BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Who would win in a war Russia or America

From what I see, you're suggesting starting the invasion in Eastern Russia and push from there to Moscow. To accomplish this, you would have to go through ALL of Russia. This would take the US a very large amount of time and resources, too many. Don't forget the un-hospitable climate of the Siberian tundra. Russian reserves outnumber the US reserves by almost 20. (20,035,000 . 1,458,000) The American forces simply would not make it. They would cause damage, yes, but the US army would be reduced to nothing before they got to Moscow. Now, let's take a look at history. History has shown that: US would most likely be the aggressor (considering that the US has such a large amount of offensive operations). Also, Russia is prepared to do all, sacrifice everything in order to defend its land. In this case, sacrificing everything would not be necessary because Russia has a 20 to 1 advantage in numbers, AND Russia is defending (which by default requires a smaller number of troops). If US land forces are destroyed, naval and aerial operations alone would not be able to accomplish much. As a result of a very large advantage in numbers and advanced technology (that is not surpassed by US military), I believe that the US would lose. Here, for example, is aerial technology. The newer Russian Sukhoi T-50 fighter plane is considered superior to the US F-22 Raptor. http://www.wired.com... Another factor that you have to consider is that once war begins, trade between Russia and US will cease, and Russia undeniably has a larger reserve of natural resources and food, while the US imports the bigger part of its resources.
Who would win in a war Russia or America

Let me just say that America would win but not by drones. By marine black ops either assassinating president Putin or just doing undercover missions in Russia. Strike by Strike small win from small win will soon turn to big victory to huge victory. Then we would do a total full scale invasion of our 430 active ships off the coast of eastern Russia, not to mention the 206 ready reserve ships that America has. The American army would then push toward Moscow. That's what I would do if I was president anyway.(Obama is a bad president in my opinion but that's another debate in another time).And if Russia would not surrender we would destroy every single one of their cities. And yes, I exaggerated about the drone stuff. (but hey, I gotta scare the sh*t out of someone).
Who would win in a war Russia or America

First of all, I would like to agree with your last statement. If there was a nuclear war, both countries would be effectively destroyed. Let's just focus on non-nuclear war, shall we? "We could use drones or other unmaned machines to just fly into Russia and obliterate them without even using troops." That is an extreme exaggeration. The US would not be able to win, or in fact do very much at all, without using troops. In previous wars with less developed countries, the US has used drones yet has also suffered large human losses. Let us not forget that drones are very expensive and to wage an entire war with only their help would be impossible. Also, recently developed technology such as the Tor-M2 can take down drones (along with other air support) without much difficulty. http://voiceofrussia.com... "And we would just use powerful drones to totally destroy their fleet." Destroying the Russian fleet as a whole is near impossible. Not only are there a total of about 300 submarines and navy ships, but they are located from the Baltic Sea, to the Black Sea, to the Eastern Coast of Russia. Let's not forget that these aren't just sitting ducks, they are armed, war-ready machines, and to destroy so many, stretched across such a vast area would be very difficult. Also, consider that not all war is waged on sea. You would also have to deal with troops and air support.
Who would win in a war Russia or America

I think america would win. I think this becouse america has the most advanced military in the world. We could use drones or other unmaned machines to just fly into Russia and obliterate them without even using troops. Meanwhile in Russia they could be preparing for war with an invasion fleet of warships with hundreds of real live people. And we would just use powerful drones to totally destroy their fleet. But if we got involved in a nuclear war.....thats something different...lets just say there would be no winner if a nuclear war happened.
Who would win in a war Russia or America

""almost every time" Yes exactly, not every time has Russia succeeded in blocking out an invasion take wayyyyyyy way way back to the Phoenician time the Russians, or Russlands called back then failed in blocking out the Grecians from Greece who wanted to take the world" Yes, thousands of years ago Russia lost an invasion, but let us not forget that Russia is still twice as big as the US. "We have multiple troops stationed in Germany. It would be easier to invade Russia there." Okay, let's imagine that the US begins sending large amounts of troops into Germany. 1) Russia would notice and begin moving large numbers of troops, vehicles and technology towards the western side. 2) Russia does not border Germany, so how would the troops actually make it to Russia? They would have to be dropped in by air, which is difficult to do. (As seen in operation Overlord, D-Day). 3) Russian defenses on the western side are much stronger by default considering that if Russia is going to be attacked, it's probably from the West since there are really no enemies in the East. "And also, we have this thing called NORAD if you have not heard of it. It is a missile firing and defense system for america. It could fire missiles into Russia without troops lifting a finger. And no, it cant be stopped because once the missiles are deployed they reach speed of mach 1 which is as fast as a nuclear warhead can go. And once it is that fast no Russian anti-missile cannons can take it down, unless they have invented force fields.( which you haven't.) And by the way if your an american that's just pitiful." Yes, I am fully aware of what NORAD is. Yes, it could fire missiles "without lifting a finger", but Russia has missiles as well. Sending in missiles would be the worst mistake for the US, because then Russia would set off its missiles. Here, for example is the "Satan Missile" as called by Americans. It is the Soviet R-36 missile and was viewed as a first strike advantage by US analysts. This monster of a missile splits into 10 separate warheads (which can be loaded with any kind of explosive) and 40 penetration aids. http://en.wikipedia.org...(missile) Just recently, the Russians updated this missile, modernized it, and made it even more destructive. If the US launched even a single missile, that would mean destruction because Russia would answer. It would be detrimental to Russia as well, but let's not forget that Russia simply has more territory, and if part of it was destroyed, people can move. If the same area of land was demolished by missile strikes in the US, there would be no where to go. Finally, no, I am not an American. I am Russian (if it isn't obvious enough by my name.) In conclusion, I believe my opponent has provided nearly no real argument and had no sources.
Who would win in a war Russia or America

"almost every time" Yes exactly, not every time has Russia succeeded in blocking out an invasion take wayyyyyyy way way back to the Phoenician time the Russians, or Russlands called back then failed in blocking out the Grecians from Greece who wanted to take the world.And when you said we would come from the east your wrong. We would come from the west. We have multiple troops stationed in Germany. It would be easier to invade Russia there. And also, we have this thing called NORAD if you have not heard of it. It is a missile firing and defense system for america. It could fire missiles into Russia without troops lifting a finger. And no, it cant be stopped because once the missiles are deployed they reach speed of mach 1 which is as fast as a nuclear warhead can go. And once it is that fast no Russian anti-missile cannons can take it down, unless they have invented force fields.( which you haven't.) And by the way if your an american that's just pitiful.
Who would win in a war Russia or America

I am not saying that the Russians wouldn't cold. I'm saying that 1) Americans may not be as acclimatized to subzero temperatures as Russians. 2) American forces would have to transport food and equipment through extremely cold temperatures much farther than the Russians, which could detrimentally affect the condition of the items being transported. Finally, Russian weapons and vehicles are more "cold-ready" than that of Americans because they have to endure the cold EVERY winter. In the winter of 1943, Germans were reporting that as a result of very low temperatures, their tanks simply would not function because the fuel and oil in the machine would no longer be liquid, but a sludge. Russian tanks on the other hand were doing fine. The American army has never fought a real war in conditions like the Siberian plains present. Russians, on the other hand, have endured centuries of invasion, and prevailed almost every time. Also, considering that Russia is so immense, the American forces would end up being spread very thin and would be easier to eliminate. Examples of that would be when Napoleon and Hitler invaded Russia.
Who would win in a war Russia or America

Climate plays a big role as well. The American Army (just like so many before it) would hit the Russian winter. (If the Americans are coming from the East, they'll be stuck in Siberia for the winter which is even worse). Average winter temperatures for Siberia are -25 C (-13 F). This is be difficult to be acclimatize to for the average person living in the US. Not only that, but there are NO food resources there, meaning the Americans would have to transport supplies and food halfway through Russia (which can not only take a long time, but the vehicles could be destroyed/intercepted on the way). On the other hand, it would be very easy for the Russians to move food, weapons and troops. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Economic Freedom ought to be valued over economic equality

"Germany is actually a capitalist country. "Of course, no country today is truly Socialist; The entire world today is practically a capitalist economy since every country uses some form of capitalism, some more than others, and yes Germany's economy does rely heavily on Capitalism. I never described Germany as a pure "Socialist" country. I said they were a "Socialistic" country. There's a difference, in which I meant that they tend to embrace more socialist values relative to other capitalistic countries. His reference from the Townhall website was completely biased towards his position. Additionally his original statement, "Given what we know in 2014, saying that capitalism will make a society richer than socialism should be about as controversial as saying the earth is round, not flat. " was not even a credible argument to begin with. "I have given many reasons why capitalism is better than socialism, for instance: C1 sa, C1 sb, C1 sc, C2, C2 sb, C3, C3 sb"In C1 sa, your entire argument was one huge quote from Ludwig Von Mises, which is also completely biased towards your position. My opponent argues that treating everyone equally takes away the incentive of improving out of life. This implies that having a difference in wealth and status among people is what motivates people to work hard and do something with their life. If that's true, then why do we see so many open source softwares/websites such as Linux or Wikipedia where everybody has free equal access to them, and yet many people devote their spare time to improve them without gaining any "rewards". My opponent also argues that competition is what encourages innovation. I have disproven this by giving references to past scientists who's efforts were not motivated by competition, but by contribution to improving humanity. Also I had previously shared a link that shows an example of how young kids today around the world are innovating through passion and contribution to their community, and not by competition nor the pursuit of wealth and position. Again here's the link to the video: To summarize, throughout the debate my opponent regarded success and being successful as to only attaining monetary/material wealth and status. I countered this by explaining that success was subjective and doesn't always translate to wealth and social status. Also I had explained that the overall physical and social health of citizens, and the health of the environment in which they live in all have more significance in contributing to a truly healthy and successful economy. People are what ultimately define an economy, not its monetary/material wealth. Without people, an economy wouldn't exist to begin with. Because of the reasons I stated above, my opponent has not really proved why economic freedom ought to be valued over economic equality. In closing, I want to thank SpiffyTexan for having me in this debate. I really enjoyed it. :)
Economic Freedom ought to be valued over economic equality

In the comments my opponent and I have declared to not post arguments in the 4th and 5th round because of a busy schedule. So by the rules of debate, this is the last round and no new evidence or arguments can be brought up. My opponent said that the people in the government are also considered inhabitants, so if these inhabitants in the government have a higher position than everyone else, true economic equity is not being upheld. I stated in round 2 that socialism is the government system that emphasizes equality the most. So if my opponent is wanting to uphold true economic equality, he would have to tear down the government. True, socialism might not be complete economic equality, but unless there is no government, socialism upholds equality best. My opponent talks about GDP not being the main parameter that determines a healthy economy, I never used the term GDP, so this is a new point and cannot be brought up in the last round. "There has never been a society that had no social classes." The societies that he was talking about have made no significant societal advances, so this alone is an argument against economic equity. He goes on to state that socialism strangling economic growth is a good thing, because the earth only has so many resources, then he says that "socialistic" countries like Germany have proven to be more productive and innovative. Germany is actually a capitalist country. The Five Most Capitalist Countries in the World - http://blog.peerform.com... So my opponent's argument that socialist countries like Germany are more productive and innovative is false, as he gave reference to Germany's production, then assumed that Germany was a socialist country, when it is actually one of the 5 most capitalist countries in the world. He made reference to how I said that capitalism vs socialism should be as controversial as Earth is round, not flat. I apologize for not making proper reference to the author in my constructive, this was taken from townhall.com http://townhall.com... In his conclusion he merely stated that I had not proven how capitalism is better than socialism and said nothing more of the matter. I have given many reasons why capitalism is better than socialism, for instance: C1 sa, C1 sb, C1 sc, C2, C2 sb, C3, C3 sb. If those aren't enough reasons why capitalism is better than socialism I am sorry. Thanks to my opponent for trying. I am a Lincoln-Douglas debater so I am used to logic as well. Good Luck! Vote fro Pro. (I could have said for pro, but fro pro is so much more fun.)
The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage.

First of all, though the constitution can be amendment, no official amendment was passed allowing the Federal government to create a Federal Minimum wage. And the supreme court was never given the power to amend the constitution, and even if it was, they never even ruled that this was constitutional, thus the Federal Government does not have the power to establish a minimum wage. Secondly, I do believe I proved that Switzerland, as a result of not having any minimum wage, has increased the average wages of its workers through competition. This actually happened in the US during WW2, the reason is that there were more jobs than employees, thus employers competed over employees by offering benefits, higher wages, safer conditions etc. Furthermore, labor unions during the progressive movement were able to get better wages as of the 1890's, the Federal Government couldn't increase wages until 1941. This means that labor unions are much better at achieving a better wage than the federal government. Thirdly, I never said there are benefits to a 7.25$ a hour minimum wage, only that it isn't necessary because states have proven to be much better at increasing their minimum wage than the federal government. And the same is true about labor unions, thus, the federal government increasing the minimum wage wouldn't do much because it would be incapable of consistently updating it with inflation, which is severely miscalculated.
The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage.

As I stated before, the Constitution never grants the Federal Goveronment the power to establish a FEDERAL minimum wage, since this power is not prohibied to the states, it should be given to the states respectively, or to the people. This is why the term state to the rest of the world, as well as in America during the 1700's, "state" meant a sovereign state, with the power to establish their own laws, their own ystem, etc. This has a number of benefits, first of all, the economic and social situations of each state is different, allowing for laws to change according to circumstances. For example, if someone was carryin a riffle around in the open in Washington DC it might be considered threatening, but if someone lives in Detroit- this is acceptable. And yes, under the First Ammendment the people have a right to petition the goveronment for a redress of their greivances, but either way it would be best to give this powe to the states or to the people. Also, it would not be appropriateterminology to say "raising the minimum wage to 10.10$ a hour," because in 1968 it was 11$ a hour, thus this would be "restoring the minimum wage to 11$ a hour. In response to the latter, first of all, in Switzerland there is no minimum wage, yet workers earn 2,500$ a month, for the 41.5 hour shift that the swiss earn, this is 15.06$, that's 6 cents higher than the 15$ that those crazy american workers want. This is a classic example of the power being reserved "to the people," because this is all because of labour unions. And my opponents wages in Europe are irrelevant, because in the US the minimum wage is left to the states, so saying that the minimum wage in the US is 7.25$ isn't really fair, the minimum wage in California is 10$ a hour, in the District of Columbia it's 11.50$, and if you want to forma labour union you can raise the minimum wage (for you) yourself. {1} {1}. http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...
The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage.

I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.
resolved: hate crime enhancements are unjust in the united states.

one cannot assume anything in this debate, and because my opponent lacks the evidence necessary to support his belief that victims of hate crimes feel pain from the crimes more acutely. also, there is little evidence that supports his belief that other members of the protected class of which the victim of a hate crime belonged would feel the pain as well. Do not other members of a parallel crime victim's family feel pain as well? Why should these people be given less consideration and reconciliation simply because they were not members of protected classes? also in my argument about free thoughts and beliefs, hate crime enhancements punish the biased beliefs which are, as i stated in my previous speech, protected under the first amendment. "Their third paragraph is telling us that people being attacked because of their race do not feel worse. At the end of the paragraph they say it is impossible to determine pain. He more or less just destroyed his own argument there." also, i did not state that it is impossible to determine pain. i stated that "there would still be no way to determine who feels more pain." pain can always be determined, but the levels of pain, to a certain point, are subjective. and either way, even IF they do feel more pain, hate crime enhancements will be pointles because the biased motive that makes a hate crime what it is will be meaningles and the crime will be punished due to it's resulting harm, rather than the beliefs which led up to the crime. i urge you to vote affirmative because justice is about equal protection under law and proportional punishments, which hate crime enhancements do not provide.
resolved: hate crime enhancements are unjust in the united states.

Ok, I'm going to try to make this debate more readable by shortening my arguments. The main point of clash comes here: *A hate crime victim should not get more punishment than a regular victim.* ATK: You stated: "We punish robbery and a murder because of result and damage caused. " That's why hate crime enhancements are justified. In hate crime enhancements people are being hurt based on identity, and the threat is directed toward everyone sharing that identity. Compare this to a conventional crime, where the target is one individual. More people are hurt by hate crimes, therefore hate crimes deserve a harsher punishment under "proportional punishment". Their third paragraph is telling us that people being attacked because of their race do not feel worse. At the end of the paragraph they say it is impossible to determine pain. He more or less just destroyed his own argument there. If it is impossible to determine pain, then how do you know there is no difference in regular crimes to hate crimes? My argument against this is that since it's impossible to determine intent, that's not something we should be looking to when analyzing hate crime enhancements. But purely for argument purposes, I really think people being attacked based on race feel more pain. There is no evidence for this, there cannot be any. But it's really obvious. That's basically the meat of their case. My case: Hate crime enhancements are just because they provide a proportional punishment. Vote negative.