BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family

The T-44, being a medium tank has almost the same top-speed (32 mph) as the M24 (35 mph), which weighs over 20 metric tons less. The T-44 (186 mile range) also has almost twice as much range as the M24 (99 mile range). The T-44 has the D-5T (also present on the IS-1) which is far superior to the 75 mm gun on the M24. (The T-44 carries 58 rounds for its main gun while the M24 carries only 48 rounds). Now, let's examine armor. The armor of the M24 is extremely thin (36 mm at thickest) and can be penetrated by virtually any tank gun at the time. The T-44, on the other hand, has 120 mm of armor. Yes, the M24 is supposed to be a light tank, meaning is substitutes speed for armor, but the T-44 achieves almost the same speed with three times as much armor. The M24 requires a 5 man crew while the T-44 requires 4. This, in itself, is already a small advantage. Realistically, I think that almost anything that the M24 can do, the T-44 can do better. http://www.militaryfactory.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.militaryfactory.com...
The Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family

That is not the subject of debate. If you wished to change the it, you should have proposed it in the comments. The Firefly was the Western Ally Medium tank of 1944. The IS-1 was developed in 1943 (therefore it is unfair), but I will, however, debate that the Russian Medium tank of 1944 (the T-44) was stronger than the Firefly.
The Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family

That means that the later M4 and the later IS tanks are irrelevant in this debate. These two tanks are the IS-1 and The Sherman M4 Firefly, commonly used in WW2. There are three main reasons I believe this, the superior mobility of the sherman, the versatility and the superior range and firepower. The Sherman is faster than the IS-1 and more mobile. The Sherman weighs over 15 tons less than the IS-1, making it faster and more maneuverable. In a tank battle, formations and being able to adapt to the enemy are important. If a tank is faster and more maneuverable then it can adapt faster, and work better in formations with other tanks. Next, the Sherman has superior range and firepower. The "17 pounder" gun has a muzzle velocity of 3950 ft/s, the 85 mm soviet gun is 2598 ft/s, this gives the Sherman superior force, which leads to better penetration and range. Finally, the Sherman is known as "the workhorse of the Allied army" this is because it can be used to pull many useful war objects. These are including but not limited to, bridges and artillery. Also, shermans were also developed to carry bridges that can cross trenches. Due to the Sherman's superior firepower, maneuverability, and versatility, I believe that the Sherman M4 Firefly is superior to the IS-1, which were both developed at the same time.
Rap Battle 7

Amen? Okay then.. You only play when You see gay men, Then you pay them not to stop until you say "when" You think you're goin' brave then? No. You're blowin' cavemen. You CAN'T rap, that's what the truth is An actual fact is; you can't do this Or anything else, you're useless. I'd beat you til you're toothless, You can't stop me. I'm ruthless. And "READ BETWEEN THE LINES"? What the f*ck do you mean? that rhymes, But maybe try a theme next time.
Rap Battle 7

alright ! I don't rap but that's not entirely a fact. Everyday in which i stipulate a intellectual phrase I am never called a rat or BRAT! My morality ties well with every conjunction that my mouth so which to release out of me. Hopefully you recognise each rhyme but never be ignorant so please read BETWEEN THE LINES!??? MY NAME IS MAESTROMN and YES when people hear my name in their minds they say AMEN!!
Rap Battle 7

Something told me you'd get the jitters, I'm f*cking tired of all you quitters. I'm glad you decided to forfeit, I'm tired of reading through your sh*t. It's over now, you're finished. Not just beat, but diminished. I actually had high expectations. Now I see you have no dedication. Less then that, no motivation. Maybe use this for inspiration I'm done now, thanks for a quick win You've been rolled up and kicked in, And It doesn't matter if you write back. It's over now, go ahead, fight that.
Rap Battle 7

Well, lets fight then, mike tyson Guard my ears, cause you might bite them. I'm not polite when, I pick up the mic, Ben. Or what ever the F*ck your name is, No one cares you're not famous, I'll try to make your loss painless, You may blame this for why you'll remain Nameless. I read your verse twice, Here's my advice: Forget a theme this time, For fucks sake just learn to rhyme Your worthless, serve no purpose Your style to me is far beneath, "tooths?" I think you meant teeth. I already beat you, before I had spoken, Easy to defeat you, when you're already broken. Put your notebook back on your shelf, And stop writing, you're embarrassing yourself.
Rap Battle 7

Wow I'm Gay?, The only thing you do right now is being all aggressive like Kanye vs Sway! Why you fall in the trap of seeking violence when society needs rappers who don't break tooth's but emphasise the improper use of riots. be the brave man you write to be but please don't call me a homosexual because ironically you are writing something that you seem to Know more than me. Are you Magic Mike? look I am as smart as Plato and strong as a bison so watch out when I give you a debating knock out just like the scene of a mans tooth getting knocked out my Mike Tyson ! you are Magic Mike whilst I am Mike Tyson!?...... GET IT?
I am not your god

I thank Con for his reply, and for taking this debate seriously. ~~~~~~~ Rebuttal ~~~~~~~ Pro contends that I am his god, for I fit three of his requirement's to be his god. 1. "He is Humble" I do feel that I am not superior to everyone on the planet, but merely because everyone has their own strong points, and their own weak points. While I do feel I am better then some people, there are people more powerful then me and smarter then me, who I look to for advice. However now I could be just being humble about my humbility, so I can not prove this point untrue. 2. "He is not subservient to any other divine power." I am not subservient to any other divine power because I believe no other divine power exists. If however their were a divine power then I would be subservient to them. Therefore I can't be Con's god, because there is no god, and if there was a god they would be my god, and I would be no longer fit this requirement. 3. "He is benevolent." BENEVOLENT: ~ (adj) benevolent (intending or showing kindness) "a benevolent society" ~ (adj) charitable, benevolent, kindly, sympathetic, good-hearted, openhearted, large-hearted (showing or motivated by sympathy and understanding and generosity) "was charitable in his opinions of others"; "kindly criticism"; "a kindly act"; "sympathetic words"; "a large-hearted mentor"[1] In Con's first argument he asked if I enjoyed causing other misery or discriminating against others. However he never asked if I enjoyed or partook in showing kindness, or any such benevolent acts. Con has not shown that I am benevolent. Only that I am not malevolent. 4. "I was created in his image" Con contends that he was created in my image. But without proof of my own age being greater than his, I say that if we are both males in our sophomore years in high school that I may have instead been created in his image. 5. "He is loving to all" Con believes that because I am interested in both men and women that I am "loving to all." However he has only shown that I am loving towards men and women. There are those of our species that are in transition phases between genders, and those born in neither gender, who I have never said that I loved. Therefore I am not "Loving to all." 6. "He, like the God of the Bible, exists in the souls of all those who accept him." I concede this point. This is in fact an attribute of the God in your bible, and as I believe it your idea of a soul is my idea of a heart. And because I believe that all humans exists in the hearts of those that accept them, so while this is a trait shared by humans, it is shared by god, and shared by myself. ~~~~~~~~~~ Conclusion ~~~~~~~~~~ Con contends that for me to be his god I must meet three of his criteria, and as I have just proven four of these six properties to be untrue for myself, I therefore can not be his god. [1]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
I am not your god

In response to your questions; 1. No I am not superior to everyone else on the planet. 2. Yes I am a 16 year-old male from Beachwood, New Jersey. 3. No I do not have a god. 4. No I do not enjoy causing others misery or discriminating against others. 5. Yes I do look like a high school sophomore male. I am not a god, nor do I believe in a god, so I can't be your god because that would mean I wouldn't exist.
I am not your god

I will post my argument in Round 2 so that we have an equal amount of time to debate. However, I'd first like to clarify some things. 1. Are you superior to everybody else on the planet? 2. Are you a 16 year-old male from Beachwood, New Jersey? 3. Do you have a God? 4. Do you enjoy causing others misery or discriminating against others? 5. Do you look like a high school sophomore male?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Ya, well, anyway, my opponent screwed up and picked the wrong side. Since the first round clearly stated that the burden was on Pro to show the argument was sound, and he failed to show the argument is sound and actually argued against the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I win by default. Reminder: Pro must only put "No argument will be posted here as agreed" ...in the last round, or else all 7 points go to me, as per the rules. Thank you.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Maybe this will be fun." P1: Everything that begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: Therefore, the universe has a cause" Your logical structure is simply not immune to people using it to draw consquences from it that can be used against it. This is a standard way of analyzing the merit of philisopical arguments or claims. Very standard. Your premises and conclusion must be viable to the face of inferences that can be drawn from it if they are not to be illogical. If these inferences cannot be drawn, you must reasonably state why they cannot be so.You have failed to do this in regards to the nonexistant causing the existant, or why a cause does not simply mean another cause causesd it. Since this is a clearly a philosphical question, a metaphysical one at that, you must be aware in metaphysics words must be taken at their literal implications and everything that dervies from those implications? "My opponent is attacking an argument that nobody is making, this is called a straw-man logical fallacy"Not at all, your arguement is stating as fact that the universe has a cause. Nothing in this states the cause cannot have a cause, you merely avoid the possibility by saying something that exists has a cause and cannot exist itself. Or rather than saying that, you refuse to see the relvance of such a point. By attacking this point I can challegne the conclusion, which all I am obligated to do. Whether it plays by your rules is irrelvent, in philosophy the rules of logic dictate. And if you refuse to entertain this point you must explain why it illogical, and not merely say it is not what you said, when your conclusion DEPENDS on this being implict.I quote you:"Whatever caused the universe might not have began to exist, meaning, it wouldn't necessarily require a cause as far as the argument is concerned. "In metaphyscus 'might not' does not suffice, either exists or it does not. Since it only 'might not' that does not preclude anyone from sticking the question to you, does it or does it not exist? From there the infite regress allegation follows. 'Either way, he concedes the debate, as he has been arguing for the wrong side."Technically this isn't a debate since we don't diagree, but it is becoming a debate over the implications of your words. You are asking me to ignore logical questions that naturally result from your premises and conclusion, and instead of facing them you deny they exist. Clearly denying somethings existance requires rationalizatin you have no provided. I sense defensiveness becoming someone who feels threatend. Have I stolen your debate from you?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

There is a huge difference between these two statements: 1. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" 2. "Everything has a cause" If 2 is true, then even necessarily existing eternal entities would require causes, which they don't by definition. My opponent is attacking an argument that nobody is making, this is called a straw-man logical fallacy. The Kalam Cosological Argument is definitely not sound, but not because of any of the reasons mentioned by opponent. Either way, he concedes the debate, as he has been arguing for the wrong side.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

"The argument says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not everything has a cause. You obviously didn't read the argument. Whatever caused the universe might not have began to exist, meaning, it wouldn't necessarily require a cause as far as the argument is concerned."I read it, I just thought it was irrelevent.This is implcity saying a 'cause' of something does not in itself exist. How is this supportable?Mustn't the cause of something itself exist if the thing it causes also exists? How could something that doesn't exist cause something to exist? I wish to see examples and a logical reasoning of the nonexistance causing the existance, for at least this requires some kind of rational and evidence. Either it exists or it doesn't, and if it doesn't exist it has no being, and something without being cannot be said to be part of Metaphysical reality. It is hard to see how something not part of the metaphysical reality could logically be reasoned to cause something that is part of reality, or reality itself. "But most importantly, I am Con and you are Pro. Meaning, that I am against the Kalam, and you are for the Kalam. Therefore, by arguing against the Kalam, you are arguing for the wrong side"Then we have nothing to debate because we agree; or more accurately there is no debate taking place. This arguement is fundementally illogical and cannot be made so without relying on unspportable forms of reasoning. I saw in your debates you were PRO for the debate 'not all endless regresses are illogical,' I mistakenly took that to mean you would support this arguement. When in fact they are somewhat opposite positions. I suppose this is then not-so-fun.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

"This looks like fun. Your argument says everything has a cause, but then this must imply every cause has a cause.This argument seems to end in an infinite regress, which is not considered logically sound." The argument says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not everything has a cause. You obviously didn't read the argument. Whatever caused the universe might not have began to exist, meaning, it wouldn't necessarily require a cause as far as the argument is concerned. But most importantly, I am Con and you are Pro. Meaning, that I am against the Kalam, and you are for the Kalam. Therefore, by arguing against the Kalam, you are arguing for the wrong side, and are stepping on your own foot. The burden of proof is in Pro to show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound. Since no arguments have been given for that notion, the debate is leaning in my favor by default.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

This looks like fun. Your argument says everything has a cause, but then this must imply every cause has a cause.This argument seems to end in an infinite regress, which is not considered logically sound. If something caused the big bang and the universe to exist, the question merely changes to what caused that to exist? The real answer is the universe has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and so on as a consquence of this arguement. Again, infinite regresses are not usually seen to be strong proof or stricly logical because it is not a true explanation of 'why or how'. Infinite regress can be likend to a cricular arguement trying to proves itself by taking itself as the basis or mode that connects the premise to its conclusion.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

For those of you who know me, this debate will not be a surprise. This is one of my favorite arguments to debate. My opponent must show that this argument is sound:P1: Everything that begins to exist has a causeP2: The universe began to existC: Therefore, the universe has a causeThe first round will be for my opponent's first argument. To ensure we get the same amount of debating rounds however (because I just wasted this round), my opponent, in my last round, must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed"Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit.
There is a conspiracy to ethnically cleanse white people in Europe, America and Australia

"[S]peaking against multiculturalism can lead to jail and fines." That's not true at all. Freedom of Speech. This example of multipleculturalism (i.e., radical Muslims in Norway) has led to negative conflicts. Therefore, all multiculturalism is bad. The opponent has shown no evidence relating to the resolution about a "conspiracy." I don't even know what he is trying to get across now.
There is a conspiracy to ethnically cleanse white people in Europe, America and Australia

"I see no reason to believe that there is a so-called "push" for multiculturalism" Ask all the victims of the "race relations" law, speaking against multiculturalism can lead to jail and fines. the BNP was forced to change its constitution to become multi-culti or face fines "there are extremist Muslim rapists in Norway?" They would not even be there in Norway if it was not for multiculturalism. Those women are VICTIMS of multiculturalism, they didnt have to be raped, there was no need!!
There is a conspiracy to ethnically cleanse white people in Europe, America and Australia

I will concede that multiculturalism is PRESENT in Europe and the United States, based on demographic figures. I see no reason to believe that there is a so-called "push" for multiculturalism. Why is multiculturalism not good for Europeans? Because of your video that states that there are extremist Muslim rapists in Norway? That means that multiculturalism is, all in all, bad? Really...? I wonder if my opponent will actually argue his case.
There is a conspiracy to ethnically cleanse white people in Europe, America and Australia

I you need evidence of the constant push for multi-culturalism in Europe and America, then I dont think you really know what I am talking about and I may have to ignore this post and the debate the same debate with someone else After all, my intention is not to win a debate a format, but to get this idea across: MAY BE MULTICULTURISM IS NOT GOOD FOR EUROPEANS AT ALL?? Or may be it is not enough evidence?: http://www.youtube.com...
There is a conspiracy to ethnically cleanse white people in Europe, America and Australia

- White majority societies are constantly told by mass media that their replacement by "multi-cultural" societies is needed for economical success (yet, since the start of multi-culturalism, the public debt has actually balooned in most white majority countries) - They are told that opposing their replacement is a psychological disease called RACISM. White advocates are demonized. The same media glorify african, jewish or muslim ethnic identities. The target seems to be white identity only
The Baltimore police are responsible for the death of Freddie Grey.

The coroner came out with the verdict that the death resulting injury was spinal related. After looking at the video posted by a bystander on the street, you could clearly see that the police officers that were putting him in the van were following correct protocol. He was being detained by officers holding his arms behind him in a professional manner, as well as swiftly taking Mr. Gray from the public eye and putting him into the police van. In situations like this it is hard to tell exactly what happened to Mr. Gray. However, when this case does reach a federal court in a criminal case, the jury and the judge will have to dismiss the case due to a lack of evidence. There was no clear evidence that Mr. Gray was harmed by the officers. I would like to think to myself if I was one of those officers, I would not kill an innocent man in front of a crowd of people. I know humans do some crazy things, however this is a very rationale situation by the police officers by DOING THEIR JOB. Yes, the officers may have been a little rough in handling Mr. Gray and putting him into the van, but why should the officers be arrested? If this is that case for "being too rough", then lets go back to the 1970's and arrest every teach that paddled students for doing something bad. This entire case is a big accident that was never meant to happen. America needs to get over the whole media attacking police forces, because this country could simply go into Marshall Law, and the federal government would control all.
The Baltimore police are responsible for the death of Freddie Grey.

I'm going to debate this simply because your argument for the "Baltimore Police Department". First off, it was not the entire police department that committed this act. If you read the full story and get facts straight before saying the police department did this as a whole, you will see that this act was committed only by the responding officers. Mainly in this situation, the first officer on the scene is full a adrenaline and rage from chasing down a criminal, that they sometimes forget to follow protocol. In this situation the first responding police officer is in charge of the scene until a superior commander reports to the scene. Therefore, this ACCIDENT was caused by a young police officer who forgot how to handle his job properly.
The Baltimore police are responsible for the death of Freddie Grey.

I want to make clear that I do not think this is an issue of race -- this is an issue of police brutality and unethical police conduct and treatment. With that said, I believe the Baltimore police are responsible for the untimely death of Freddie Grey. While there are still many unknown facts about the death itself, what is certain is that he had a cervical spine injury prior to his arrest. But the severing of the spine was caused while he was in the van heading to the police station. A lack of care taken by the cops by not providing for him immediate medical attention is unethical and is a big part of Grey's death. Whatever Grey may have done, video evidence shows that he was injured, and the cops did nothing to treat him.