BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most Important Battles

Battle of StalingradThis battle was a key turning point in World War 2. Both armies generally started out with 100,000 to 200,000 men and that eventually grew as each side (the Axis Powers and the Soviet Union) brought up reinforcements in an epic winter fight. The Soviet leader, Josef Stalin, recently issued a "not a step back" order. This meant that the Soviet troops would not retreat in the face of German, Italian, Romania, Hungarian, and Croatian Armies. Eventually the Axis grew to a force of 700,000 troops fighting over a city that seemed to have no significant advantage as it lay in ruins. German leader Adolf Hitler seemed to only want the city for political reasons (and a striking personal blow to Stalin as it was named after him). The battle seemed to be growing to a standstill. However, the Soviets were catching and proved that their armies had far more numbers. They grew to over 1,140,000 men and gathered many troops on the flanks commanded by Russian marshal Georgy Zhukov. Mostly ill-equipped troops from Germany's allies were positioned on these flanks and these were easy targets against the hoards of the Soviet Union. The Soviets eventually encircled the entire German force. Around 250,000 men of the German force was encircled. The German commander, General Frederich Paulus, asked Hitler for permission to withdraw and punch a hole through the ring of Soviet troops surrounding him, but Hitler refused. He was convinced by German Air Marshal Hermann Goring that the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) could supply his troops. This proved to be not true. The men encircled needed 500 tons of supplies per day, but the Luftwaffe just simply did not have the planes and the fuel to launch such a massive airlift. Soviert aircraft and the Russian blizzards contributed to this. So Hitler gathered 2 German tank divisions to punch a hole from the outside. These two divisions were commanded by Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, one of Germany's best generals. However, as the Manstein pressed his way through the Soviet lines to get to Paulus, he received a report that Soviet troops had breached an allied Italian army to the north. This breach was part of a full attack to cut off all German troops in southern Russia. Manstein had no choice, but to break off and deal with this new threat. With his withdrawal went the last hope of the encirled Germans. Finally in February 1943, after months of fighting, Paulus surrendered his force.This battle was an important one because of the size of both armies and the outcome. For most of the war, Hitler's armies seemed invincible, but now they had lost. It would be one of the last major German offensives on the Eastern Front (the others being at Kharkov and Kursk). For most of the rest of the war, the Germans were fighting on the defensive in the Eastern Front. This also gave the Western Allies more advantages as Hitler was forced to divide his forces on two fronts. For more you can watch the videos I have provided.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...;
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

IF THERE IS A CONSPIRACY IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMNNUNITY WHY DID YOU SAY THE FOLLOWING ? "Is like you Boris were openly screaming 'I do not care what medicine/science has to say about how a fetus is classified. A Fetus is not a humanThis scientific conspiracy may it be true or not is irrelevent. YOU claimed YOU HAD SCIENTIFIC PROOF. AND YOU DONT, THEREFORE YOUR A LIER! that is my problem with people like you, you MAKE THESE POINTS AS IF THEY WERE TRUE, THAT MAY WORK IF YOUR LIE TO THE DUMB SHEEP AT CHURCH BUT IT WONT WORK WITH ME. in my eyes regardless of what medicine says.
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

It seems that you continue to be un-informed of the idea you are attempting to defend. No serious credible Pro-Choice organization/Abortion Clinic will EVER voice that a fetus is not a human being. They would be discredited by the Medical community in less than a minute. Just let me list a couple of quotes from advocates of abortion: > "there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being."(Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 2008), 85-86.)* * As a side note - Peter Singer also defends full-blown infanticide. So, when is a human being worthy of having the right to life in his eyes?* > Mary Calderone - Planned Parenthood's former medical director, "Fertilization, then, has taken place. A baby has been conceived." (The Zero People: Essays on Life" by Jeffrey Hensley, Servant Publications (March 1983) p 9) > "a facet that makes the obstetrician's burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation; he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and the infant… The essential step in the initiation of life is by fertilization, the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the fusion of the two cells into a single cell." (Dr. Alan Guttmacher, Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents New American Library; Revised Ed edition (January 1, 1962) > Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, 14 years (1978–1992), "…we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus." (Faye Wattleton, "Speaking Frankly," Ms. Magazine, May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.) You should actually READ a couple of Medicine books pertaining (specifically) the field of Embryology. But since you wanted published worked I will list some below. I may add, they are peer reviewed and actually studied by those in Universities attempting to complete a degree. What I am afraid of, is reading another one of your post and in it you somehow will attempt to discredit the field of Embryology! Do a brief reading of the material below and see why a fetus is a human being: - Moore and Persaud's The Developing Human - Larsen's Human Embryology - Carlson's Human Embryology & Developmental Biology - O'Rahilly and Mueller's Human Embryology & Teratology To your surprise, none of these are in the bible, nor are religious publications. Just wanted to let you know.
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

"Again, your ignorance of Middle Eastern culture shines. How does a verse about a man not taking the cultural responsibility of the time, which was to take care of his brothers widow has anything to do with abortion." God killed Onan for SPILLING his SEED! This BS justification is exactly what I am referring to when I say YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO LEARN or PASS ON IDEAS, YOU ARE SIMPLY WAITING TO HEAR YOURSELF TALK. Are you really going to try and justify that this very bible verse ISN'T USED BY MILLIONS OF CHRSITANS to justify abstinence? Do I really need to give you more? Look I have NOTHING TO LOOSE by hearing you out, I have NO attachment to my ideas, because they don't come from an infallible god. If your rationality is better I only have A BETTER POINT OF VIEW AND A BETTER WAY OF THINKING TO GAIN. You on the other hand aren't trying to have a conversation you really aren't, your just justifying your idocracy. You aren't trying to learn or have question your just TALKING. This feels like a rap battle Not a conversation, If I wanted to put pretty words together and get nothing accomplished I would have become one, however I didn't. Go be a rapper, don't waste my time. Until you show me a Scientific Study published in a medical journal that somehow PROVES FETUS'S are human I will no longer participate in a conversation with you. (There is NO study, I have access to all the medical journals…) Stop lying I hear it's a sin. Your making your fellow Christians look bad, So much for your morality…
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

Like I mentioned in my opening statement. The approach itself to abortion has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with human rights. If medicine/science attribute that a fetus is a human being, how is that religious in any way, shape or form? Just because you do not believe that a human being has intrinsic moral value, makes it a valid excuse to dismiss that all humans at all stages of life have this value. The one that inserted a bible verse in this conversation happens to be you. At this point it seems that you are just upset that I didn't pick up a bible, opened it randomly and picked a verse to defend abortion. What you are doing is just trying to establish your point of view regardless of facts. Just look at how you ended your statement: "And by the way: where in the declaration of human rights does it talk about fetus being humans? Oh, that's right IT DOESN'T!" I did NOT say that the declaration of Human Rights talks about a fetus being human. Medicine says a fetus is a Human being, the declaration of Human Rights states that Humans have the right to life. Is like you are openly screaming "I do not care what medicine/science has to say about how a fetus is classified. A Fetus is not a human in my eyes regardless of what medicine says." "This should be a religious only talk, how can this be about science and philosophy." Please re-read and actually understand what I said instead of ranting angrily because I did not make it a religious discussion by throwing random bible verses like you attempted to do. But please do note that your ignorance of Middle Eastern culture shines. How does a verse about a man not taking the cultural responsibility of the time, which was to take care of his brothers widow has anything to do with abortion?
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

Ah man this is just a sermon! Why are you wasting my time? You didn't even answer my questions. WHAT DOES "Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value*? (*Something with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or end-in-itself.)" EVEN MEAN? "Intrinsic? " "end to end-in-itsself? " go paint a picture word artist, cause this isn't an idea, its just a bunch of words put together. Maybe if you write more adjective you might s**t out an acutal idea… (A BUNCH OF JUMBLED UP WORDS!!!!) I seen people die and I still don't know what end-in-itself mean… I asked questions and you gave me this long sermon. You said "From conception to old age we are in a different stage of development." Who's fact IS THAT? That's not a fact, that's what people want to believe, specifically THIEST. You said "I want you to PLEASE NOTICE THAT THROUGH OUT ALL I HAVE JUST MENTIONED IF HAVE NOT APPEALED TO THE BIBLE (religion, etc.), YES NOT EVEN ONCE. The main reason being, contrary to popular believe, abortion is NOT a religious issue." That's really interesting because the bible says you shouldn't waste your seed Genesis 38:9-10 ESV "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also." You are simply weaseling out of the question. I feel slapped in the face by this waste of time, I honestly do. I wanted to have a discussion, a serious AND HONEST discussion, but now I am see you are just politely waiting your turn to speak, NO SHARING OF IDEAS, or HONESTY… Just you waiting politely to post a bunch of worthless crap. COME ONE, YOU REALLY FELT THE NEED to talk about the declaration of human rights? The same bill waved in front of people of Darfur as they are being killed?! DID YOU JUST CUT AND PASTE A SERMON??? And by the way: where in the declaration of human rights does it talk about fetus being humans? Oh, that's right IT DOESN'T!
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

30,000 will die of starvation today, but hey GO AHEAD and have ANOTHER BABY, I guess Jesus has a plan for everyone. BUT since all aborted babies go to heaven, WHY NOT DO THIS ONE A FAVOR AND SEND IT TO HEAVEN, instead of it having a chance to become an evil heathen... WHAT WOULD YOU TELL A COUPLE WITH 3 KIDS TO DO? THEIR INCOME IS CRAP, HAVE A TERRIBLE MARRIAGE, , AND LIVE IN A 1 BEDROOM APT???? WOULD YOU TELL THEM TO HAVE A 4TH CHILD OR ABORT ?????? HOW ABOUT A WOMEN THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A DEFORMED, MENTALLY DESABLED CHILD with HORRIBLE BIRTH DEFECTS? NOT MAY BUT WILL HAVE A MESSED UP CHILD. (we have these new magic boxes that let you see into the body, and we also have this magic thing that looks in the blood for deformities in THIS THING CALLED DNA)
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

Thank you for the debate. Till next time sir. Just in case you may read this. I close with the following. 1st I did not have any influence on the writers of the Embryology books or the scientific test that were done to achive their conclusions or do I know them personally. Your statements do puzzle me. "YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE TO ME TO CHANGE MY MINED" How did I achive that? I provided credible resources, authories in the field, books used in Top Universities and information that is not based even an ounce on religion or ethics or either of them is a religious publication. So in other words the experts in the field of Embryology are lying? I mean, I pointed to a credible scientific resource, but you attribute their research as "lies". Honestly how much sense does that make? 2nd I doubt that the person who has called Kary Mullis a " religious nutbag" had Kary Mullis evaluated to arrive to that conclusion, which would contradict your attempt to be honest an un-biased. You where that one who stated - "THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN coming up with a conclusion based on the data, and just having a theory WITHOUT ANY DATA TO BACK IT UP." You assume that Dr Mullis is a "nut bag" without any scientific evidence that "Certifies" him as dillusional. In other words based on your OPINION we all MUST believe that Dr Mullis is not coherent, even without a clinical study? I mean, you seem to imply that a "sheep mentality" only applies to religious people, but if you truly look at what you have stated, it looks like there are "bandwagoners" on both sides, some just easily allow others to make up their mind for them without digging in deeper to their claims, and yes, we must test all claims, even if is a "respectable" resource. 3rd You stated - "Just because you are educated in one field doenst make you educated in EVERY FIELD. HENCE why i LOOK AT THE STUDIES." You have openly dismissed the branch of Embryology, but YOU claim to "look at the studies." Obviously you look, but only look for studies that agree with your point of view, but rather NOT look at others that may even give you a plausible explanation for what may be your internal conflict. Once again thanks for the debate, until next time.
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

Sure these doctors could be intelligent, however WITHOUT a study I can't make up conclusion on how they came up with their beliefs. There is a differnce between trying to argu ETHICS and SCIENCE. Ethics is on what believe based on life experiences. SCIENCE IS BASED ON THE STUDIES. MonaVie (a magic tonic drink) claims to cure cancer and tons of other stuff, however these findings came from an in house study with 7 people and no control subjects. Meaning that the study was biases. My point is i want to know WHY they claim what they claim, IF they are really being scientific that's great, if not than that is something that needs to be understood as well... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN coming up with a conclusion based on the data, and just having a theory WITHOUT ANY DATA TO BACK IT UP. LEt me give you an other excample, Kary Mullis Discovered PCR, he won the Noble prize and is a TOP scientist in his field. HOWEVER he is a Religious NUT BAG that claim god is real because we can't see him. =/ outside of PCR reasearch he is a babbling fool. Just because you are educated in one field doenst make you educated in EVERY FIELD. HENCE why i LOOK AT THE STUDIES. I don't know how plan parent hood came up with their fetus are people too statement therefore i dont know. TO be honest i dont know if people are fetus, but i stopped debating with you because you lied about scientific studies. That leads me to believe that you aren't trying to HONESTLY exchange ideals, YOU ARE TRYING TO LIE TO ME TO CHANGE MY MINED. I now simply don't trust what you are saying is true, I think your a lier and therefore don't want to have to double check every single sentence. I dont' want to mess up and think you have a good point, change my mind and then be angry for trusting you when i find out your rationally with flawed. Its just a waste of time for me. I rather spend my time with people that WON'T LIE TO ME.
Abortion - Is only a religious issue. Abortion is the way to take when there is a bad situation.

You are actually attempting to discredit the field of Embryology, unbelievable! At this point you are openly stating: 1. All the Embryology books that students have to study (at a University level) to get a degree are NOT based on scientific studies? If we apply your logic can we say that : All the books in Physics that are studied to get a degree are NOT based on scientific studies? If this is not what you are stating please clarify.
End of the world

I myslef very much disagree with the statement of the end of the world is December 21, 2012. I have gone into extensive research looking at this topic and have decided it is all false. My first main argument is that the Mayan calender is just a calender. Nothing more, nothing less, it is a calender, which means when december 21 ends december 22 starts a new calender year, just like ours. Secondly, they say Planet X or Nibiru is going to crash into Earth, This is completely false again. If there was aplanet x we would be tracking it by now. Lastly, they say there will be catastrophic event happening on this date. This is again completely false. They say evry so many years that the Earth increases it's natural disaster activity, but if this is true, how come the Earth has not been destroyed yet. Remeber Y2K, ayh how did that work out, we are still here, therefore the end of Earth is a hoax!
A world without religion is better than a world with religion

If you are suggesting that a person's relationship with God (whether you believe there is a God or not is irrelevant in this argument as the subject is "the world with or without religion, which is better..") is better than one where a person has no relationship with God then you automatically are making the assumption that all faiths of every kind are bad and can have no good effects on man kind. Yes for christians there has been some bad points in history for sure, but out of those came lots of good things. The reformation being just one example. While there are many generally ignorant christians out there and misrepresent the truth about the bible and God, that doesn't mean the bible and God are bad. Never judge a product just by the spokesman.
The US federal government should end the military deployment of animals in Afghan,Iraq,& South Korea

Well i do believe dogs due deserve a very good safe home, mainly because i love dogs myself. But! War animals have been used throughout history, example the Persians used elephants, In the Civil War we used horses. Dogs are just another way to make it easier on our troops. Our Solders are alone over there, away from family and friends, all they got is themselves to depend on. Wouldn't you want a friend over there? Not saying that our Troops don't make friends among themselves, but a dog can have a drastic impact on how a solider preforms in battle, and ECT. Now i'm not trying to be harsh, or hurtful when i say this, but take for example that stray story from above i gave. Would you rather loose your dog, or a potential family member? Those dogs deserve Purple Hearts for the things they go through, to in some cases save lives. I believe that every little thing that could help our troops out is best. Slowly taking away things little by little, for say dogs, could impact them and we might not even realize it. About your Psychological stress comment, some Troops can not handle it either. Some dogs can, some people can. Not everyone is ment for the military, only experience can tell whether or not they are. I am also not disagreeing that your plan would save "lives" but it is not needed, due to the fact that people go through the same post-traumatic stress that dogs would go through, in most cases even worse. ( BTW, i am still not understanding your rules, but i am assuming i am not breaking them because you have not said anything :] )
The US federal government should end the military deployment of animals in Afghan,Iraq,& South Korea

What I meant by PFD(not PDF) and LD was Public Forum Debaters, or Lincoln-Douglas Debaters. To state: Military dogs are being exploited in ways that you could never understand because you are still thinking in the utilitarian logic that's driving the status quo today. A very, very perfect example(evidence of card below) : Davenport 2009, Dogs cannot handle the psychological stress of combat. During his 6 months tour in Iraq a 5 year old German shepherd started thrashing in his sleep. For two years the Department of Defense Military Working Dog Veterinary Service has been studying the effects of combat on dogs. Although he doesn't like to use the term post-traumatic stress disorder on dogs, war can affect them emotionally. Also touching on your Stray dog & companion subject. Dogs are not needed in combat. They should go back home to good owners who will care for them and be loved for, I'm not saying that they are not loved in the military, but they will have an ultimately safer home. Once again, you are still stuck in the utilitarian logic, and everyone has an ethical obligation to vote for the plan as it saves LIVES.
The US federal government should end the military deployment of animals in Afghan,Iraq,& South Korea

Hello, i'm new to this, so i do not clearly understand your "rules" for this debate, so if i brake them i am sorry i just simply did not know what you ment by "PDF or what not." Anyways, i would like to start talking about your Canine topic. You explained that dogs are being taken over there to help with the war, and if i read correctly you do not agree with that. Personally i think its a great idea to bring dogs over there to help. Dogs are known for there protectiveness against predators. i believe that dogs have a sense where they can sense evil, or just they know when something bad is going to happen due to a person. I think that bringing the dogs over there can help keep the troop or solider more alert because his dog or "companion" would be there to help him be more alert to when something is going to happen. A perfect example ( In the link below) which to sum it up, a stray dog wondered onto the U.S. base and the soldiers took friendly to this dog, and treated it as its own. Anyways, a suicide bomber was going to sneak up on the troops at night, go inside there tent, place were they sleep and explode, well before the bomber could make it to the door, the dog attacked the bomber and pretty much saved all those soldiers, because the bomb detonated before he could get inside. Also, even if the price in dog food went up X amount of money that you claim it will go up, it wont be a drastic change, it would go up maybe 3 cents a bag. I'm sure people can sacrifice 3 cents to help save lives in Iraq. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...