BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USSR contributed more to the defeat of Germany and its European Allies than the Western Allies.

I apologize for the delayed response. Lots of things going on for Christmas and Festivus. I will be brief in stating some arguments that I haven't had a chance to articulate more fully. My opponent can develop arguments against these points and I will post a more thorough argument in the third round. Whether the Soviet Union suffered 15, 20, 25 or 30 million dead is not relevant to the defeat of the Nazi regime. The Soviet people certainly suffered far more than any other country. Suffering doesn't in and of itself bring victory. European Jews suffered more than any other group, but other than the Warsaw Ghetto uprising they did little to bring about the demise of Hitler. Hitler lost because he was fighting a two front war. Had England sued for peace in 1940 or 1941, Hitler would have only had to wage a one front war when he attacked the Soviet Union. This is not insignificant, at the time the United Kingdom was defying Nazism, communist Stalin was still in a no-aggression pact and shipping trainloads of raw materials for the German war machine. Stalin essentially helped Hitler set the fire the burnt down the house of Europe, the change of heart was only due to being betrayed. When the Wehrmacht was rolling across Soviet territory in the fall of 41, the destruction of the Red Army seemed certain. The Allies provided materials to aid the resistance. In November of 1941 Stalin learned that the Japanese were to attack the Allies the Pacific and not the Soviet Far-east. This allowed Red Army reserves to be pulled from Siberia and sent to stop the Germans at the gates of Moscow, on Dec 6 1941. The subsequent counter Attack pushed the Germans back some. Around this time, the Finns, who'd lost territory to Russia during the Winter War, stop advancing after they'd recovered the lost territory outside of Leningrad. Why? Probably because Churchill had threatened to treat them as an enemy if they over ran Leningrad or cut off supplies coming in through the port of Murmansk. Had the USSR never attacked them they probably wouldn't have aprticpated in operation Barbarossa, had the Allies not had the standing to get them to stop it is likely that Leningrad would have fallen along with the ports of Murmansk and Archangel. Lose those and the Soviets would have lost the war. The following summer saw major battles to the south, Stalingrad and North Africa. Stalingrad is seen as the turning point in the war, while North Africa is portrayed as a distraction, yet they both consume limited materials and men. Had the Allies not been fighting, or had they lost, the campaign for the Caucausus would have been substantially different. The ongoing bombing campaigns in the sky, the resistance in Yugoslavia, France, Greece and Norway tied down German troops and stressed supply lines. The invasions of Vichy France, Italy, and Normandy likewise were crucial. I should point out that the Allies took very concrete steps to prevent the Germans from developing an atomic bomb. An atom bomb or two in the German hands would have brought all sides to the bargaining table.
The USSR contributed more to the defeat of Germany and its European Allies than the Western Allies.

I want to begin by acknowledging the sacrifice and hardship of the people of the Soviet Union. The number of Soviet loses are estimated around 20 million, more than 13,000 a day. The number of divisions and resources devoted to the eastern front are unquestionably higher than in the west. The territory lost and regained in the conflict also highlights the challenge and achievement of the Red Army. The numbers are impressive. Stalin is often quoted as stating that quantity has its own quality. It is a statement that carries some truth. Yet I will argue that the sheer quantity is not the only factor in the defeat of Nazi forces, nor is it the most important. The contributions of the allied forces to the destruction of Nazi Europe equal or exceed those of the Soviet Union. I await my opponent"s main argument, especially how contributions are measured and defined. There are additional factors to consider as well. Beyond direct combat and conquest with Nazi forces I will be looking at countries that supplied resources to various parties, countries whose inactions facilitated various sides, and events that distracted one side or the other.
The USSR contributed more to the defeat of Germany and its European Allies than the Western Allies.

Round 2 - Opening arguments. List the reasons you are correct. Round 3 - Responding arguments. Round 4 - Responding arguments. Definitions to know before accepting:USSR - Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Today, it consists of 15 countries. Germany and its European Allies - Countries that include Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Vichy France, Croatia, Bulgaria, Slovakia and other minor nations or axis puppets. Western Allies - These countries include the British Commonwealth, France, the United States, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, Denmark, Norway, the free forces of Poland and other nations fighting alongside the Western Allies during WWII.
Progressive Flat Tax

I don't really see how I can be any clearer than I was in my initial argument, but I will try. Perhaps you can tell me which part of it has you confused? A land tax is an annual tax based on the estimated value of the land itself, as is determined by various factors such as what it sold for previously, what surrounding property values are, and what similar properties throughout the country have sold for. Some states, counties and municipalities have a similar tax called an "estate tax", (a tax on homes) amounting to 1 percent of the total value of the property you are living on. This tax would not apply to homes, however, but commercial and industrial property, such as farmland, mountain areas with minerals such as coal or iron, forested areas used for lumber, commercial housing complexes such as apartments and hotels, office skyscrapers, factories, ect. Implemented gradually this tax could eventually replace the expensive process of accruing income tax, as well as avoid the pitfalls of voluntary reporting. It would increase the value of peoples homes, force businesses to make more efficient use of the land, act as a deterrent to real estate speculation such as what led to the housing bubble, and create a vested interest in owning real properties.
Human beings are superior to animals

Con is clearly making an appeal to semantics, attempting to weave a new argument (and a new burden of proof) from secondary and tertiary definitions of the word "superior". Considering the debate title and my opponent's opening round, I would argue that it's pretty clear which context we're discussing. As my opponent stated:" This notion that we have surpassed the lowly beast and are inherently "better", superior creatures that can lord over nature as we see fit."This definition is compatible with the dictionary definition of higher in rank, status or quality. My opponent is attempting to create a whole new debate by amending the burden of proof. I respectfully request that the opponent argues his burden or concedes the debate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con asked: Do you really believe we are more important than other animals? Rebuttal: Yes, I do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con argued:...we are just as "enslaved" to this planet as any other animal, and by no means do we exist outside the natural construct. Rebuttal: The Planet is not a slave master. It's a free-floating ball of dirt in a presumably infinite void. We have learned to utilize it for our continued survival. We are no more enslaved to the planet, than a Carpenter is enslaved to a hammer. It's a tool, for all intents and purposes, and we wield it at our pleasure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con asked:All hail factory farming? Really? ... hmmm ... please enlighten me on what exactly makes it so great. Is it sustainable? Is the produce healthier and of generally "superior" quality to other farming methods? Would you condone dog and cat meat factories I wonder? Rebuttal: Factory farming is sustainable as long as you can afford to feed and raise the cattle. The quality of the food is not an argument for your burden. Despite my position on factory farms, I am a practicing Vegan (for health reasons, not for activism). However, if I felt like eating a cat-burger, I don't see how that concerns you or how it helps you prove your case. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con stated: Even if humans were independent of nature, animals, and ecosystems, which we are not, it does not justify what we are doing to nature, animals and ecosystems. This "status" of ours that you mention is not justifiable or ethically sound. Rebuttal: Why? Because you insist on it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con argued that the planet is overpopulated. Rebuttal: If it's crowded where you live, move. The entire state of Montana has 1.02 million people. That's 1/8th of the population of NYC. Plenty of space. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human beings are superior to animals

Superior - higher in rank, status, or quality https://www.google.com... My opponent claims that Humans are not superior (higher in rank, status or quality) to animals because: 1. Supposedly the ecosystem thrives in our absence, while it crumbles if any other animal vacates it's niche and thus we cannot be superior. This is a flagrant concession of the burden. The antilope, the bee and the ant are so dependant on one another (so weak, so fragile and so enslaved to their rank, status and quality), that they cease to function without their symbiotic counterpart. Humans, by my opponent's own admission, exist outside the natural construct, and have thus clearly elevated their rank, status or quality beyond co-dependancy. All hail factory farming. 2. Humanity creates a unmerited status for itself and uses this status to excuse god-like behavior. Since my opponent has already admitted that animals are enslaved to a fragile, carefully balanced ecosystem (and that humans are not), it stands to reason that our status is justified. 3. Human intellect is inherently dangerous when combined with instinct. My opponent also conceded that instinct itself is the root of all evil, yet intelligence somehow amplifies it. Another de facto admission of Human superiority. The whole of creation relies on instinct, yet humanity is able to augment it's survivability through the use of intelligence. I challenge my opponent to prove how this fails to merit a higher in rank, status or quality. 4. All animals have an instinct for survival, yet the Human version is stronger and causes us to destroy everything around us. This point alone defeats my oponent's burden. It's an admission that Humans have a "superior" instinct. 5. Humanity is doomed to destroy itself (extinction). Based on what evidence? Despite our infighting, the human population is steadily growing. Our growth far exceeds our mortality rate. The technological prowess of developed nations is growing at such a fast rate, that the science fiction of my youth is now a reality, or at least a plausible reality. (See self-lacing sneakers from "Back to the future", mobile communication from Star Trek, voice activated wrist watches (Knight Rider), etc.) (Those examples are only from the commercial sector.) How exactly is a growing population and disciplined scientific progress an indicator for extinction?
Human beings are superior to animals

Humanity in general has often struck me as being incredibly arrogant in almost everything we do. We assume our intelligence and ingenuity gives us the right to meddle with anything and everything that's within our grasp. We have this elevated view of ourselves in regard to nature. This notion that we have surpassed the lowly beast and are inherently "better", superior creatures that can lord over nature as we see fit. However, take the human being out of an ecosystem and nature thrives. Take away the antelope, or the bee, or the tiny ant, and the ecosystem begins to crumble. Human beings need the planet's ecosystems just as much as any animal, so, in this regard, how is it then that we are more important than even the ant? They say that it's our base "animal" instincts that are the worst part of us, the root of our violence, greed, rape and general human depravity. I would say that's true, but its not the instincts of the animals that you find out in the wild. It's our own unique "human" animal instincts combined with something far more deadly, which is intelligence. It's our "intelligence" that enables us to have such far-reaching and devastating effects. It's our "intelligence" that creates these warped, unhealthy, unnatural environments that we live in. It creates the bombs, the pollution, the drugs, the poisons and the corrupt societies. Other animals aren't capable of this. We alone do it, and we do it a lot more "consciously" than we (commonly) like to admit. When things go wrong, we tend to blame forces that are "out of our control" because deep down we're ashamed and afraid of our true nature, and because it doesn't fit in with our elevated view of ourselves. Like the other animals, we too are instinctive creatures, although our instinct to survive is so strong that we would sacrifice nearly anything to cheat death. All that we do is through fear of our own eventual demise, which only seems to accelerate its arrival. We will kill ourselves eventually, become extinct, probably take half the world with us, but not before a fight ... with ourselves ... again, for the billionth and last time and despite all our "superiority", "intelligence", and "ingenuity" we will not have lasted a smidgen of the time that other animals have survived on this planet. I don't understand, how are we, such selfish and self-destructive creatures, can see ourselves as superior to other animals. It seems the other way round to me. We have made ourselves an abnormality that threatens the balance all that surrounds us. No matter our culture, creed, religion, philosophy, for our own good we should have more humility and respect for this world and it's animals, and less contempt.
The United states goevrment shoudl legalize SSM

Let us accept that marriage is not a Christian insitution, and any argument based on religion or moral objectivism is henceforth invalid, as it has no place in a discussion about legality in a secular government. By legalize, we mean recongize at the state and federal level, as well as grant all privelages as are granted to straight couples. Also, it is my opponent arguing for non-recognition, thus it is he who has the burden of proof. I needn't make a case for SSM as it is his duty to make a case against it.
Santa Claus should reduce his Greenhouse gas emissions

Regular visitors to this site will know that Panda is a notoriously belligerent socialist with a militant anti-establishment agenda. In this instance, he is clearly convinced that dear old Santa Claus is a tool of so-called ruthless capitalists whose aim is to demoralise the proletariat by giving privileged children the most expensive presents. Of course, there is no conspiracy, but the fact is that children from affluent families are better behaved than kids from the slums and they therefore deserve to have more extravagant gifts lavished upon them. But I suppose Panda would have it that a beautifully-mannered young gentleman from the higher echelons of English society should be denied his diamond-encrusted Mont Blanc mobile ‘phone just so that some ghastly little street urchins in India can have some shoes? What nonsense! Of course. the whole global warming fallacy that Panda has employed as the mainstay of his argument is merely a smokescreen to discredit Santa's worldwide toy production and distribution operations. The reality is that there is no such thing as global warming. In fact, if anything, the world is getting colder as these photos prove: Miami Beach last June: . http://image-photo.weather.com... Death Valley last August: . http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com... Barbados last July: . http://www.bloggerwave.com... In my opinion, cutting pollution to reduce so-called damage to the environment is a waste of both time and money, but you don't have to don't take my word for it; this is what the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) has to say about climate change: "NCPA scholars believe that. .. the cost of actions to substantially reduce CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline, accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing to prevent global warming regardless of its cause. " . http://environment.ncpa.org... For those who may be unfamiliar with NCPA, incidentally, it is a highly regarded scientific establishment which is why respectable multi-national oil companies like Exxon-Mobil are happy to fund their research. . http://www.guardian.co.uk... Finally, Panda takes the opportunity to tarnish Santa Clause's reputation by attacking his employment policies. The fact is that the only way Santa can remain competitive is by controlling labour costs. To achieve this, he employs elves rather than humans and lays them off during the summer months. At the end of the day, Santa is running a business not a charity for workshy pixies and the alternative would be higher production costs and, therefore, fewer profits for Santa's institutional shareholders. Even those with the meanest of intellects will realise that if Santa's profits went down, investment bankers in Europe and America would have to look to their governments for even more cash to pay their well-deserved multi-million dollar bonuses. Now that would hardly be fair on the already hard-pressed taxpayers, would it? But of course, being a so-called do-gooder leftie, the prosperity of hard-working middle-class families is the least of my opponent's concerns. Thank you.
Santa Claus should reduce his Greenhouse gas emissions

I thank Brian Eggleston in advance for this debate. Every year, Santa and his Elven slaves work tirelessly to bring presents to children worldwide (Excluding Communist nations, obviously). Annually, he brings billions of presents, from Make-your-own-girlfriends to Dark Matter. Obviously, these things aren't easy to make and require extensive industrial complexes. Santa Claus delivers, roughly, 10 presents per child. The CIA estimates that "around 27% of the world's population is below 15 years of age" [1]. 27% of 6,768,167,712 [2] is 1,827,405,282. This means, annually, Santa delivers 10,827,405,282 presents. This means he would have a serious amount of emissions form the production of various goods, not to mention the pollutants released via power stations in the North Pole. Our impact on the Earth is not clear, but Santa Claus' certainly is, as he is obviously directly responsible for the hole in the Ozone layer, simply so he can have a warmer summer break and lay off more elves due to "lack of space". Therefore, Santa Claus needs to immediatley make his factories more in line with modern green technology and cut down on his emissions. [1] = http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
Judicial Originalism

There is simply no way to remove bias from the bench. There will always be some level of preference when it comes with dealings from the wig. While it is true that the constitution is over 200 years old I feel that it should be seen as a living document. That is however not to say that a judge can just make up whatever they want they constitution to be that is a little far fetched. There are laws sitting that are unconstitutional despite being set laws. For example in North Carolina's legislation of the N. C consitution Sec. 8 "Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. " Meaning that literally if you do not conform to the idea that their is one deity despite the freedom of religion guaranteed by the U. S Constitution you can be denied a position in a federally recognized seat of authority. This is just an example of why certain documentation needs to be looked at through the light of today's society. Creating legislation sometimes takes too long for some and for others can never come fast enough. Times change and it changes typically faster than legislation can keep up with so it's up to judges to help set the precedent by interpreting the law. You yourself have even confirmed that is part of their job, To interpret the constitution, Not re-write it. Article 5 is to help the government have the power to change the law by its definition by adding an amendment. The latter is to help on an individual basis and perform a function in judging whether or not something should or shouldn't be considered illegal.
Judicial Originalism

I am also definitely more left than right too, But the point of implementing judicial originalism is that it completely removes political bias from the bench while at the same time respecting the constitution. The main contention with the issue most people have is that the document is almost 250 years old. Why should we take a document that old seriously? Thus they label the constitution a "living, Breathing document". This allows people to speculate what the founding fathers must have meant, And by doing this, Judges can morph the constitution into anything want. I firmly believe it is egregious to have these unelected people legislating from the bench; their job, Ordained by the constitution, Is to interpret the constitution, Not rewrite it. There is also the notion that the document is not relevant because it is so antique. That is why the founding fathers put article 5 in the constitution, So we can amend it according to our times. Treating the constitution as a "living, Breathing document" is just a way to bypass this and make the law what you feel is right. Thank you for the opportunity to debate you.
Judicial Originalism

I believe that the constitution not only should evolve with time but is mandated to do so. Beyond amendments it's important to understand the meaning behind the words of the constitution. First, Allow me to say I am generally leaning on the right rather than the left, In that most of my views are more conservative rather than liberal. I believe that every American has the right to own firearms and beyond that the general public is responsible when it comes to gun ownership. That being said I understand that there are exceptions to that which help to host national tragedies.
Jazz music is better than classical music

I will be arguing for the side of classical music.Definitions - From Oxford DictionariesJazz -a type of music of black American origin characterized by improvisation, syncopation, and usually a regular or forceful rhythm, emerging at the beginning of the 20th century. Brass and woodwind instruments and piano are particularly associated with jazz, although guitar and occasionally violin are also used; styles include Dixieland, swing, bebop, and free jazz.Classical Music - Serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition.To open my argument -Classical music has been around for much longer than jazz. Jazz has it's roots in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Classical music on the other hand has been around since the dark ages. Classical music also uses a larger range of instruments, whereas jazz bands have a very limited range.