BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WWIII what will happen

All right to go with the comment for the start of the war, it would seem hard to pinpoint one but if I had to go with one is that since the Americans have already fought Iraq a few times before the fighting escalated. Russia was getting a little tired of it and to become the most powerful nation they joined in with Iraq so they started to help them. Germany had already lost to the U.S. and Russia so they picked a side in case the fighting went to them, since Russia is closer they went with them. With France right next to Germany and Russian troops going in to support Germany(since the jets and boats will be used in the fight against Japan and S. Korea) France joins in with them. Mexico though would be a wildcard really. They joined but are probably not going to fight for the first few months or maybe even a year later waiting for the U.S. to get weaker since they are right next to them. Now it would be true that Russia would only attack by air and sea with China being in the way(probably would be neutral and have no troops go through). Russia would most likely be in a tie with Japan and S. Korea in that battle and with France and Germany working together they would hold of the U.K.(until the U.S. would send reinforcements). Until Russia broke through Poland(or if Ukraine allowed troops to go through) then they couldn't support to the fullest. Russia I say would send at least 30,000 foot soldiers to support Iraq right away along with a few hundred jets and tanks. When Russia would brake through Poland(and come on they would) but not necessarily defeat them they would send maybe 2 times as much troops to support France and Germany dependent on the number of U.S. support troops. I shall end my first phase of the war here and wait for the counter-attack.
WWIII what will happen

Iraq, Mexico, France, Germany and Russia is my rivals. The Axis. Now Russia is basiclly a island. No, I know Russia is not around much water, but it is by waste land and mountains. So if Russia wanted to attack Japan and South Korea they haveto to it by Navy and Air. Im running out of time but the Russian Navy is weak right now and could easily be beaten. The UK and Germany would be in a stalemate, in which poland would tip in my favor while the US will deal with the French. The US will also deal with the Iraqi.
WWIII what will happen

Well with this forfeit I will have to say my side wins but I will put it in war. As I said UK has failed and almost all support has been sent to stop the US, Japan, and S. Korea. This is where the final assault shall commence. The navy forces are slowly pushing the Japanese and S. Korean's into a small area but American reinforcements keep coming. With ground troops now going up into Japan and S. Korea the war shall end soon. The U.S though was able to push a few battalions and put them in strategic locations in Japan and S. Korea. With this in mind Iraq and France focus their bombardments on land while Russia and Germany focus on the ships. With navy forces slowly going away they are forced to regroup with American vessels. They are able to do this but suffer major casualties. Their are hundreds of ships on both sides of the fronts but with Japan and S. Korea ships away from their homelands they hope the Americans can hold them off for their counter offensive. Russians are able to set up their forces in both countries but with their small land mass they got into many skirmishes in both countries. Casualties are high but they are able to hold the Americans and remaining soldiers from both countries off. The ground troops have the countries split in half. They are both trying to find a soft spot in the defenses but with numbers on The Axis side the Americans are slowly being pushed back. The naval battle starts with hundreds of planes exploding in the air. The ships on both sides take beating but again numbers are on the Axis side. It is a slow but sure victory. As the Japan and S. Korea forces wear thin and reinforcements from the Axis side coming they will be surrounded. American forces try to pull back to get a better area of attack but as the reinforcements come from the north and south they get trapped. The U.S gets reinforcements but the center had already collapsed and the full force of the Axis fell upon them. The land battle was won in Japan in a matter of weeks. The Russian ships bombarded the land and destroyed the cities. The Americans had no support or anywhere to hide. The planes also destroyed the forests starting fires and killing many soldiers, including their own. The same strategy was used on S. Korea. Casualties are high and the war was over. The Axis prevailed and Russia became the strongest Super Power in the world. With troops low in America they became an easy target for Russia. Russia took over America and their nuke supply theirs and their authority is now in charge who knows what may happen. If anyone wanted to start a part 2 with me to make an uprising it would be well accepted. I hope this final, not argument but story was to your liking I did my job. I never really could make an argument these last 2 rounds so I tried to make an entertaining story. Thank you to the viewers who stayed and I hope you agree with the outcome.
WWIII what will happen

I shall add a brief scenario to continue the war. With Russia helping the three main front counties they will push back the UK and US and send them back. As the war continues casualties rise but Russia's help turns into their favor, but the sea battle is going in Japan's and S. Korea's favor. We push the UK to their land and start destroying their cities. Their civilian casualties rise and France and Germany take a charge. They push the UK back farther and farther into their land and the UK loses. The US then sends all naval forces to help Japan and S. Korea. With France and Germany free to fight they send their air forces to support Russia which evens the fight. Iraq is still being fighting Americans though. German and French ground troops go to help Iraq and tip the favor for Iraq. More Russian troops go to Iraq over turning the US troops sending them out of Iraq. Iraq has time to recover and is able to send little support to help the air forces over Japan and S. Korea. The sea battle is still locked in combat but with all four counties helping the tide will soon turn. That is all I got, if you have any problems with this scenario please address them in your next argument.
Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise.

I’d like to let my opponent know that the gratitude he expressed is mutual and I thank him for accepting my challenge, brave as it may be, for I think my claims are reasonably irrefutable. A God that Requires Faith To clear something up, I’d like the voters to recognize that both myself and Con seem to have an agreement that I am arguing that any reasoning used to arrive at God’s existence is contradictory if such a God requires faith. Con then goes on to give examples of how one must use faith to do tasks and provides a story of a family member’s alleged Burger King trip. While I agree it does exemplify faith in general, it fails to indicate evidence or proof (however true) for a God requiring faith’s existence. After consenting that our discussion was about a God that requires faith, Con quickly forgot the implications of that and then softens my definition God requiring faith and uses an example that has nothing to do with that. Allow me to throw a logic sequence together for you, I’ll call it the faith argument: P1: It is possible that God has not left a trace of evidence that proves its existence. P2: If it is possible that God has not left a trace of evidence that proves its existence, then there is no verifiable evidence that proves God’s existence. C: God has not left a trace of evidence that proves its existence. Consideration of Application I gave an example of the foundations of a house, and how one might know a priori that it would fall but went on to show how this is not absolute (or pure) a priori because he had first to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and heavy things fall with no support. This became especially relevant to my argument as I went on to say “Argumentum a priori has done little but to provide wild speculation, but abstract speculations on necessity have no place in proofs and absurdity arises in talk of proving its existence a priori.” In layman’s terms, when it comes to proofs about big questions regarding existence, we need evidence. This is why, after so many tries the God question is just that, a question. It has not graduated to the status of theory and because it is unfalsifiable it can’t even be considered a hypothesis. Then what happens if real evidence is found? For this section I want to restate the story I told about Babel Fish. It was clever of Douglas Adams to use it as an example. It is unmistakably obvious that such a creature was in fact designed rather than by chance in a naturally selective process and is therefore undebatable empirical proof! The Babel Fish considers that God actually does exist and in doing so proves that if he did, there would be no need for faith. If there was undeniable proof then you wouldn’t have to have faith, cause you would know it to be true. You would have a reason.
Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise.

However, I think I know where the problem in the argument he presented, lies. God, Faith, and ReasonMy opponent is arguing, that because God requires faith, that any reasoning used to arrive at his existence is contradictory. This, of course, is only true if faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, no reason was given to assume this was the case. God could require faith to arrive at his existence, but it may also be true, that he left evidence of his existence for us to pick up on. This is because it may be true, that the people who come to the conclusion that God exists through faith first, before reviewing the evidence, truly know God. However, the people who require the evidence he leaves, without seeking him through faith first, do not truly know God. God could have set the universe up this way as part of his plan, without contradiction for that reason. Faith is Required for ReasonIt seems strange to think that faith and reason are some how at war with each other, when faith is required for evidence to mean anything. For example, lets say of of your family members comes in and says they were just at Burger King, and you see a Burger King bag in her hand, and she was only gone for twenty minutes, just enough time to get Burger King. There are three pieces of evidence for the theory "Family member A went to Burger King":1) Testimony of going to Burger King2) Burger King bag in hand3) Timing consists with theory It would be reasonable to conclude, that the family member in question went to Burger King. However, one would have to have faith that the family member was telling the truth for 1) to mean anything. Also, one would have to have faith that she didn't just pick up a random Burger King bag off the street and walked in the house without you knowing. Also, even if the timing was consistent, you have to have faith that even though it's consistent with other scenarios, this one is the one you are going to go with. You cannot use reason to show that reason is reasonable, that would be circular. Thus, faith is required for reason, so to claim that they are mutually exclusive is without warrant. Conclusion: God may require faith, however evidence for him could still exist for some divine purpose. It could be true, that only those who come aware of his existence through faith first, before evidence, truly know God. Those who don't, do not truly know God. This could be all part of some plan, meaning that the notion my opponent is claiming is contradictory, isn't. Also, faith is required for reasoning to begin with. For these reasons, I believe I have successfully knocked my opponent's argument down.
Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise.

However, lets put the nail in the coffin shall we? "A God requiring faith would have the foresight to this and leaving around evidence would be contrary to it's objective of requiring faith. "This is basically the just of my opponent's objection to my rebuttal to his argument. The problem, is it makes two very unjustified assumptions:1) There is a reason why God would want to not leave evidence around of his existence2) Evidence of God's existence contradicts the notion of a God that requires faithThe problem with my opponent's objections here, is that I already took care of them in the earlier rounds. My opponent has given no reason to think that a God that requires faith, is incompatible with evidence for God's existence. It seems my opponent arrogantly states it as if it is a self-evident proposition, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. If one actually reads throughout the debate, you will not find one good supporting reason why evidence of God's existence is logically contradictory to a God who requires faith. The Earth could be flooded with evidence of God's existence, and it wouldn't mean that a God who required faith didn't exist because even though those things could prove his existence, that wouldn't mean the person who discovered the evidence, would truly know God without faith. This notion from my opponent is a non-sequitur. Since my opponent:a) Did not support the notion that evidence for God is incompatible with a God that requires faith b) Delved into a non-sequitur based on an unjustified assumptionc) Assumed that "A God that requires faith" meant "a God that requires faith to know he exists", instead of "A God that requires faith to know God on a more personal level", without specification. . .. .Then it is clear that he did not meet his burden of proof. Since I:a) Showed that something could prove God exists, even if it wasn't it's purposeb) Showed that evidence of God could still exist, even if a God who required faith did, because God requires faith to know God, not know of God. .. .Then it is clear that I met my burden of proof. The resolution has been negated.
Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise.

Con, I apologize about the length of this debate. I think we've both made our cases pretty clear and there isn't much more to say about them. If I had the foresight to know this then I would have made the debate a four round match instead. Since I have to fill this last round with something then I will just briefly summarize it. 1) My main argument is that a theist that tries to reason God's existence is contrary to a God that requires faith. 2) Con's main objection is that evidence may not have been put there with the purpose of proving God's existence and any side effects of that proof could just be there. 3) My final objection to that is that an omniscient God that requires faith wouldn't make such oversights. In light of number 3 I will make one final point about Con's objection in reference to a bird's nest. He argues that a birds nest does not exist for the sole purpose of proving they exist. I agree with that, if bird's somehow went extinct in the future and some future generation found no evidence of bird's existing except for the birds nest then I would still say that the bird's nest isn't there for the purpose of proving the existence of birds. The bird's nest purpose is for housing and nesting birds right? This is a bad example because bird's shouldn't be thought of as having the foresight to not leave birds nests around because humans might discover them. A God that requires faith on the other hand is not like that. A God requiring faith would have the foresight to this and leaving around evidence would be contrary to it's objective of requiring faith. In any case, I've enjoyed this debate with Con and I'd like to apologize to him for not having the foresight to know that this debate didn't need to be so long. See what I did there?
Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise.

"I think I’ve sufficiently explained my arguments and they follow through. Con makes nice objection about how there could be evidence for such and such reason but none of those reason’s hold up when faced with a God that requires faith."I have already stated why this argument is wrong, so I do not really feel like repeating myself. However, I will. God could require faith to truly know God, and there could still be evidence that proves he exists, without contradiction. If one discovered this Fish you speak of tomorrow, it would in no way contradict the notion of a God that requires faith to truly know God. The Fish that proves God's existence may prove God's existence, but that doesn't mean it was put there to prove his existence (he would have another purpose for it). For example, If you look at a nest, you could bring it to a lab and prove conclusively that birds exist. Does this mean the next exists, just to prove birds existence? No, the nest exists for a different purpose, it just so happens to prove birds exist.My opponent is acting like I'm somehow forgetting the fact that the God in question requires faith. This couldn't be further from the truth. One could come to know of God's existence in a factual sense through this Fish alone, through no faith, but that doesn't mean:1) It was put there to prove God's existence2) Being aware of God's existence, and knowing God are the sameWhen someone claims that a God requires faith, they are speaking directly about his purpose. God has a purpose to have people come to know him through faith. Even if this Fish proves he exists, that doesn't mean the people aware of this discovery truly know God. However, if God's purpose isn't to prove his existence with said Fish, and the Fish just so happens to do that as a side effect (like a nest would prove birds exist, even though that's not it's purpose), that would in no way contradict the notion of a God that requires faithFor these reasons, the resolution has been negated.
Reasonable faith is an unreasonable premise.

Since Con insists that I prod his God, Faith and Reason section, so be it. Although I did think that I did sum up my thoughts on that in my final sentence of the last round. I mentioned that if there was undeniable proof, then you wouldn’t have to have faith because you would know it to be truth, you would have reason. This is to say that evidence would eliminate the premise of faith. For if you had evidence, you would know it! I’m not sure what to make of Con’s mentions of how one might know god but not know God. I suppose I could understand this to be similar to when a significant other might say, “oh you love me, but you don’t love me. If that is the case, I can’t really see how that even deserves a response. On DDO I think we are subject to proper definitions of words. Here is a definition in case there is any confusion: know - be aware of through observation. The Syllogism Con seems to think that the syllogism I showed him represents some sort of proof that there is no evidence. It isn’t meant to show that God doesn’t exist and that isn’t what this debate is about anyway. I am just showing the simple logic that shows that if God had not left evidence, then there isn’t any. Con’s parody only helps my case and I don’t disagree with it for if God has left evidence, then there would be some, I just think that there would be none to be found if the God required faith. Besides, such a God would be sure to not accidentally leave any traces behind. Even the dumbest crooks take care to wipe their prints from the scenes of crime. Surely a faith requiring God is more careful than that. On the Babel Fish The first part that Con mentioned was completely misunderstood. I’m bringing this up not to object to what he is saying but to point out that I feel like we had an honest misunderstanding here. When I mentioned “undebatable empirical proof!” I wasn’t using proof to refer to my arguments in the claim that A God that requires faith is a contradiction. I was saying that for the purposes of the story of the Babel Fish, the existence of the Babel Fish is undebatable empirical proof of God’s existence. That is why (when I first introduced the story) Douglas Adams says that the arguments both proves and disproves God’s existence. As for the second objection where Con says that God could have left evidence that proves his existence, for a different purpose than to prove he exists, I have already provided a sufficient objection to this notion. If God requires faith then this particular part of his creation would have been important enough to not make a mistake by leaving evidence lying around. I agree that a God that doesn’t require faith might leave evidence around for what Con calls a “divine purpose” but once again, Con forgets... this God requires faith. I think I’ve sufficiently explained my arguments and they follow through. Con makes nice objection about how there could be evidence for such and such reason but none of those reason’s hold up when faced with a God that requires faith.
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

What my opponent seems unable to grasp is that we are not discussing whether Tony Blair was not a good Prime Minister. We are discussing whether he was a good Prime Minister. That is the proposition we are discussing and it is true. My opponent concedes I am correct, " you are correct that Tony Blair was a good British Prime Minister". If all propositions are true then Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister. The debate topic is, Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister. Con has conceded this is the case and therefore has lost the debate.
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

I am arguing against the proposition "Tony Blair was a good British Prime Minister." However, that does not prohibit me from recognizing the evidence there is that supports the proposition. In my view, although you are correct that Tony Blair was a good British Prime Minister, I am also correct that Tony Blair was not a good British Prime Minister. So the debate will end as a tie. Whether you believe all propositions are true is another matter. If you don't believe it, then you should be able to show me where I'm wrong in my reasoning that all propositions are true. If you can't show me where I'm wrong in my reasoning that all propositions are true, it seems you have no choice but to believe that all propositions are true. I'm the one debating in a riskier fashion. I'm the one "putting all my eggs in one basket." You have potential here to really take me down and prove your point. Now comes your last chance.
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

If both propositions are true then I still win the debate. You are supposed to be arguing against the proposition, "Tony Blair was good Prime Minister". But my opponent concedes that this proposition is correct. He must therefore argue that the proposition, "Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister" is untrue. I have never claimed to be arguing that the proposition, "Tony Blair was not a good Prime Minister" is incorrect. He must either argue that the proposition "Tony Blair was a good Prime Minister", is incorrect of forfeit the debate.
Tony Blair Was A Good British Prime Minister

I agree that you could argue "Tony Blair was a good British Prime Minister" because that is also a proposition. However, that argument does not overcome my side of the debate. I agree that I initiated both of the debates I cited. I do appear to have lost both of them through the votes of other Debate.org members. However, I initiated both of the debates I cited does not imply in principle, I'm wrong that all propositions are true. Additionally, I lost both of the debates I cited through the votes of other Debate.org members does not imply in principle, I'm wrong that all propositions are true. I believe my argument about all propositions being true is sound. You have not successfully defeated my argument, yet at least. You may not like every argument that is put before you. But just because you don't like an argument, doesn't mean it's not a sound argument. In principle, your side and my side of this debate are equally correct.