BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Obama is bad 4 the US

President obama is a hypocrite he cast blame on big spenders saying there to blame 4 the economic situation." Big spenders such as the banks that gave out sub-prime mortgages that those who received the loans had no way of paying? You're going to have to be more specific when accusing him. "Then he has a 6 million dollar party when he takes office." You mean he sent 6 million dollars, donated to him by his supporters, back into a faltering economy? How dare he put six million dollars into the economy in the middle of a recession! "He will not salute the flag of the united states cause he says there is no opportunity in America" I don't know what your source is for this but my source, The Washington Post, says that the reason that you give for him not saluting the flag actually comes from an E-mail hoax. The only time that Obama has not saluted the flag is during the national anthem, a time during which you may or may not salute the flag, depending on personal preference. "Obama has little experience" Experience does not necessarily mean that someone will be a good President: Thomas Jefferson- created the Embargo Act, which severely damaged America's economy. Martin Van Buren- led America into one of its first recessions. Andrew Johnson- first impeached President. Escaped conviction by one vote. Several Presidents with approximately the same amount of political experience as Obama (Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan), however, are recognized as some of the greatest Presidents we have ever had. "and his stimulus package is garbage and will hurt our already crippled economy." The economy draws its strength from the people. Then economy can only be strong if people are putting money into it. People put money into the economy by purchasing things with their disposable income; the more disposable income the people have, the stronger the economy is likely to be. According to Time.com and MSNBC.com, forty percent of Obama's stimulus package is to cut taxes on 95 percent of Americans, significantly increasing the amount of money people have to put into the economy. Furthermore, economic analysts expect Obama's package to create or save 2.5 million jobs. How do jobs hurt the economy? My opponent's case does not stand up under scrutiny, especially since he has no sources to back up what he says. Few Presidents have ever had such a great oppurtunity to unite America. We have seen what happens when America is divided and Obama is reaching across the aisle to unite all Americans for the common good. You can see this in the massive amount support that he has from both parties, his work with the Republicans, and especially his work with former rival John McCain.
President Obama is bad 4 the US

I am in strong affirmation that, President Obama is bad 4 the United States of America. President obama is a hypocrite he cast blame on big spenders saying there to blame 4 the economic situation. Then he has a 6 million dollar party when he takes office. He will not salute the flag of the united states cause he says there is no opportunity in America but after 2 generations the obamas have come from nothing to the most influential black family in the world. Obama has little experience and his stimulus package is garbage and will hurt our already crippled economy.
Most Important Battles Challenge (4)

Hello, this is 1Historygenius, the Master Historian of this website, and YOU have been challenged to my third most important battles challenge (well, really a redo of one)! Rules: We will debate battles for different wars and time periods. What happens is that every round a battle will be placed by each person. The voters will decide who has the more important battle for that round. Who ever has the most will get the most points from the votes and thus win. Sieges are not included in this. Just land and naval battles. No semantics or trolling! Round 1 is for acceptance! No refutations! The Winner of the debate will simply be decided by the voters! Too avoid any further confusion, here is a previous debate I did that people can use as a guideline: http://debate.org...
Most Important Battles Challenge (4)

The Battle of ViennaThis Battle was also one of the most important in world history. The Ottoman Empire's goal was to expand Islam into Europe and claim all of Europe for Allah. 150,000 to 300,000 troops under Kara Mustafa Pasha fought a mixed force of some 80,000 troops under the Polish King John Sobrieski near Vienna one September in 1683 and lost. The battle marked the end of Islamic expansion into Europe and resulted in their commander, Mustafa Pasha, being executed by the Turks for his mishandling of the battles for Vienna. Had Pasha attacked when he first arrived at the city earlier that July, Vienna probably would have fallen. By waiting until September, however, he gave time for the Polish Army and their allies to arrive to break the siege. What if The Ottoman Empire had won? The Ottoman expansion would have continued. Vienna marked the time that the Ottoman expansion stopped, so the could continue after that. The Ottomans also eventually lost the key territories of Hungary and Transylvania as a result after sixteen years of exhausting warfare, mainly caused by the major defeat at Vienna.The Ottoman Empire has always played a key role to where it has stood and expanding further into Europe would mean a further important role in Europe. How far would they go if they took Vienna? Prague? Berlin? As far as Paris? Ottoman expansion would be quite different in Europe as it would mean Europeans would be different culturally and politically than under their own monarchs. http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://www.wien-vienna.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (4)

The Battle of StalingradYear: 480 BCArmies: Germany and other Axis Nations (Friedrich Paulus) vs. Soviet Union (Vasily Chuikov) The BattleWhat started a small battle led to the most important battle of World War 2. In 1942, the German 6th Army made up of 270,000 men was sent to attack Stalingrad, a Soviet city named after the nation's leader near the Volga River. The small amount of Soviet defenders did their best to stop the German army and soon the city was deadlocked for months. German and Soviet troops fought around the wreckage of the city. Soon the Germans and Soviets had millions of troops in and around the city.By late 1942, the Soviets launched Operation Uranus which was an operation involving massive amounts of soldiers surrounding the Axis troops. The German commander, General Friedrich Paulus, asked Adolf Hitler allow a withdrawal, but Hitler refused. The Luftwaffe (German air force) tried to re-supply the 6th Army from the air, but failed. Two German Panzer divisions under the command of General Erich von Manstein were sent to try to breakthrough the Soviet troops, but failed. Eventually, the 6th Army was forced to surrender. Had the Germans won?If the Germans won, they would have won a great victory against the Soviets. Most Soviet oil fields are in the south near Stalingrad and if the Volga is captured then the Soviets would be unable to transport their oil up the river. The Soviets would lose a very valuable resource to the German war machine. This is because the oil field ins the caucuses would be guaranteed to be taken as the Germans in the south could focus their efforts there. The Germans could also set up on a defensive line on the bank of the Volga in case of counter attacks by the Red Army (so they might fail instead win when they launched their counter attack.The Germans would likely then continue their campaign in the south, further spread out Soviet forces as they moved on which would contribute to the campaigns in the north and the center. This means the USSR would have a major problem and if the Germans capture Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow, then this likely would have led to the Soviet surrender.http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (4)

The Battle of SalamisYear: 480 BCFleets: Greek City-States (Eurybiades + Themistocles) vs. Achaemenid Empire (Xerxes I) The BattleAt this battle, a fleet from the Greek City-States (most ships from Athens) commanded by Eurybiades and Themistocles fought off the Islamic Achaemenid Empire fleet (Persia) commanded by Xerxes I. The Persian fleet was much more larger than the Greek fleet (some say it was 1,000 Persian ships vs. 378 Greek ships). In fact, the Persian crews were even better than the Greek crews. Most of the Greek ships (specifically the ones from Athens) were new and just built with inexperienced crews. However, the Greeks made tactics specifically to conquer the Persian fleet. When the Persian ships entered the Straits of Salamis in cramped conditions, they were easily defeated by the Greeks. Some say if they won it would have change a lot.Had the Persians won?They would have likely changed history by defeating the Greeks here. As it would have effect Greek progress in civilization and thus change progress in the western world. Chances are, the Greeks would not be able to expand through colonization if they were under Persian rule they would be giving taxes and looking to a Persian emperor. Chances today we would be looking at a different kind of democracy, likely from Scandanavia which founded its own democracy. So instead of learning and following Hellenistic democracy we would we learning and following pre-Harald in Norway. This would have an impact on all democracies across the world in the future. Its important to remember that victory was almost certain for the Persians because Xerses I, the Persian commander, planned to build a pontoon bridge into Athens, but because the Greeks now significantly controlled the seas, this was impossible. After Salamis, the Greeks were permanently safe from conquest. Many historians believe that if the Greeks lost at Salamis, history would have changed as we know it. This is because most of the ideals we get are from Ancient Greece. The celebrated blossoming of influential Greek culture only happened after Salamis. [1,2,3]Sources1. Discussed by Green (The Year of Salamis), p xxiii and Holland, pp xvi–xxii2. Holland, ppxvi–xvii.3. http://web.archive.org...http://www.youtube.com...
Most Important Battles Challenge (4)

Battle of WaterlooYear: 1815Armies: French (Napoleon Bonaparte) vs. British-Dutch-Prussia (Duke of Wellington and Gebhard von Blucher) The BattleIn 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte returned to power in France. He had been the emperor before, but was forced into exile during his failed conquest of Europe. Now back, the powers that had defeated him returned. Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia were all against him. Britishm Belgian, and Dutch troops commanded by the Duke of Wellington landed in Belgium and were suppose to meet a Prussia force commanded by Gebhard von Blucher. Napoleon decided to attack and take each army one at a time. At the battle, the British, Belgian, and Dutch occupied a ridge which stopped several frontal assaults that Napoleon launched. Soon Prussian troops from Blucher were on the field and Napoleon was being forced to split his army. French reinforcements under Marshal Emmanuel de Groucy did not arrive. After a failed attack by his elite Old Guard on the British and Dutch line, he withdrew and was eventually forced into exile again.Had he won?Napoleon would have likely been unstoppable. He had nearly conquered Europe before and he could have possible conquered all of it if he was given a second try. This is mainly because of the spreading apart of his allies. Wellington would have been forced back to the Belgian coast to evacuate with the British. The Dutch, Belgians, and Prussians would be left to fend for themselves. The Prussians would be in a very bad position because they would be stuck between Napoleon and his reinforcements. The Dutch and the Belgians could in no way stand up to Napoleon.As for Napoleon's two other enemies, Austria and Russia, they would be stuck in the same position they were in 1805. The Austrians would have to either advance into France or wait for the Russians. The latter was a bad choice in 1805 as it led to defeat and loss of 45,000 Austrian troops at the Battle of Ulm while the former means than an outnumbered Austria would be taking on the power of Napoleon. The emperor would shift his army south along with reinforcements to Italy.When Napoleon would defeat the Austrians and Prussians he would likely have greater France. This means Belgium and northern Italy. If he wished to continue his conquests as in 1805 to 1812, he could move into Europe, force Prussia and Austria into alliances while putting back in the Duchy of Warsaw and other satelittes. This time he would either learn from, or not make the mistake of invading Russia, leading to a Britain-France stalemate at sea. Napoleon could then possibly rule until the end of his reign and then give it to his child or other relative to maintain the French empire.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am smart.

We will define "smart" as a : mentally alert : bright b : knowledgeable [1] This being the case, I have already proved the Pro as smart. If we are to substitute the word smart for knowledgeable, as knowledgeable is a definition of the term, I can make the liable argument that my opponent is knowledgeable in the following concepts: 1. Grammar 2. Spelling and Vocabulary 3. Computer use 4. Adjustment over time 1. Grammar My opponent has shared his knowledge of grammar in his first argument. In the last sentence, there are no grammatical errors, proving the knowledge of grammar. Otherwise, all three "sentences" would be gibberish. This leads me to my second point. 2. Spelling and vocabulary My opponent has also shared his knowledge of spelling and grammar. There are no words in any of his first argument that are misspelled, and we can all agree that Pro is knowledgeable of vocabulary, otherwise there would not be any words in his argument. This leads me to my third point. 3. Computer Use My opponent has shared with us his knowledge of computer use. If Pro was unable to use a computer, he would not have been able to create this debate. Pro could use the argument that someone else has created this debate for him, but that would require communication. The resolution states that "MeAmDumb" has created this debate. (ie. using the knowledge of the computer to create such the debate). This leads me to my fourth point. 4. Adjustment over time My opponent has proven his knowledge of adjustment. Over time in his argument he uses better grammar. Therefore, adjusting his debate style to be more effective. Whether or not he has meant to do this is not the case, the case is that he did. I rest my case with the point that unless Pro can prove every one of my points wrong, the default vote is to Con. His arguments will also have to prove mine wrong in direct context, as my arguments were focused on his First Argument, and his First Argument only. These arguments in no way are targeted at his future rounds, as he could easily change his debate style in order to prove me wrong. However, this would only support my 4th contention. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Prove that I, MeAmDumb, am smart.

I would forfeit this round in order to keep the forfeits equal, but then again, I need to conclude my arguments. You can extend every single one of my arguments here, and note that my opponent did not refute any of them. He may not have known what I meant, and claimed he is not smart, but in my four arguments I have proved otherwise. Even if he is not knowledgeable of my arguments, he is proved to be logical of: 1. Grammar 2. Spelling and Vocabulary 3. Computer use 4.
Humanism is a Better Morality System than Any Religion

Your assertions of stated religions are incorrect. I will address them in the next around. My stance is that the Bible is the only way to TRUE objective morality and we use God as a focal point. I will argue that without God, humanism cannot exist because God is a reference point to all that is good. Humanism relies on preexisting beliefs that came from God to determine what is ethical and not. The Bible is the only source to objective morality. It's important to note that, Christianity and the bible are NOT synonymous. Bible NEVER states to be a Christian or to call yourself anything. The term christian was a derogatory term given to the followers of Christ during the time of Rome. Christ never called himself a Christian, and the apostles never called themselves Christian.
Humanism is a Better Morality System than Any Religion

Often Apologists like William Lane Craig or Ravi Zacharias (among many others) claim that their religion is the only way to objective morality, and that to think otherwise will eventually lead to the downfall of morality in our culture. I very much so disagree with this statement. In fact, I would say it is more moral to be a humanist than living under any kind of 'God's' morality system. I will leave specifics out until someone accepts the debate, but here is the synopsis of my argument: Looking at religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism we can clearly see they leave many morals that we have in current society completely out of their holy books, or completely support them. For example, some support slavery, sex slaves, genocide (as long as God says its OK), forced marriages, lack of women's rights, and even the murder of homosexuals for simply being homosexuals. These same holy books also claim that no matter how good a person is, even according to their own laws, if they do not believe in the God of their religion they will be sent to eternal torment and suffering in Hell. The laws of morality of these holy books only truly help one being alone, which is God Himself. In Christianity, the only unforgivable sin is to, in short, know God and then turn away from Him. How could moral laws like this ever truly be considered just and good for humanity? Secular Humanism, I would argue, is a much better system of ascertaining morality being that the morals we gain from this viewpoint are laws that help everyone the best, not the individual person, and seek to help everyone gain full equality so that we all may live the most peaceful and happy lives possible.
Cheerleaders are good for pro sports

Let's take a look at that 78%, shall we? My guess, which i'm quite sure is accurate, is that about 66% of the people who favor cheerleaders are slobbering, woman-demeaning men, who enjoy their female counterparts best while in scantily-clad outfits dancing around, or just plain nude in a $2.99 per minute porno. About 11% percent are girls ranged 4-17 who are cheerleaders themselves, and 1% are stepford wives who seem to enjoy anything placed in front of them. May I ask where you received this statistic from? Focusing less on the 78 percent, lets take a look at the 22 percent. I can assure you that these 22% don't just not enjoy cheerleaders, but dislike them greatly (hate is such an extreme word). The 22% is made up of 15% girls who have a few bones of sense in their body, and have better, more intelligent things to do than prance around in a demeaning suit, cheering on their show-stopping men counterparts who seem to allot to so much more than they ever will, 6% is made up by grouchy old men and women who wish to put a pox on cheerleading, and, most importantly, 1% of the 22% of people who despise cheerleaders are teenage boys like me who can actually hold a grasp on their raging hormones for five minutes, and enjoy why you went to the basketball or football game; to watch the wonders of sports. Oh, and contrary to popular belief, it's the players giving it their all, spectacular plays, and tight games that rally crowds. Not cheerleaders.
Cheerleaders are good for pro sports

Ah, yes the experience of an NBA game. Whether it be your first game as a 10-year old with your dad, an entire family experience, taking your Dallas Mavericks-loving girlfriend on a date she'll never forget, or just hangin' out with your buddies, there's nothing like a basketball game. It's only 10 minutes into the game and you're already pumped up. The Knicks and the Nets are in a dead heat, scoring points every which way. The Knicks' coach takes a timeout, and you sit back and relax to chat with the person next to you, getting into a lengthy discussion on the key matchups, the dominance by Jason Kidd, etc. But before any of this can begin, scantily clad, makeup-plastered women run down onto the court, sporting the phoniest smiles one will ever see. A voice comes over the loudspeaker, annoucing the grand arrival of "Youuuuur New York Knicks CHEEEERLEADERS!!!!!!" They proceed to prance around, dancing and screaming for the hometown team, keeping the smiles present the entire way. What is the purpose of this side-entertainment? None, and it takes away from the game and it aura.
The Nintendo Switch is Great

Rules: 1. No Trolling.2. No Arbitrary predictions that aren't supported with actual evidence (Like saying how the Switch will fail in a year without actual evidence from an article and such).3. No Forfeits.4. Use Common Sense.What we will be Debating:Con will be debating on how the Nintendo Switch fails at what it strives to do (As a portable console) AND NOT because of blatant fanboyism OR because the Switch isn't for Con. I will be arguing that the Nintendo Switch is successful at what it does and it is a great console/handheld in general.The Structure of the Debate:Round 1:Pro: I will go over the rules and to go over the structure of the debate and what we will be claiming, etc.Con: This may get a little interesting, you will actually be counterarguing Round 2 of this: www.debate.org/debates/The-Nintendo-Switch-currently-is-a-great-Console-Handheld-Device. (Copy and Paste the Link because of some glitches with the link). You must counterclaim Rouns 2 of that debate for this round along with using evidence. This is because no one replied nor counterargued this and its just for time management so I don't have to repeat the same things. Then you must conclude with how everything wrong with the Switch overall makes the Switch fail AT ITS JOB. Round 2:Pro: I will try to counterargue Con's points and counterarguments from Round 1. Con: Con will try to counterargue my points from Round 1.Round 3:Pro: I will try to counterargue Con's point and counterarguments from Round 2. Then I will conclude on why the Switch as a whole is a success and I have to connect all my points into one Puzzle Piece basically for my conclusion.Con: Con will try to couterargue my points from Round 3 then Con will make a Conclusion on why the Switch is a failure similar to Round 1 along with having to connect all of his points into one Puzzle Piece for his conclusion.Judging Phase:The Judges should be relatively open-minded and they must give a full insight on the debate and to explain very thoroughly on why they personally believe that either me or the opposition won the debate. I recommend doing this in a Google Document.Happy Debating!