plagiarized my argument, and my chart data. No evidence is provided, and no proof could ever be provided because the chart data, and analysis is my own analysis of the publicly available Global Historical Climatology Network Data. I've also cited the pertinent NASA, and NOAA sources that support the analysis of my data, but they are only pieces of the whole. It's interesting that my opponent has spent the time trolling though my profile looking for personal attacks. Why my opponent thinks the career or Programmer is some how a negative for this debate I can only defer to my opponents claims to their own schooling in Round 2. In order to process the GHCN Data the skills of a programmer are critical. The data consists of just over 98 thousand files, and is about 14 gigs compressed into a single 3 gig file. Oracle would call what I do the work of a Data Scientist, and my employer prefers the moniker Research Analyst. I just happen to prefer Programmer to all the other possible titles. Perhaps my opponent would have had more fun had they used their real profile rather than one a throw away one. http://bit.ly... But that is neither here nor there. I welcome my opponents rebuttal.
Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

Come on you weak fool, it's time you stopped roaming the web for articles and data you can copy and paste, and delve into that shallow brain of yours. And least that way it would be more fun when I destroy you. Ah well, this will have to do. I enjoyed the quote you chose on your profile; "Chaos is inherent in all things." It's most certainly inherent in your spectacle of foolery. You're a programmer. Pathetic. Why don't you go program another child for you to debate, which, based on this tragic show, is clearly your suited demographic. Not only in debating, but in sexual preference as well I presume. You're a twisted little creature, copying and pasting articles that you have no sense of, posing as an erudite man when instead you could be freeing the boys from your basement. You're worthless. I win.
Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

My opponent makes the claim that global warming is bad, and should be stopped. However, this is contingent on the existence of global warming. One of the claims of global warming is that it has accelerated the water cycle, and my claim is that global warming has not. If one of the claims of global warming is in doubt that it is reasonable to doubt that global warming exists as claimed. As for the quality of the water cycles nature as Good, or Bad that is irrelevant to this debate, and subjective. An accelerated water cycle would mean more fresh water, and many people are in need of more fresh water. However, it could also make large storms more prevalent for others. It is irrelevant since this debate is about global warming having caused it, and not about if it is good, or bad.
Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years

Resolution:Global Warming has not accelerated the Water Cycle in the last 115 years.DefinitionsGlobal Warming - A process of climate change frequently associated with the warming of the environment due to man made pollution.115 Years - For statistical limitations to be 1900 to 2014 and early 2015Accelerating the water cycle - A sustained increase in water evaporation, or precipitation beyond the first 30 years of the 115 year range, or 1900 to 1930.Rules:Round 1: Acceptance, and DefinitionsRound 2: Presenting all argument, Cons ResponseRound 3: Defense, Cons ReponseRound 4: Closing statments.BOP: Pro unless Con presents an argument then SharedThis will be a repeat of http://www.debate.org...
Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

I do have problems with some of Ron Paul's foreign policy such as how far he takes his non interventionism personally and how far he takes blowback as the main explanation of why the US and other Western countries like the UK are attacked. I do agree that we need to scale back our Empire because of its huge cost. I am generally against nation building as well as some of the wars we have been involved in. If that is not con enough let me know. My main arguments will be against pure non interventionism and blowback as the primary cause of terrorism in the US and other countries as well as some pro points about the war in Afghanistan and POSSIBLE benefits of naval as well as airforce use against Iran IF they really are developing nuclear weapons.
Some factors should not be considered to why a fandom is 'bad'.

This is a pretty iffy thing to debate over however after the recent of events of people claiming that the 'Cuphead' fandom has already been deemed 'bad' or 'ruined', I decided to make my voice clear on why some factors should not be considered to why a fandom is bad. I want a professional debate, no internet arguments or stuff like that. Once I get challenged, I'll start in Round 2.