BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tobacco had a positive influence on the Jamestown colony

In the year 1602, King James I of England granted a charter for a group called the "Virginia Company" to establish colonies in the American state of Virginia. By the year 1607, 104 English men stepped foot into North America. May 13th of that year, they picked a spot and named it Jamestown. The colonists had to adjust to hard labor in order to survive but they managed. That is, until the winter of 1609, when things to a turn for the worst. This is known as the "starving period" and it was a horrible time that lasted about four years. Fatal diseases threatened the colonists. Jamestown was built near a swamp which harbored mosquitoes containing malaria. A nearby lake, the colonists water supply, was filled with deadly germs and bacteria. A river flowing nearby was used for washing clothes and people, but also for drinking. When the colonists drank from the river, they contracted illnesses like Typhoid Fever due to all the germs. Along with these diseases was the threat of starvation. During this time there was a drought in Jamestown. That meant that crops like corn, beans, and squash were unable to grow. Also, less supply ships were being sent to help the colonists. The shortage of supplies forced the colonists to rely on the Powhatan Indians but instead, the Native Americans saw the colonists weakness and raided them while they were weakened. This combination led to a major supply shortage that forced colonists to resort to cannibalism. A man by the name of John Rolfe arrived at the struggling colony of Jamestown in the year 1614 with a new strain tobacco called Nicotiana Tabacum. Unlike the local tobacco, this strain was being grown in South America and tasted sweeter. This tobacco had a positive influence on the Jamestown colony. Tobacco would soon be used to trade with England, used as a currency, exploit medicinal effects on the colonists, and become Americas first cash crop. ~~~Martin,Susan , Saccone,Stephanie , Kittle,Jere , Bowers,Justin , "The Jamestown Chronicles Timeline", The Jamestown Chronicles, The Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, Published 2007 http://www.historyisfun.org... ~~~Schmidt,Ashley , Dennis,Avery , Blonski,Christopher , Alderete,Gonzalez,Daniel Y. , Tran,Natalie , Martinez,Yoselin , "Hardships & Disease", Jamestown 1607-1620"s, Weebly Inc., Published February 2014, http://jamestowngroup6.weebly.com... ~~~ Neely,Paula , "Jamestown Colonists Resorted to Cannibalism", National Geographic News, Published May 3rd 2013, http://news.nationalgeographic.com... ~~~ Curmudgeon,Cigar . "How Tobacco Changed Saved Jamestown Colony". Cigarcurmudgeon.wordpress.com. Wordpress.com. Created September 21, 2008. https://cigarcurmudgeon.wordpress.com...
SOLVE! THAT! RIDDLE!!!!!! nac

I actually wanted to do this <3 "Since Bossyfajita has been making riddle debates for everyone, I figured I'd be a nice guy and offer him one as well so he didn't feel left out of all the fun >:D The rules are simple. I'll post the riddle below. He's got one shot at getting it right. If he gets it right, pour salsa all over him and give him all seven points. If he doesn't get it right, however, send him to Taco Bell on food duty and give me the seven points. First round for riddle and answer. Second round for me saying if he was right or not and then his disaapointment or happiness." No trickery that I can sense so far... Ok, a little time jumping is going on. I still can't find any tricks up here... "Sounds good?" Yup. "Good luck!" Thanks. "The riddle is this:" Hit it zdog Coming back again. The riddle is this sounds suspicious... Is the riddle "the"? The what? The riddle? Kent bsjebdhjab "Rearrange the letters in the word , "new door", to make one word." Huh... It can't be that easy. Zman is too clever for that. But WIFOM... Arg. Ok. New door is two words, so there has to be a trick here. Hmmm... It can't just be One Word... Or can it? God damn it he's sooo good at mafia. It can't just be one word... Come one, what's the trick? WHAT'S THE TRICKKKKKKK???? Fvck me. See, it even says to rearrange the letters in the riddle. That can't be right. "in the word" Word would be one word, but I wouldn't rearrange the letters... Wait are quotes letters? No. Ok, you got me. Is the answer "one word"? New door One word The two o's are there. The d is there. The r is there. Everything is there... Ok. Lock in those lyrics!!! (Or answers(answer))
SOLVE! THAT! RIDDLE!!!!!! nac

Since Bossyfajita has been making riddle debates for everyone, I figured I'd be a nice guy and offer him one as well so he didn't feel left out of all the fun >:DThe rules are simple. I'll post the riddle below. He's got one shot at getting it right. If he gets it right, pour salsa all over him and give him all seven points. If he doesn't get it right, however, send him to Taco Bell on food duty and give me the seven points. First round for riddle and answer. Second round for me saying if he was right or not and then his disaapointment or happiness.Sounds good? Good luck!The riddle is this:Rearrange the letters in the word, "new door", to make one word.
Resolved: Capital Punishment in Texas is Unjust.

I wish we could have had a few more rounds for my opponent to offer further contentions. I appreciate his effort and I would simply like to conclude what I have already stated. In light of these facts, I would urge you (the audience) to vote Pro. Thank you. -The death penalty is wrong in ALL cases -Violence begets violence and there is no need for more senseless deaths in this world. -‘Safety’ does not come about through retroactive punishments, especially if they are capitol punishments. -My opponent and I agree, “Respect for human life is a characteristic of a civilized society. ” -The risk of killing an innocent person is far too high to justify killing ANY ‘criminal’ and is morally unconscionable.
This house would ban the sale of large-sized soft drinks

My first argument is that by the moral theory Hedonism, people should maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Therefore, government do not have a moral obligation to-- in fact they shouldn't-- limit the public’s consumption of unhealthy foods and drinks. R: People who consume unhealthy food consume it because they enjoy it and the food gives them pleasure. Since different people have different ways of having pleasure, the government should not restrict some people’s form of pleasure-- unhealthy food, even though prop may say that the feeling of being healthy is a better form of pleasure than having unhealthy food. In fact, that is taking away one pleasure everyone wants to enjoy: the ability to choose. My second argument is that restricting what we can or cannot eat will inhibit our freedom of choice and violate the first amendment. Thus, instead of being viewed as saviors, as my opponent claimed, government will be viewed as tyrants. Controlling the public’s rights to drink what they please is taking away the happiness and freedom of choice.When Michael Bloomberg banned large sodas, there were mass protests throughout NYC. People held citywide protests that disrupted the natural My third argument is that not banning these sodas will cause too many diseases. The American Heart Association's Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention annual conference in San Francisco. This new research reveals that over the last decade, soda consumption has conservatively caused: 130,000 new cases of diabetes 14,000 new cases of heart disease 50,000 more "life years" with heart disease over the last decade http://www.naturalnews.com... My opponent's arguments support my side, so I guess I can't do anything but support that. Okay.So thank you proposition for supporting my side, and voters please vote for my side.
Communism is the greatest economic ideal

This is my first debate, but here goes: Perfection This is what communism's economic plan, as described in the Communist Manifesto, is. Before I begin my debate, I offer the following definitions- communism- a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. greatest- superior in quality. economic- pertaining to the production, distribution, and use of income, wealth, and commodities. ideal- a conception of something in its perfection. The main argument for communism is equality. You have to remember- Marxism was created because of a large class struggle throughout Europe. The market was dominated by a wealthy class, leaving the working class to suffer. The competition in this market led to low wages and unemployment for many. - Communism is a solution The idea of communism is the abolition of private property. It focuses on the group and not the individual. Economically, this is very ideal. This would definitely be essential for a growing economy. With a new, classless society the unemployment level would be zero. - Poverty can not exist within a communist society. Unemployment is nonexistent. A command economy would make a decision and goal. With capitalism, capital can be seen from your work. If you work harder, you get a raise. The raise leads to a better car or house. With communism, the capital could be seen in a different way. The harder everyone works, the more EVERYONE receives the benefits. Arguably, 5 people working together would produce more results than 5 people working alone. - Economic growth would increase as collectivization improves overall essentials of lifestyle. The eventual outcome would be very simple and scientific. If a community needs something (infrastructure, more commodities, rations, technology), the only thing necessary is for the community to work as a whole and put more effort. Even with slave like conditions, results would be dramatic. With communism's command economy, a government can decide what is best for a nation to improve economically. The workers can then work towards any goal. This can be seen within the Soviet Unions rule. Growth within the nation increased 20%, and an industrial, economic powerhouse was created in Stalin's regime (48-55) when factories and production drastically improved. Through willpower of the revolutionists, greater feats can be accomplished. Economic growth and innovation exist within a communist economy. So why does this matter? This would mean the production, distribution, and use of income is for the overall benefit of society as a whole as opposed to a one. Through heavy taxes and a common goal, everyone can have a fair share of the pie. Economy could thrive as the main use of income was for the benefit of society. Wealthiness can only exist as the standard for everyone is raised. Commodities would be public, and what one receives everyone receives.
Does evolution makes sense

Thank you for taking me up on the debate. Let me start right off. Fossils You claim that different levels are different ages, however, there is a problem with this. There have been many trees that are fossilized through multiple layers of rock. This shows that the layers could not be different ages. Plus, there is a lack of transitional fossils. If evolution happens so slowly, there should be a massive amount of transitional fossils, which there is not. Finally, two things that look alike does not imply relationship. Evolutionists claim that since fossils look alike, they must be similar, but that is not true. We can find many things that look alike, and it is usually because they have the same creator. http://www.allaboutthejourney.org... http://yecheadquarters.org... http://www.reasons.org... ERVs The problem with ERVs is that people assume that it proves common ancestry. However, there are many problems with this. Evolutionists claim that all animals have a common ancestry, but the retroviral genes in invertebrates are completely different than vertebrates. This shows that, by your theory, we have no ancestors in invertebrates. This is a very important point because if evolutionists claim that retroviral DNA proves that all mammals have a common ancestor then, if we use the same logic, retroviral DNA disproves the idea of mammals having a common ancestor with other classes. For example evolutionary theory claims that fish and humans have a common ancestor however they do not share any ERVs as we would expect if evolution is true. To overcome this claim, evolutionists claim that since fish and humans share a very old ancestor, they share very old ERVs therefore these ERVs had enough time to evolve independently in humans and their ancestors and modern fish and their ancestor, and since the common ancestor between humans and other mammals, and specifically with other primates is relatively young, ERVs did not evolve (change) too much. However evolutionists fail to provide a rate in which and ERV can change, and they fail to provide a mechanism in which and ERV can change so drastically and pass it to the next generation, but there is not evidence supporting this claim. This argument also assumes evolution to be true, so which one is it? a) ERVs prove evolution b) Evolution proves ERV Additional arguments: The lack of good mutations. Scientists claim that mutations add information, however this is wrong as it is seen. There have never been a good mutation that has been discovered. The majority of the mutations found takes away information from the gene. So far, mutations an not cause evolution. Plus, the probability of multiple mutations happening is shot. Natural Selection Natural selection causes micro evolution, but does not explain how macro evolution could happen. Variation in the species, not new species. http://swordandshield.biz... http://www.newscientist.com... http://www.cs.unc.edu... http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Does evolution makes sense

I'm assuming the resolution is, "Evolution makes sense in explaining our origins." Since Con wants me to go first, I will.The Fossil RecordWe can find out how creatures evolved by the order of the fossils. We shouldn't find a rabbit fossil in with the Cambrian era,not a humans fossil with a trilobite.This is exactly what we see. The lowest strata has the oldest rock and with the earliest fossils. Furthermore the highest strata has the youngest rock and more recent fossils. [1]How are the fossils sorted in a way to fulfill a prediction of evolution?"Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.” - Richard DawkinsERVsShort for Endogenous retroviruses. An ERV are sequences in the genome that come from ancient viral infections. Their proviruses get passed on to the next generation and remain inside the genome[2]Finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species would indicates common ancestry. "In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA . There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced. The picture below shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates . The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism. http://www.debate.org...; /> The human ERVs (called HERV) are in identical locations in other primates The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene."[3] The resolution is affirmed[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[2] Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012[3] Ibid
Cat's are better than dogs

Always wanted to have a debate about this!!! Dogs are better because, they are better for security of your home and person, especially bigger dogs. Dogs are more loyal then cats, a dog is always excited to see you everyday and will wait at the door to greet you as opposed to a cat who can be moody. Dogs can go for hikes with you, on leash or off, cats won't really hike, they want to hunt and do their own thing. Dogs don't leave any hairballs around, and when they lick you it doesn't feel like sand paper like cats. Dogs don't scratch all your furniture. A dog will always be your best friend, that is why they call them man's best friend, while a cat will be out hunting mice and doing their own thing.
driving a car slow is better than driving it fast in city

Let's hope it's a feisty one. To open, I would like to put forward the following argument: that "better" is a subjective and preemptive judgement which, in this context, ignores that outcome, not action, should be the arbiter of virtue. Inherent in the wording of the motion, and in the arguments put forward by the Proposition, is the notion that slower speeds are unilaterally preferable for drivers, and lead to better outcomes. This fails to take into account the varying levels of proficiency different drivers have, or that slower speeds are not necessarily a protection against disaster. Indeed, the Proposition states that "accidents won't happen" if drivers are sticking within the imposed limits, an argument that is demonstrably false. It is the case, rather, that accidents are the result of an amalgamation of circumstances, of which speed is only a part; alertness and driving ability are far more significant determinants in these situations. And, in most cases, who is behind the wheel is far more important than what they are doing, because who they are determines what they do. This raises another point, and it will be my final in this round: if we judge the virtue of high speed usage in cars on individual merit, the question of said virtue becomes a matter of personal responsibility. It should not be for the Proposition to determine the correct course of action for a collective, but for the individuals to judge themselves capable or otherwise of performing it. Some people are capable of driving at high speeds safely, and others aren't. Those who aren't and choose to anyway are more likely to suffer consequences, for which they must accept personal responsibility. I feel it is not possible to support a motion that refuses to acknowledge this distinction.
driving a car slow is better than driving it fast in city

Driving a car slow is better than driving it fast in city because people wander in city and driving fast may lead to accident.there are lot of speed brakers in the city and when a car comes fast and stops at a speed braker the car will get damaged and the person driving it would get major injuries.Driving slow is safety and accidents won't happen.On March month a professional racer of Chennai met with an accident because of rash driving. http://www.thehindu.com...
driving a car slow is better than driving it fast in city

The people who rash drives in the city with caution will be little in the world . The people who drive the car very rashly is for show - off and to stop this the government should make an order which supports and should take action on people who drives very rash.Faster driving gives you a shorter amount of time to respond to something in your path, and even a fraction of a second can mean the difference between life and death. Drive slower for your safety and that of those around you " especially drive slow around runners, cyclists, schools, and neighborhoods with kids on the streets.People give reasons that they drive fast because they don't have time. Make it a habit of getting ready early and leaving early. Now you don"t have to worry about being late, and you can enjoy the ride.
The United States should send troops to Syria

Yes the syrian army is much more organized and it does have a central location, AKA capital. Which means it would be very easy to cripple the regime with airstrikes and no need for ground troops. We can do this job without sending troops and risking our troops lives. Save american's lives. And no we dont need bases in Syria. If we are going to take action we do not need to create bases. Lastly there is no more turf warfare. It is technological warfare now, and bombings. We no longer line our troops on a field and fight the enemy face to face. We use technology. And no we can not compare Hussein's forces to Assad's because of the technological advances of the 21st century. We dont need to loose American lives.
The United States should send troops to Syria

I was comparing the losses to the saved lives in each of those operations, and to the dozens of thousands of Syrian civilians killed in their current civil war because of lack of intervention, and to the millions without homes in need of humanitarian aid. So yes, I used the word "only," but with respect. You see, the military personnel in my acquaintance signed up out of a sense of humanitarian selflessness. Anyone unable to appreciate that trade-off is free to avoid military service on their own, but should also avoid sensationalizing military sacrifice to earn points in order to win an argument. Al-Qaeda is an underground network woven into civilian populations, it has no central headquarters to destroy. The Syrian government is a completely different story. They make for a poor comparison point. Most casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of Improvised Explosive Devices [1], which is why my original post states the United States "should set up bases in Syria," not drive across the desert every morning. The U.S. military is the best funded on earth, and obviously this bears little relevance when driving over a bomb, but face-to-face warfare is truly its turf. With a U.S. strategy that reduces vulnerability to improvised explosive devices, Assad's forces would be limited to modern and conventional warfare, much like Hussein's forces were in the Gulf War. Comparing Gulf-War Iraq to modern Syria, there is no reason to believe Assad's forces would be any more potent than Hussein's were. In fact, Iraq had 650,000 active solders in the gulf war [2] while Syria in April of 2013 had only only 110,000[3]. 1.http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States should send troops to Syria

My opponent points out operations that provided humanitarian support to people in need, but this will be a lot different. Our troops, if sent, will be going against the army of Syria. The syrian army is much more advanced than Al-Qaueda when it comes to weaponry and procedure. We would loose a lot of lives in syria. Also my opponents looks at these deaths as pure numbers. He says "only 482 US and coalition troops were killed". Only? ?? ? those are lives we are talking about. many had families, and the death of service men, even if only one, should not be taken lightly. We could just as easily use drones and aircraft to fight the regime, as we did SUCCESSFULLY in Libya. This shows we can help the rebels and set no troops on the ground. My opponent says drone strikes create anti-american sentiment among Al-Qaeda member, but I believe setting troops in Libya would be the same result if not worse. We can not afford to put troops on the ground and enter a conflict that we don't know will end soon. We need to help the rebels, but also protect American servicemen's lives, and not put there family through the possible loss of a father, brother, and son.