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

"If Lee was able to attack these supply depots then the Union forces would have a hard time receiving them." The Union had far more supplies than it would have ever needed in order to win the war. The destructions of the supply depots may have dented the Unions force, but never would have caused a serious shortage that could not have been overcome by production in Northern factories. "If there was a president who would rather negotiate or compromise with the south than there would possibly be no war."This is somewhat detrimental to your case. A war never happening and winning a war are two different things."If the war continued to look bad then the Democrats would probably have someone other than George McClellan run who is pro war however, in hope of compromise, the Democrats selected an anti-war running mate."I would like to restate that Lincoln's successor, Johnson, indeed ended up being a more pro-war man than Lincoln himself, and while you state the idea that an anti-war man might have been elected, you were unable to name a probable candidate.Odds of making the war look bad were also more in favor of the Union, which was more widly supported than the Confederacy. The Union held stronger beliefs as to why the war was important, namely the three I stated earlier, freedom for all men, brotherhood, and protection. This proves that the Confederacy was already more likely to crumble than the Union politically."The value of the CSA to Europe was that it supplied cotton which was a big money crop during the era."When the war began and the South attempted its "King Cotton Diplomacy", it made several errors in judgement.1) They previously supplied a large surplus of cotton to Europe which bought them time.2) Europe found it less expensive to urge other cotton producing countries to increase production. Europe had no need for American cotton when they could get it from India, Egypt, and Brazil.3) Most of Europe oposed slavery, and contributed to their reluctance to aid the South."The opponent has failed to state how the Union would win against Britain and France."I have not provided a method the Union could have used to win against Britain and France because you have not provided a decent argument for the case that any European country would have been willing to aid them. You failed to combat my reasons why Britain and France would not defend the South, and therefore they still stand. My reason the South would not win with the aid of Europe is essentially the fact that Europe would not aid them. Probability should be maintained in a historical debate, otherwise you might say they could have won with the invention of the ak-47. While they could have won with ak-47s, this is begging the question, as you do not provide a solid framework upon the possibility of how they would aquire them.Thank you for taking the time to debate with me. Hopefully, both of us have learned something from this. May the best man win! Source:http://mshistory.k12.ms.us...
The CSA could have won the Civil War

The reason why they moved north into Pennsylvania was to attack supply depots because, if you do not know this, supply depots supply an army. Supply depots are major bases of supplies that send supplies to armies because armies need supplies. If Lee was able to attack these supply depots then the Union forces would have a hard time receiving them. Lincoln was decided to find the CSA in the war. If there was a president who would rather negotiate or compromise with the south than there would possibly be no war. One of the objectives that Lee wanted was to defeat Lincoln politically so that hopefully a compromising president would come in to negotiate rather than fight. The hope was that the removal of Lincoln would end the war. If the war continued to look bad then the Democrats would probably have someone other than George McClellan run who is pro war however, in hope of compromise, the Democrats selected an anti-war running mate. The value of the CSA to Europe was that it supplied cotton which was a big money crop during the era. The CSA traded cotton for guns due to the fact that they did not have good industry. Britain and France made a lot of money off the CSA so it is good for their economies. Has stayed a major cotton seller? Seems not. However, this about how the south could have won the civil war and the opponent must give reasons how they would not. The opponent has failed to state how the Union would win against Britain and France.
The CSA could have won the Civil War

"...there were workingaround Washington but they did eventually move north into Pennsylvania."If you wish to restate your earlier argument, please refute the claim I made that they were either incapable or lacked the tactical prowess to make such a move. Then, please provide a explanation as to how this event would lead to a overall victory for the South over the North."The political goal to ending the war was to kick Lincoln out of officer in 1864 to hopefully find someone that was more willing to negotiate than he was and to hope that the people of the Union would lose faith in the war."1) Once again, I must state that if the South was capable of removing Lincoln from office, the war would have been unneccesary. In fact, removing themselves from the system where they had representation sounds counterproductive. 2) Even if they were able to defeat Lincoln, you have not provided any evidence that this would end the war. 3) You use the term "find someone" as though the Confederate army would be allowed to choose the Union's next president. As we know, Lincoln was replace with Johnson, a man who was a pro-war Democrat. Even if Lincoln was replaced, he would have been replaced by Johnson, only at an even earlier stage.4) I still believe the Union had more to fight for, as they had the belief that all men should be free, their brotherhood bond with the South, and the need of a solid union to defend against foreign invasion."...my point that Lee could have won the war if not for Gettysburg is due to my point of the political victory which if Lee avoided Gettysburg he would have never lost at Gettysburg."First, this sounds like a military issue and not a political one, and it would not have been a victory because ,in this scenario, it would have never happend. Yes, if he never went to Gettysburg, he would have never lost at Gettysburg, but this does nothing to support that he would not have simply lost another war in another place."In this scenario Britain and France do join the war which I stated."This debate would be pointless if you could manufacture any scenario. Provide for me probable reasons that the British and the French would be willing to further damage their economy with a war that offered them very little reward on their end.
The CSA could have won the Civil War

My opponent has stated that the Confederates had not take Washington when I was saying that there were working around Washington but they did eventually move north into Pennsylvania. The political goal to ending the war was to kick Lincoln out of officer in 1864 to hopefully find someone that was more willing to negotiate than he was and to hope that the people of the Union would lose faith in the war. After Gettysburg there was a turning point in the war and Lee never got any further into the north. So I will partially agree with my opponent that it is unclear if Lee could win the war based on this battle because it is hard to predict the future but my point that Lee could have won the war if not for Gettysburg is due to my point of the political victory which if Lee avoided Gettysburg he would have never lost at Gettysburg. In this scenario Britain and France do join the war which I stated. Con must prove how the British Empire and the French Empire would lose the along the CSA. http://www.youtube.com...
The CSA could have won the Civil War

This is my first debate, so I do hope my conduct is considered satisfactory. "The CSA armies were doing very good in their concentration on Washington D.C. and they should have kept on moving around Washington and attacking supply depots."The confederacy was repelled at Washington, proving either that they were incapable of such a task, or lacked the tactical prowess to do so."General Robert E. Lee. of the southern armies should have kept his forces on this primarily political goal which is to defeat President Abraham Lincoln of the USA politically."If Lee could have beaten Lincoln politically, there would have been no need for a war. I would also like to note that the South was much weaker politically, as most of the country wanted to maintain the Union to protect it from outside attacks. Combine this with the chance of a slave uprising, and the South was severely outmatched."If he avoided Gettysburg then he could have won the war."There is little reason to believe that avoiding this one key loss would have allowed them to win the war. Even if the confederacy had concentrated all it's power here, it would have lost due to having less men and resources. There were more men in the Union army located in Gettysburg than there were in the entirety of the Confederate army."The other necessity for winning the war was if Britain and/or France entered the war. The overwhelming power of these empires, especially Britain in Canada, could have won the way for the CSA."Most of these countries would not have aided the South for the same reasons they did not. 1) When the war started, they simply got their cotton from other countries. There was no need to damage their economies with another expensive war.2)Most of Europe was also morally opposed to slavery, so3) If they were to enter the country for any reason, it would have been more likely to have been to reclaim the land while it was still under stress from the war.
The CSA could have won the Civil War

I believe that the CSA (Confederate States of America) could have won the civil war. My argument: The CSA armies were doing very good in their concentration on Washington D.C. and they should have kept on moving around Washington and attacking supply depots. General Robert E. Lee. of the southern armies should have kept his forces on this primarily political goal which is to defeat President Abraham Lincoln of the USA politically. If he avoided Gettysburg then he could have won the war. The other necessity for winning the war was if Britain and/or France entered the war. The overwhelming power of these empires, especially Britain in Canada, could have won the way for the CSA.
Agnostic atheism is the most reasonable perspective to adopt regarding religion.

My apologies. This week's routine has exceeded my time management capacity."If God needed a beginning, he would not be God.""If the universe needed a beginning, it would not be the universe."I suppose we could also say, "if this picture needed a painter, it would not be a picture." It is the burden of the cosmological argument (if advocating theism, at least) to demonstrate why God must not have a beginning, but the universe must. While appealing merely to this definition, it does not properly distinguish its position from that of Frank Lloyd, "I believe in god, only I spell it N-A-T-U-R-E." "The universe needs a beginning because of the law of entropy." - Con, Round 2.So are the laws of physics part of the universe, or did they exist before it came into existence? Did they exist before matter existed? The law of entropy cannot exist without matter. Matter needs to have existed on its own before the law of entropy. Therefore, the law of entropy cannot demonstrate any need for a creator. My opposition's use of Modal Logic would make sense if we were discussing multiple possibilities that did not theoretically contradict each other. "A six can be rolled, therefore a six will be rolled" is valid because rolling a six does not theoretically contradict the ability to role a five or a four. "God might exist, therefore God must exist" theoretically contradicts the idea that "God does not exist," and similarly, "God may not exist, therefore God does not exist" theoretically contradicts the idea that "God exists." Such reasoning does not appear compatible with Modal Logic, which was designed to understand the conditions under which something must be true, not to make an unconditional ruling about its truth. Another good hint regarding the invalidity of my opposition's reasoning is that it advocates Russell's Teapot just as thoroughly as it does the existence of God:"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." - Bertrand RussellAgain, my apologies for missing a round, and I thank my opposition for his patience.
Agnostic atheism is the most reasonable perspective to adopt regarding religion.

I will attempt here to rebut the points my opponent made in round 2 First, however, I must clear up a point from the last round. In refrence to the Kalam Cosmological Argument in round one, my opponent said: "A cosmological argument is supposed to also establish that God does NOT have a beginning of its existence and that God IS the cause of the universe existing. " This is false. Cosmological arguments need to prove a "first cause", which is usually refered to as God. [2] In reply to God not having a beginning, the definition of God by Merriam-Webster is "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" God does not need a cause to his existence because he is an all-powerful being. If God needed a beginning, he would not be God. "Cosmological arguments tend to decay with these points as soon as someone says, "Why? " So it makes sense that my opposition would leave them implicit as a debate strategy, but all points must be brought to the conversation to be properly tested for their validity before anyone can take them seriously. " The Kalam does not decay when the question "Why? " is asked. The universe needs a beginning because of the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that disorder gradually increases over time and cannot be repaired. If the universe had existed infinitely, the disorder would be irreconcilable and no energy would be useful. [1] I would like to present another argument, called the Modal Ontological Argument, or MOA. It states: 1. If a maximally great being possibly exists, a maximally great being exists. 2. A maximally great being possibly exists. 3. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. My friend Nur-Ab-Sal explained this in his debate with Torvald. To paraphrase what he said, a maximally great being (MGB) is one who embodies all "great-making" qualities. (power, knowledge, love, ect. ) to the greatest possible extent. (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) because necessity outweighs contingency, existing in all possible worlds rather than some, a MGB must embody necessity. Point one can be proven through a MGB being necessary. If something possibly necessarily exists, it exists. With Point 2, a MGB is only possible with it possessing no logical contradictions in its nature. Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, etc. , present no logical inconsistencies; therefore, an MGB is at least possible. The conclusion is a natural progression from 1 and 2. If an MGB exists, and the universe needed a cause, it is logical to assume that a deity exists. This places deism [4] as the most logical stance regarding religious matters. [1] . http://answers.yahoo.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.debate.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Many thanks to my opponent, and I hope to see him next round
Agnostic atheism is the most reasonable perspective to adopt regarding religion.

PRO said: “if this picture needed a painter, it would not be a picture” Why? Did you look at my source? God is eternal, and thus needs no beginning. Matter does of course, but God is something else entirely, a spiritual being. PRO said: So are the laws of physics part of the universe, or did they exist before it came into existence? Did they exist before matter existed? The law of entropy cannot exist without matter. Matter needs to have existed on its own before the law of entropy. Therefore, the law of entropy cannot demonstrate any need for a creator. That isn’t my point at all! I meant that if the universe existed forever, all energy would be useless. This argument SUPPORTS my viewpoint. If matter exists forever, so does entropy. That is how infinity works. The Law of Entropy supports the need for a “first cause”. My opponent has failed to say what that first cause would be if not a creator, and thus has not filled his BOP of disproving deism in favour of agnostic atheism. Also, if there were no laws of physics before matter, how did they come about? It is not logical to assume that the laws of physics were just randomly created. Pro said: Such reasoning does not appear compatible with Modal Logic, which was designed to understand the conditions under which something must be true, not to make an unconditional ruling about its truth. The condition under which a MGB must exist is the condition that his existence is possible. PRO said: Another good hint regarding the invalidity of my opposition's reasoning is that it advocates Russell's Teapot just as thoroughly as it does the existence of God: Russel’s teapot cannot be theoretically proven, as teapots are not randomly thrown into space as I know of. Due to the fact we do not throw china teapots into space, it is not possible, let alone probably. Also, the MOA can only apply to a Maximally Great Being, which a teapot is not.
A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.

By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel
A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.

I would like to remind you the title of my debate; A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. I would suggest that in the future you carefully read a debate before you suggest to debate. All I ask and many all many people of America ask is that we show a little accountability in the ballot boxes. I now see why you insisted that this would cost money. There is no need for this nation to spend more money when their are already so many forms of ID floating around. If you need two forms of ID to open a banking account, another two forms to apply for a job or a valid passport to leave the country it should be a no brainer that we require proof of ID that determines the selection of the leadership of our country. I wish you the best of luck in your future debates and I don't mean to dump on you for the attention to details but I am really dumb founded at the fact that no one feels that having people ID before they vote is a big deal. Take Care Sincerely, Fred R.
A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.

As I stated in my opening argument I was going to make it concise in order to get the argument under way so I apologize if I was unable to answer your question in the opening statement. You did bring up a good point of a paper trail and I feel that the paper trail in addition to requiring photo identification will prevent a lot of fraud that goes on during an election process. The first thing I will address is point that you have brought up pertaining to photo identifications being, "unfair and ineffective in preventing voter fraud. " You have given me no example of how requiring identification is unfair to any group whether it be a racial, gender or sexual orientation bias. If Identification constituted unfairness it would be safe to say that stores and other places of business are being unfair when they choose to ID people. The thing is that we ID people in order to; to prove they are who they are (people purchasing stuff with credit and debit cards, they are of legal age (ex. purchasing cigarettes and alcohol). I have yet to hear a complaint about how looking for someone's ID is a form of racism like you are portraying it to be. You made an interesting yet very untrue statement of voters having to pay this one time fee in order to vote. I guess this statement you made is to show that this supposed one time fee would disenfranchise the poor while giving the wealthy an easier time voting. I strongly disagree, in order to vote one would only need a valid picture ID which can be found in many forms that are easily obtained and already in use. Drivers licenses, state issued licenses and military ID cards. Some school ID's in college have a student number that can be linked to a valid social these too would work and lastly a passport. All these forms of ID's are easily available with the most expensive being the passport being around fifty dollars. These fees can be afforded by any and all of voting ages and I am sure their can be programs to make sure all law abiding, of age and legal American citizens enjoy their right to vote. Hope to hear from you soon and to hear all the input that all have.
A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.

Voter ID cards are unfair and ineffective in preventing voter fraud. The main concern with requiring an ID card, other than voter registration card, would be the additional costs incurred just to use the inherent right granted to all Americans to vote. While not posing a strong disincentive preventing voters from paying one-time fee to exercise their future right to vote, the principle of paying to vote is unfair and should not be advocated. As a counter-plan to solve the problems of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the solution should be a federal mandate requiring paper trials for all election precincts. A paper trail would allow voter fraud to be caught most efficiently. More of a concern than having individuals vote under a fake identity is the possibility of having electronic voting booths have their votes switched without being able to prove otherwise.