BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biggest Military Mistakes

Bay of Pigs InvasionOn April 17-19 the United States invaded Cuba with the intentions of overthrowing Cuba's leader, Fidel Castro. The year is 1959 and Fidel Castro has just overthrown the Cuban dictator Batista,[1] the United States immediately became worried with the growing friendly relationship between Castro and Nikita Khrushchev leader of the Soviet Union the eastern enemy of the United States. With this in mind the CIA began to plan an invasion of Cuba during Eisenhower's Administration within three months of John F. Kennedy's presidency the CIA trained 1,400 Cuban exiles and landed on Bay of Pigs.[2] Within three days Cuba defeated the Cuban exiles and put to shame the United States and the CIA. This invasion not only put John F. Kennedy's Administration to shame but as well the United States intelligence, reliance, and strength was questioned. During this time the United States was in the midst of a Cold War, the United States in every way had to prove its superiority to its enemy the Soviet Union. Truly a military defeat by a third world country is no way to show the world of your grand strength. This military action by the United States put to shame face of the western world, the United States. Sources[1] http://www.fsmitha.com...[2] http://www.jfklibrary.org...ttp://www.youtube.com...
Biggest Military Mistakes

Micromanaging the Vietnam WarDuring the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson, led the American army for most of the war. Unfortunately the troops, LBJ watched opinion polls and it is hard to fight a war if you wach polls. Commanders could not attack high value targets unless LBJ allowed it. So he needed a briefing on every high value target and the Americans were always a step behind in the war. The North Vienamese used gurrelia tactics against the Americans as well which contributed to the US defeat. LBJ's micromanaging of the war was one of the main reasons the US lost in Vietnam. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://history1900s.about.com...http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...http://listverse.com...
Biggest Military Mistakes

Napoleons Invasion of RussiaIf Russia has taught the world one lesson is that it is unconquerable. Napoleon would soon realize this when he attempted to invade Russia, resulting in a complete destruction of his army but overall this disastrous invasion would turn the tide of the Napoleonic War. June 24, 1812 Napoleon crossed the Nerman River with the largest army ever seen over half a million soldiers.[1] Russia avoided a confrontation with Napoleons army instead continued to retreat cities and burn the cities in the way, leaving no supplies for Napoleons army behind. Without any actual military confrontation Napoleon had already lost two thirds due to hunger, desertion and fatigue.[2] Finally when Napoleon reaches Moscow he finds the city to be empty and his attempt to force Alexander I into negotiations had failed. Realizing the Russians would not surrender Napoleon instead commanded his army to retreat and start the march home. A march home which as well devastated the French troops and supplies.[3] Napoleon walked out of Russia with a tiny fraction of the troops he had walked in to Russia with, thus leading to the downfall of the First French Empire. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.geographia.com...[3] http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Biggest Military Mistakes

Invasion of AfghanistanWar: Soviet War in AfghanistanOn December 24, 1979, the Soviet Union deployed forces in Afghanistan to assist the Marxist-Leninist government against the Afghan Mujahideen guerrilla movement. The Soviets hoped to prop-up the Afghan government, gain "global reach", to gain access to the Indian Ocean, and to control is own population (the USSR had a large amount of Muslims and having a country like Afghanistan at its doorstep brought concern). However, the Soviets lost. The Mujahideen were determined and imaginative fighters, they refused to fight the kind of war that the Soviet commanders wanted. The US also supplied and trained them. One thing the Soviets used highly was Hind helicopters, but so much for air superiority when the US gave them Stinger ground-to-air missiles. The Soviet Union was also in economic trouble, the Americans were building up their SDI programs which caused he Sovies to spend vast amounts of money on new weapons. The Soviets were also only safe in their securiy perimeters as the Mujahideen used the high ground and small villages. The war would be known as the "Soviet Union's Vietnam War" and for 9 long years they failed to stop resistance and eventually withdrew.For more watch this documentary (part 4 does not work in my computer for some reason, but you can watch that to).http://news.bbc.co.uk...http://www.guardian.co.uk...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Biggest Military Mistakes

Pearl HarborThe date July 26, 1941 Franklin D. Roosevelt has just made it illegal for any United States company to sell any raw materials or oil to Japan. It cannot go unnoticed that Japan depended heavily on the United States for its oil,[1] without the oil Japan received from the United States the Japanese Empire only had 18 months of oil supply left. Japan noticed the United States was taking the side of the Allies, Japan saw an attack on their soil by the United States inevitable. Noting this Japan attacked the closes American naval base to Japan, Pearl Harbor.[2] On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor[3] but the Japanese would soon realize that this attack would not be long celebrated, in the words of the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto "Japan had awakened a sleeping giant." This attack is seen as the turning point for the war in the pacific, after the attack on Pearl Harbor Japan switched from an offensive strategy to a defensive one. After this attack the United States entered a war-time industrial boom that brought the United States out of the Great Depression and would later be utilized to ultimately crush the Japanese Empire. This attack would later lead to a form of warfare which would not only obliterate Japanese cities but as well create a new form of warfare, nuclear warfare. The United States on August 6-9, 1945 the United States made history by becoming the first country to ever utilize nuclear weapons in war. The United States dropped two atomic bombs one in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these bombs are estimated to have killed over 200,000 people and destroyed the industrial cities of Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[4] 1942 the United States began a series of air raids on Tokyo, air raids which are considered to be the most destructive ever seen in warfare. An example of this air raid is on March 10, 1945 the United States with the use of B-29's[5] destroyed 267,000 buildings and killing over 100,000 people.[6] The attack on Pearl Harbor had devastating effects on Japans economy, people and future. The attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan will always remain as one of the biggest military mistakes in history. Sources[1] http://www.takelifeback.com...[2] http://www.maps-pacific.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://images.wikia.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Biggest Military Mistakes

Attacking KurskWar: World War 2This miliary action essentially cost the Germans the war. After the famous Battle of Stalingrad, it looked like the Soviets were going to run over the Germans. However, believe it or not, Germany could still fight. At the battle of Kharkov, German field marshal Erich von Manstein won an amazing victory againts the Soviets (usually Stalingrad is given too much credit by amateur historians when it really was not as much of a turning point as Kursk), that is considered a great example of defensive mechanised warfare. However, after that, the German dictator Adolf Hitler made a mistake. He ordered an offensive to take the German city of Kursk which lay in bulge controlled by the Soviets. Then he delayed the offensive when he decided to have the German commanders wait several months for the brand new Tiger tanks. The Soviets found out about the offensive a dug-in deep in he bulge with a series of defensive lines. When the offensive began, these lines bent, but were not destroyed. The Soviets gathered over 2 million men and 5,000 tanks to fight 800,000 Germans and 3,000 tanks. While he Soviets lost far more casualties, they could take them and still fight the Germans back, killing 250,000 of them. It was also the greatest tank battle in history. When he battle was over it was the turning point of the war as the Germans were defeated. Those extra Tigers could have played a role in more of a defensive war to stop the Soviet steamroller and ground them down in a longer war.
Biggest Military Mistakes

SubjectIn this debate, the two debaters will each present a military action that they consider a mistake during a war and contributed to that country's defeat or extended the end of the war in that country's victory.Rules1. There are not attacks or rebbutals, basically you just present a mistake, explain why you think it had a huge impact, and then continue to the next round. Whoever has the most biggest mistakes will be decided by the voters.
England Should Not Have Colonized North America

Like I mentioned, many left for America because they would've been killed had they stayed in England. They, too, suffered great loss, even from the trip over[3]. While settling in America, the Europeans had to go to some extremes that compromised the well-beings of some Native Americans. There are much less tribes and preserved tribal grounds today, but the tribes that do exist have good opportunities they might not have gotten without the colonization. They learned new things about business they had never heard of, and built up immunities to foreign diseases. Today, they have many technologies they wouldn't have had their land not been shared, and America has many freedoms and opportunities denied to citizens of other countries. This is a great example of the ends justifying the means. Rebuttals: "England should not have colonized North America because they did not have the right and they were not seeking to join the existing culture, but to extend their own." There were no laws set in place at the time that specifically prevented aliens from visiting or settling in America. The colonists had charters, and made deals with the Natives for land[1], which still has legal recognition even if the Natives had different opinions regarding land ownership. Some did go to experience the existing culture and explore new lands[2]. There were still settlers, most recognizably William Johnson, who did respect the culture and even joined it[3]. Many were still extending their culture in America, but only because they had nowhere else they could practice their beliefs/religion without being persecuted. Sources: [1] http://www.nebraskastudies.org... [2] http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us... [3] "A History Of The US: From Colonies To Country" by Joy Hakim Someting I'd like to point out to voters, and Pro in the case this was an honest mistake: "Round two-Arguements, no rebuttals" -Con, round 1 "[I] agree to ... the Rules/Format provided by Con" -Pro, round 1 "Rebuttals ..." -Pro, round 2 Pro has broken the format s/he has agreed to.
England Should Not Have Colonized North America

I will begin with why the English began to colonize the land in the first place. Queen Elizabeth I wanted the Anglican Church (the church of England) to be the only church that English citizens served[6]. As a result of this, Protestants, Puritans, and Separatists were persecuted for their beliefs. Puritans believed you could get into heaven without clergy, especially if the head of the church was the king and had no other necessary qualifications. They didn"t like King James I, and he didn"t like them either, because their beliefs would cost him power. He had no problem getting rid of them when they asked for charters to colonize a new land where they could practice their beliefs freely. The Virginia company officially gave them permission to settle there[7]. England was also overpopulating[3]. They were running low on housing and resources, while America had plenty that were not being taxed by the use of the Natives. There were also opportunities. If you were poor in England, you would have a chance to start a business and turn a profit in America. You could own land for the first time. People"s lives were better in America. Once there were many colonies, they began to unite through the Committees of Correspondence. They were strong and solved problems, such as the Townshend Acts[1], together. Leaders, such as Thomas Paine and John Adams, had ideas of freedom and independence few had thought of[2], and they wouldn't have thought of, without colonizing America. Colonizing America eventually benefited everyone. Sorry I couldn"t write much, I"m busy this week. Hopefully I"ll have more time for the next three rounds. Good luck, Pro! Sources: [1] . http://www.ushistory.org... [2] . http://alphahistory.com... [3] . http://faculty.history.wisc.edu... [4] . http://www.richmondancestry.org... [5] . http://www.let.rug.nl... [6] . http://teachers.henrico.k12.va.us... [7] . http://www.royal.gov.uk... [8] . http://www.ushistory.org... [9] . http://www.historyworld.net... Many of these will be used again in future rounds.
England Should Not Have Colonized North America

When England colonized America, this had both positive and negative effects on the land and people living there. Con (me) will argue that whatever they did was justified and for the better. Pro will argue England (and Americans after the Revolutionary War) had no right to colonize the land. Definitions: Justify: to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical Right: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral Definitions from www. dictionary. com America: the boundaries of the United States of America as of 1895. Rules: No trolling of any kind, no name-calling or general hostility, no invalid sources. No set minimum argument or rebuttal length. Forfeiture allowed, but must be followed by an extension. Format: Round One-Rules, definitions, format, acceptance. :)
Men getting paid more in athletics is reasonable

Firstly, I'm quite surprised you rejected the second argument as justifiable. From a simple supply and demand analysis the reason for the pay gradient is clear and should be acceptable as it logical. Perhaps a simple question can help bridge the disconnect. If you have two companies within the same industry, let's use Pepsi and coke as an example, would you pay both cfo's the same amount if the cfo of coke is having twice the production? All else held equal The unbiased answer to this question is no. If one cfo is giving you twice the production you will pay him/her more for superior performance. Likewise, if men's basketball is giving you more production it follows that the source of that production should be compensated accordingly. Whether or not the same hours and dedication are put in is irrelevant. The result is all that matters. For example, if two college students spend the same hours studying but on constantly gets A's and the other B's, would you say it's unfair or unreasonable? I would answer no to this and point out that one student must be more gifted in the classroom . There is nothing unfair about this unless you were to suggest that effort and hardworking are all that matter. Similarly, male athletes are paid big money for performance. Regardless of your argument stating some women sports are equally enjoyable, it is a fact that men are physically superior in nearly every sense and the gap isn't small. We jump higher, run faster, have more endurance, and are stronger. These facts are indisputable. It is also a fact that these elements make for more exciting and intense gameplay on every level. If you look up yiutube highlights of PPP warner football or even high school football and compare to nfl highlights, the difference that speed and power make become clear. That said, the difference in pay should seem more or less justifiable unless you are lobbying for a Marxist system where individual achievement is downplayed and compensation is equal out of virtue.
Use of the Confederate flag is not inherently racist towards African Americans

Anyone who does condemn the use of the Confederate flag symbol is ignorant of history. I've already admitted that yes, it can be used to express racist views. The Nazi swastika was used by Hitler's Germany in a time when the primary goal of his actions was the betterment of the Aryan race. He began invading the areas around Germany to acquire room for white Germans to expand, a plan known as "Lebensraum." The Holocaust was a racially motivated attack on other people and the swastika is undoubtedly a symbol of that tragedy. By contrast, the Confederacy was not seeking to advance unprecedented racial attacks on another race; it merely sought to preserve the racist institution that allowed its entire economy to function, among other things. Therefore, the actions of the south were economically motivated rather than racially. Another thing that many people forget is that the Civil war was not fought primarily over slavery, but over states' rights as a whole, which included slavery. Lincoln made slavery the issue with the Emancipation Proclamation, which served to keep Britain from supporting a war for slavery. I'll state this again: when the Confederate flag it is used by people who do not mean it with the idea of racism behind it, it should not be deemed offensive. An example of this is Brad Paisley, who was harshly labeled a racist hick when he wore a t-shirt with a Confederate Flag in public. To appease the media, he decided to co-produce a truly awful country/rap song called "Accidental Racist" with LL Cool J to explain that he wasn't a racist. It might be the worst song ever recorded, but it explains his position fairly well.
Use of the Confederate flag is not inherently racist towards African Americans

The Confederate Flag is not an inherently racist symbol. People are regularly offended by the use of it on T-shirts, bumper stickers, logos, and countless other things; they claim that anyone who wears it or supports it is by implication a racist. They claim that by using the symbol of the Confederacy, people endorse all of the policies and institutions under that short-lived government, obviously including slavery. Instead, I would argue that the flag is a symbol of the unique Southern heritage that bound those states together a century and a half ago. To say that the flag is a symbol of racism is just as ridiculous as saying that the current American flag (minus a few stars) is also a symbol of racism and slavery. That flag was flown for a much longer time over American institutions and governments that perpetuated racism and slavery (Northern and Southern), but that is not what it stands for. It cannot be denied, however, that the Confederate flag can and has been used by racists to remind blacks of slavery and to express their prejudices against the race. The Confederate government was no doubt racist. But it also is undeniable that the North (leading up to, during, and after the Civil War) was just as racist, if not more so. Also, in the recent past the American government has been racist (i.e., Japanese internment camps) and the flag has been used to express people's prejudices against Muslims and Asians, among others. This is simply a perversion of the symbol and it is sorely misled.
Should the drinking age be lower to 18

Alcohol can effect young people growth. For example, it will harass emotional regulation which may cause young people become too dependent on alcohol. Alcohol can do this to anyone up to the age of 25. At the age of 21 the frontal lobe (concerned with simple logic and reasoning) is not fully developed, but at 21 these people are considered old enough to handle alcohol. Also, we can't stop 18 year olds from drinking alcohol just because they may become dependent on it. If that were the case we would have to put the same restrictions on adults. You haven't named your sources here, so I am assuming that you pulled this fact out of no where. In most states, people can't buy guns or adopt children until they are 21 and so on. They are very serious things. They require more responsibility. Therefore, we should treat the drinking age in similar way. I totally agree that these things require more responsibility, but they can not be compared with alcohol at all. A child requires financial support, which someone still in university could not do sufficiently, and a gun is used to hurt and maim. At 18 the adult is allowed to drive a car, something which also takes a huge amount of responsibility, and yet we do not trust them enough to regulate their own alcohol levels. Again, you have given us no evidence to support the last statement "Therefore, we should treat the drinking age in similar way", so I assume that it is your own personal opinion. To summarise my side of the debate: 1) At 18 these adults are considered emotionally old enough to do other things which require a high amount of maturity, so to deny them alcohol because some may go overboard would be ridiculous.
Should the drinking age be lower to 18

I think that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I have two main points for this basis: They are old enough for the responsibility At 16 (or 17 f you are in the USA), we allow all citizens to vote for the governing body of the state, something that takes a huge amount of responsibility. If they are old enough for such privileges, then surely they are old enough at 18, 2 years later, to drink alcohol. I do agree with the fact that a lot of adults this age go out to get drunk, which could cause fights and "traffic", but I will answer this particular argument in my next point. Furthermore, one can go out to war at 18 and fight for one's country, so why not allow them to have a beer? It would cause more problems in the future to keep it at 21 One of the main reasons why so many people actually go out to get drunk is because alcohol is a "cool" thing to them. They see everyone else older than them drinking alcohol, and because it is such an alien thing to them when they reach 18, they go out and get drunk. We only have to look at the case of Italy to affirm this. They have alcohol from a young age, so when they reach 18 it is a normal thing for them. By increasing this gap to the age of 21, we would just be promoting the idea that someone should go out to get "splattered".
"Black" people are more racist than "whites".

You can not prove it isn't a coincidence that the race of the candidate effected the amount of blacks whom voted for him. Since Obama got the majority of the popular vote, it just proves that it was even more likely that everyone, including african americans, voted for Obama more so then McCain. By that logic, whites must be racist in that sense too. Because up till now, all whites have always voted majority for white presidents. In fact, your just proving that whites are more racist then blacks, by saying that blacks are more racist then whites. My point is this: You can not prove that blacks are more racist then whites. And you can not prove that it wasn't a simple coincidence that blacks voted for Obama.
"Black" people are more racist than "whites".

I don't have to disprove it, I am con. You, on the other hand, are pro therefore you have to prove it. Just because a certain amount of blacks voted for Obama, it does not mean you can know their reasoning behind it. That's like me saying, '70% of criminals that are in jail are men, that means most people in jail are rapists' it lacks any proof, logic, or knowledge.