BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The CSA could have won the Civil War (2)

Thank you for posting the debate today. I'm excited to examine this area further. I negate that the Confederacy had the ability to win the war. Contention 1: The South lacked economic ability regardless of tactics. During the times of "King Cotton" the vast majority of the Confederacy's economic output relied upon the trade of cotton and other farmed goods to the large European markets. However, the South's economic machine was quickly destroyed by the onset of the Northern naval blockade. Almost overnight, the Confederacy's trade with Europe plummeted. The South had lost it's main source of revenue and the Confederate economy slumped. From 1861 to 1865, the Confederacy faced dwindling capital, soaring inflation, and considerable federal deficits. These inherent problems prevented the South from implementing a strong resistance, especially as the war lengthened. The key problem of the Confederacy was that it lacked the industrial power of the North, something that would have taken years to build in the South, if the capital had even been in existence. Regardless of any reformed military strategies, the South lacked a strong economic foundation throughout the war that would ultimately lead to inevitable defeat. Contention 2: The South lacked the resources to win regardless. In the 1860s, war was decided by which nation had the strongest industrial backing and resources. Unfortunately, the South lacked fundamental and imperative resources in which to carry out a successful resistance against the Northern onslaught. General William T. Sherman wrote "The North can make a steam-engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or a pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth--right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared. . . . At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, and shut out from the markets of Europe by blockade as you will be, your cause will begin to wane". This was the unfortunate reality for the South. It lacked the industrial resources of the North. In conclusion, because the South lacked the economic power so crucial to victory, and because the South lacked war materials to carry out any form of powerful resistance, I urge a negative ballot today, contending that the South could not have won the war due to fundamental flaws.
The CSA could have won the Civil War (2)

I am going to learn from my mistakes on the first debate I did and try again. Here is how I think the CSA could have won the Civil War: 1) All military forces needed to be under the same command structure and deployable wherever needed. Don't do a strictly static defense. 2) Use a flexible defense where you only focus on defending key areas like Vicksburg, New Orleans, Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Nashville, and Island Number Ten. The CSA needed to use defensive tactics and use forts to their fullest. 3) They needed to buy as much warships as possible from Britain and sell bonds to British aristocrats. 4) Concentrate the navy at places like the mouth of the Mississippi to defend key places on the river. 5) Don't fire on Fort Sumter. Make Lincoln start the civil war for the less politically popular cause of preserving the Union. 6) Instead of putting most of the soldiers and artillery in the Western Department in in the winter 1862, put them in Fort Henry and Fort Donelson. 7) Make sure places like Vicksburg have at least good provisions that can last a year. 8) Only attack the north if you are attacking an area that is weak and that valuable to the war.
The United States Federal Government should favor the MAD policy over disarmament.

Many thanks to him for putting this on, I look forward to it. Just a note to voters: the ELO minimum has been set to 2500. Thank you to lannan13 for accepting this debate! I've been on the site and interacted with you quite a few times, but we've never actually sat down and had one of these. I look forward to it. There are a few important terms in the resolution, so I will do my best to define them. The United States Federal Government: Relatively straightforward. In this case, since we're referring to aspects of the military capacity of the U. S. , we're necessarily referring to what should be done by the U. S. Legislature and President. However, since this is a "should" debate, we won't be discussing the means by which they make this possible, but rather comparing two separate plans of attack and seeing whether the outcomes are preferable. MAD: An abbreviation for Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD is defined as "a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence where the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. " [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] In other words, this strategy focuses on the probability of mutual destruction that results from nuclear launch to prevent the usage of nuclear weapons. Nuclear Disarmament: "Nuclear disarmament refers to both the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons and to the end state of a nuclear-weapon-free world, in which nuclear weapons are completely eliminated. " [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Rephrased, this position advocates for a reduction in nuclear weapon stockpiles without a subsequent increase. Note that our positions are spelled out clearly from the outset. It is Pro's burden to support the resolution, and as such, to support a significantly stronger emphasis on MAD as compared with disarmament. Con's burden is to negate the resolution, requiring that I support that the emphasis be placed on disarmament over MAD. To be clear: neither of our positions requires that we advocate one strategy in the complete absence of the other, but rather for strong preference. As a result of these burdens, the overall burden of proof will be shared. This debate will have a total of 4 rounds. I leave it up to my opponent to decide whether he will kick off this debate in the first round, or wait for me to start it next round, requiring that he use this round solely as acceptance and clarification. If he chooses the former, Pro must type "No round as agreed upon" or some variation in the final round and not include any arguments or rebuttal therein. Apart from that, the usual rule of no new arguments in the final round still applies as always, and the opening rounds may include no rebuttals, in order to balance the debate. And with that, I await my opponent's acceptance and a good debate!
That Modern Day Life is Boring

I assume the BOP is shared. Please be reminded that no arguments be posted in the final round. Please note that due to my recent commitments, and the inconvenient timing of DDO's maintenance which happened 5 hours ago (coincidentally also the time I had assigned to catch up with my debates), I will not post arguments in this round and will do them in the next round. In the meantime, i will provide some definitions. Apologies for any inconvenience as a result of this. DEFINITIONSBoring: Not interesting, tedious [1]Modern Day Life: Based on PRO's content, i will assume that this term will denote daily life with the presence of recent technological advances, such as handheld electronic devices, the Internet, etc. Thank you. SOURCES USED[1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
That Modern Day Life is Boring

I believe that modern day life is boring. The amount of time that people these days spend on phones, tablets, computers and watching TV is unbenificial for our personal health and lifestyle. The use of digital technologies is reshaping human brains and the impact on young people must be considered by their parents and educators, a neuroscientist warns. This neuroscientist is Professor Susan Greenfield of Oxford University. "If you're a very young person and you haven't developed, let's say, a robust sense of identity, you haven't got interpersonal skills, then clearly we're going to see changes that we might not see in someone who's older," she said. The neuroscientist warned children who once used their imaginations were now more likely to sit in front of a screen, with a menu of choices someone else had designed. "The issue is that information isn't knowledge. Of course you can be bombarded with endless information, endless facts, but if you can't make sense of them one fact is the same as any other fact," she said. "You can cruise on YouTube or on Google going 'yuck' and 'wow', but you're not actually making sense of things." She said an inspirational teacher or parent could be the key to young people developing the skills "to join up the dots" of the world around them.
Be it resolved that grade 11 math is not mandatory in Canadian high schools

I would like to state as the last part of my debate that I do not ignore facts presented by the opposition on purpose, or to 'suit' my advantage, it was merely overlooked and I apologize for doing so. Argument 1 - I strongly disagree with your statement that Physics and Chemistry do not use logic, and I have present a source that as well agrees. 'Science uses logic to a great advantage. Like math, science uses abstractions to make sense of reality and then applies logic to these abstractions.' (1) You were correct that they make use of math, but they have their own logic as well. With Chemistry, you also use more simple math that you have already learned in previous years, or else the course would not be offered until after the completion of grade 11 mathematics, which this is not the case. My opponent comes off as though he believes memorization is not one of the many key elements what so ever in math, when in reality it is. 'Problem-solving skills as well as a foundation of 'math facts' that come from memorization'(2) 'Many people think that once they take a glance at a formula, it is in their mind, but when they wake up the next day, they are shocked to realize that the formula leaked out during the night. This is why it is a good idea to practice solving a problem with the formula without looking it up. You must do this as many times as you can. Repetition leads to Memorization. ' (3) This statement agrees with and refutes my opponent. The last line says it all; Repetition leads to memorization. So in essence, Math can be characterized with memorization as well. I am going to drop the argument over the 'upper-hand' due to its the last round and I do not find it that relevant. Chemistry is applicable to real life, glucose is C6H12O6. This applies to real life scenarios but is it mandatory? No. Is it an elective? Yes. So why should Maths not be characterized under this standard as well. You say that Math and English are 'difficult subjects'. I will refute this due to that's a personal opinion and that is irrelevant to this debate. It is in the eye of the beholder. I did not intentionally accuse you of saying all occupations use a high level of math. It was meant as a statement. But you seem to intentionally accuse me of saying they are useless jobs, when I have never said that through out this debate. Please refer to round 2 to inform me if I am wrong. I believe all these jobs play a vital role in life, all of them are used at some point in a lifetime or else they would not exist as an occupation. I agree the assertion that 'everyone' doesn't have their life planned out, but that was not my point. If a student does not excel at math and doesn't enjoy it, they would most likely refrain from entering a field such as that entails it. Hence why, math should be an elective, not a mandatory grade 11 course. Thank you for taking part in my first debate on this site, VOTE PRO ! (1) http://www.dummies.com... (2) http://school.familyeducation.com... (3) http://www.wikihow.com...
Be it resolved that grade 11 math is not mandatory in Canadian high schools

Argument 1 - In the above you state ' Contrary to some subjects Math uses a different aspect of the mind, logic'. I agree that Math uses logic, but in turn so does Chemistry and Physics, which are elected courses, not mandatory. I am simply saying that Math should go under the same circumstances as being an elected course. The following statement is a personal belief; ' Math is designed to weed out students who don't work hard or study hard enough'. No where is it stated on any curriculum that this is the purpose of the course. Students may do their homework and study in every other course EXCEPT math. Does that make them a student whom 'doesn't study hard enough'? As well, you state that it gives college students an upper-hand, which is not necessarily true. It is the combination of courses that you take that can give you the upper-hand. Such as taking Maths and Sciences and such other courses. Solely Math will not give you the upper hand, unless you're going into a pure math field. Yes, everyone should be subjected to different aspects of knowledge hence why, in grade school, we could not choose our courses. As well in grade 9 and 10, Math is mandatory. In Canadian schools, once you reach grade 11, all mandatory courses drop except for Math and English, and in this debate, I believe Math should be dropped and be elected by individuals, not preordained. Argument 2 - Your opinion from reality and my opinion from reality differ. Not all occupations entail high level math on a daily basis. I would like to dispute your reference to Accounting due to it uses Math that is learned earlier on in life, such as adding subtracting etc. It does not use complex formulas such as some of the examples I stated above. For your reference to 'Making a budget', there are people whom have jobs to do so. If people wanted to create such things, they would plan on taking the ELECTED grade 11 math to help with such various thing, but every individual creation that you had stated can be done by someone whom is employed to do so and has chosen to take that path of mathematics. I also do not dispute the fact that students change their majors very often, but I am saying it should be the students choice as of grade 11 whether or not they would prefer to expand their knowledge on mathematics, or choose not to do so. Argument 3- This argument is against your conclusion. You conclude that 'most high school students will not take it', which I beg to differ. If they have planned out their potential career, they would have possibly looked into requirements for the program, and if math was needed, they would most likely take it. I disagree that my last argument was 'whining' and is 'purely' opinionated. Ask any math student or teacher and you will realize that some math is meticulous. Students just don't learn Algebra right off the bat, they expand off of previous lessons to achieve the higher level of math, hence being meticulous. But my opponent feels the need to drop it, so it will be dropped.
Be it resolved that grade 11 math is not mandatory in Canadian high schools

In this debate, my opponent is to take the stance that grade 11 math should be required in Canadian high schools. I will say that I do believe this course should not be offered, but not mandatory. Definitions: Mandatory - authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory (1) High school - A secondary school that usually includes grades 9 or 10 through 12. (1) ============================ Argument 1: When applying to University, they regard at your grade 11 marks ============================ This argument more applies to students in a nonsemestered school, but it both cases it works. When applying to Universities, you usually apply around November, in either your grade 12 or 5th year. Since it is only 3 months into school, grade 12's do not have marks that reflect their ability as of then. In resolution, most universities look at their grade 11 marks and average. Due to the fact that grade 11 math is mandatory, it may bring down a students average and may hinder on the students profile. ========================= Argument 2: Some math is not very relative to reality ========================= An example of a high school grade 11 math curriculum is as follows(2): 1.Algebraic Skills 2.Transformation of Functions 3.Quadratic Functions 4.Rational Exponents and the Exponential Function 5.Trigonometric Ratios 6.Trigonometric Functions 7.Trigonometric Equations and Identities 8.Sequences and Series Unless you want to study in a field that is math related, these units seldom affect every day life, for this reason, I think it should not be mandatory. How often do you see f(x) in your daily life routine? or the quadratic formula? These things are forgotten very often with age due to the fact that it is not used on a daily basis, or at all. We should not be forced to study something that is so complex to some. If it is not used on a daily basis, I myself do not see why it should be mandatory. ============== Argument 3: Math is meticulous ============== Most of the grade 11 math concepts are already introduced in the mandatory grade 10 curriculum. This means that you have the knowledge of some of the grade 11 curriculum and the grade 11 course builds on that knowledge. It should be your free will to want to explore more into the field of math, not forced upon us. As for grade 9 and 10, they mostly introduce new material, so for this reason only they should be mandatory. Also, if the grade 11 math course is to build upon and further the knowledge of the grade 10 course, say if you did not comprehend grade 10 math very well, you do not have much to build on. Hence why again, it should be an elected course, not compulsory. ================ Conclusion ================ In conclusion, I have given three valid arguments as to why grade 11 math should not be mandatory in Canadian high schools. The course should be taken under free will and not have to be forced upon students while attending high school. (1) www.thefreedictionary.com (2) http://wci.wrdsb.on.ca...
Here's How I Think George Bush Jr. Could've Handled Iraq Better

War in Iraq: We invaded Iraq, took out Saddam Hussein, and then had our forces stay in the country for almost 10 years. It cost us trillions upon trillions of dollars to do this. Instead, We could've: 1. Eliminate Hussein and his regime 2. Establish a permanent military base somewhere near Iraq to do drone strikes on Iraqi extremists if we ever need to do so 3. Feed the Iraqi people lots of propaganda telling them that they can form their own democratic free nation, and also that they need to fight against any Muslim terrorists who want to establish a theocracy 4. Withdraw from the country, having stayed in Iraq no later than January, 2005. We could either just leave or have another nation send their soldiers to take the place of ours. This would've cost us a lot less money, and if we had another country carry on the occupation in our place the result would've been the same. And with the assistance of heavy propaganda we could get them to not accept Al-Qaeda's rule. As everybody knows, Al-Qaeda's making a comeback in Iraq.
Time is more useful than money.

Money has its benefits but it can't buy everything. Unlimited money is only good as long as your alive. But eventually you'll die and the money that you've accumulated on earth will not follow you. Unlimited money can only buy you things. It is a short pleasure and then you die and all your money is gone. Time is infinite. It will always last forever and when you have unlimited time you have unlimited possibilities. Lets say for example a person that had unlimited time existed. This person had all the time in the world to learn whatever they wanted to learn and then get a job. The job would ensure that money was always coming in and since the person was practically immortal they became the richest person in the world. Therefore having unlimited money is useless because you'll die. Having unlimited time is useful because you can accumulate as much of whatever you want and never die. For a person with unlimited money, the very one thing that they cannot buy more of is time. They will eventually grow old and die. But for a person with unlimited time, they can earn however much money they want to earn and still live on. Unlimited time allows a person to accumulate unlimited knowledge. Money only allows a person to buy classes. Therefore time is more useful than money.
I believe that 9/11 was an Inside Job!

1. "How the buildings collapsed" According to the tv report. Buildings collapsed by bombs planted like controlled demolition. Source : https://youtu.be... 2. "Why Tower 7 also collapsed" By controlled demolition. This tower never hit by the plan. Why collapsed itself? Mystery. Source : https://youtu.be... 3. "Impossible a giant big tower can [be] collapsed by a plane" Fires can not molten steele. Source: https://youtu.be... 4. "How US military campaign attack oil rich country" This tragedy design by US government itself to then blame it to the terrorists. Then sending their troops to controll oil rich country.
I believe that 9/11 was an Inside Job!

I will be arguing that 9/11 was not an 'inside job'. I assume my opponent will be arguing that the US government orchastrated the 9/11 attacks, as opposed to a group of Islam extremists. This is the first round and the BoP falls on the opponent, so I won't make much in the way of arguments just yet. I'll simply ask for clarification on each of my opponent's 'points'.1. "How the buildings collapsed"Please explain how the collapse of the buildings or the manner in which they collapsed indicate an inside job.2. "Why Tower 7 also collapsed"Please explain how the collapse of Tower 7 is relevant to your argument. 3. "Impossible a giant big tower can [be] collapsed by a plane"Please provide some evidence for this. Are large buildings structurally incapable of being brought down by planes? Have you considered the role of the fire in the building, aided by jet fuel? 4. "How US military campaign attack oil rich country"Elaborate on this point. How does this relate to the resolution?