BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Republics Clone Army Is Far Superior To The Imperials Storm trooper Army

I mean you can't really say that the Old Republic would defeat the Empire in a ground war without taking into consideration all the tooth to tails concepts that go into making ground operations work (like funding, training, logistics, morale, leadership, alliances, etc, etc,). So the Death Stars are a huge imperial advantage here." I completely agree, in an all out war against the republic, if both sides were at full possible strength, the empire would completely decimate the republic, take out the separatists along the way, and still feel well enough protected to leave their door unlocked when they leave the house. However, comparing the technology of the two armies is completely futile. The both of them are in completely different time periods, as well as that a lot of the storm troopers technology is further enhancements on clone technology. For example the storm trooper"s AT-AT walker and E-11 blaster rifle. both of them are new, more advanced versions of the clone armies AT-TE walker and DC15A blaster rifle. Technology wise the Empire is always going to trump the clone army and there is no point in comparing the two. I still stand to my belief that if we were to strip a storm trooper of his guns and armour, then strip a clone of his guns and armour, the clone would destroy the storm trooper in all aspects. As I have stated before clones are literally bred for war, trained since birth around their trusted brothers to become the epitome of a great soldier. The technology of their time is their ultimate downfall, that and the lack of resources and good leadership during the Clone Wars. One question, just to see if it is possible for us to come to a general consensus on something, I firmly believe that the forces of the First Order could not only defeat but destroy the clone army and every other significant army in the star wars franchise (e.g. The Droid army, The Imperial army). Opinion? And yes I do realize the First Order came from the Imperial army but this is all hypothetical.
The Republics Clone Army Is Far Superior To The Imperials Storm trooper Army

Holy crap! That hurst my eyes dude.But yeah, I mean you can't really say that the Old Republic would defeat the Empire in a ground war without taking into consideration all the tooth to tails concepts that go into making ground operations work (like funding, training, logistics, morale, leadership, alliances, etc, etc,). So the Death Stars are a huge imperial advantage here.As far as just storm troopers vs clones go, I still think Darth Vader is pretty relevant, as he is the one who will lead the storm troopers. However, in terms of just ground equipment and vehicles, I think the walkers have always been considered the best assualt transports in star wars. Compared to the AT-TE, the AT-AT has much thicker armour, more powerful laser cannons, and could carry more troops.
The Republics Clone Army Is Far Superior To The Imperials Storm trooper Army

Your completely forgetting the point of this debate. This is to see which of the two armies would win in a ground war.No, I think you're sort of forgetting how fighting wars -to include supporting ground forces- in star wars actually works. A clone army is at a serious disadvantage once Kamino (the cloning headquarters and supply center of the clone army) gets knocked out by the Death Stars or Imperial Fleets. Once that's taken care of, how long is it then that a clone army simply loses by war of attrition and for lack of resupply? As can you can see then, the Imperial Army is vastly better equipped with far more powerful enabling space-tech and superweapons that can dictate the terms & conditions of any ground war.You'll also remember that the Death Stars serve as a moon size mobile headquarters for the Grand Moffs and Imperial Joint Chiefs. This means then that the Imperial Army -with the Death Stars- has a vastly superior platform for command & control, The first was fired once before its destruction, then the second wasn't even completed before the rebels destroyed it. This is true. But there's no evidence that a fleet, army, or planet from the clone wars era could ever survive an attack by the Death Star.Secondly, darth vader does not lead the imperial army. Completely false. During raids Vader personally leads the 501st legion, but his actual position in the imperial hierarchy is 2nd in command of the imperial military to the Emperor himself (http://starwars.wikia.com...). The strategic make up, tactics, organization, and overall strategies of the imperial army therefore (to include leading ground operations like the Battle of Hoth), are largely contributed by Vader himself. In contrast to Anakain Skywalker, when Anakin tried to get a leadership seat on the Jedi council, he wasn't even given the title of master. your also forgetting the elite clone troopers who could take on and beat a jedi quite easily.You're also forgetting that the imperial army also had the Imperial Royal Guard. When they weren't protecting the Emperor, elite members where trained to confront jedi.Dark Troopers > Average Clone TrooperImperial Guard > Jedi
The Republics Clone Army Is Far Superior To The Imperials Storm trooper Army

Your completely forgetting the point of this debate. This is to see which of the two armies would win in a ground war. Not who led them or the strength of there fleets. Incase that doesn't float your boat let me just say that "supported by the Death Stars" is not quite true, considering there was only ever two built. The first was fired once before its destruction, then the second wasn't even completed before the rebels destroyed it. Secondly, darth vader does not lead the imperial army. Instead he leads a small portion of it called the 501st regiment or "vader's fist". Which was in fact as much as 25% clones, showing darth vader still believed clones to be efficient. Also yes, dark troopers would beat your average clone but then your also forgetting the elite clone troopers who could take on and beat a jedi quite easily. Elite clones=Dark troopers.
The Republics Clone Army Is Far Superior To The Imperials Storm trooper Army

The death stars are not actually a design of the imperials but rather of the separatists. After the clone wars the imperials stole the death star plans and made it themselves. The Soviets actually stole blueprints for their atomic bombs from the United States, but that doesn't mean that Red Army was ever inferior to Canada and Mexico. Also, just because the original plans were stolen, doesn't mean that the atomic bombs or Death Stars were any less destructive.Also do not forget that Darth Vader also fought with the republic and the clones in the form of anakin skywalker, granted not as cool or powerful but they are still the same man. Not the same person. Darth Vader was a badass Sith-Lord who who inspired fear, terror, and respect throughout the galaxy. Anakin Skywalker however, was a whiny neurotic crybaby, an unlucky Padme lover, and the biggest disappointment the Jedi had ever seen in 29,000 years.storm troopers were put through non-stop, tiring training... which often resulted in storm troopers being mentally unstableBut you forgot to mention that elite storm troopers were eligible to become Dark Troopers. The Dark Trooper Project of course was an advance research program funded by Sidious to develop what would have become next generation of storm troopers & battledroids (http://starwars.wikia.com...). Dark Troopers > Clones.
The Republics Clone Army Is Far Superior To The Imperials Storm trooper Army

The death stars are not actually a design of the imperials but rather of the separatists. After the clone wars the imperials stole the death star plans and made it themselves. The Imperial forces are almost completely comprised of technology stolen from either the separatists or the republic. Also do not forget that darth vader also fought with the republic and the clones in the form of anakin skywalker, granted not as cool or powerful but they are still the same man. The clones are quite literally together in squads for life. They are cloned in pods of 32, these 32 then trained, ate and fought together, having literally been together since birth the clones formed a very strong bond with one another. also the training they were put through was formulated by Jango Fett and other elite mandalorian troops. from the age of 14 future storm troopers were put through non-stop, tiring training, where they were trained to completely disregard fallen allies in battle, which often resulted in storm troopers being mentally unstable by the time they were actually accepted as storm troopers. I will go into detail about the vehicles and weapons used by the clones in my future rounds. Small factoid, after measuring storm troopers throughout the movies, it turns out Mark Hamill is actually tall to be a storm trooper
The Republics Clone Army Is Far Superior To The Imperials Storm trooper Army

Clone Troopers are FAR superior to the Storm troopers in almost all ways. Their armour and vehicles are the only thing weighing them down (in the armours case, quite literally). Lets not forget first of all that technology wise the storm troopers may be advanced only because a lot of their weapons are vehicles are based of the clone armies technology. For example the AT-AT is based off the clone armies AT-ET. The clone armies are put into their own squads and trained to hold each other up and work as a team. In the storm troopers training they are trained to leave an injured man behind and continue with their mission. The influence of the clone armies efficiency is even carried forward into The Force Awakens where the First Order troopers are essentially as clone as you can get to having a clone army without actually cloning. In fact the First Order troops are criticised in the movies I believe and somebody even recommends a clone army before the idea is immediately dismissed. However this debate is about the Imperial storm troopers and the clone army not the first order. I will go into detail about the training and equipment of the clone army in my next few rounds.
Firefly was one of the best shows on Fox and shouldn't have been cancelled.

I have only two points 1. Just because you think it could have made a comeback isn't enough. Obviously, Fox, the company who by law can really do anything with the show, disagreed with you. 2. The fan base of a show is not always indicative of its popularity. Shows may have a devoted fan base, but not a large following outside of that fan base. Just because Firefly had such enthusiastic fans does not suggest that the show will become more popular.
Firefly was one of the best shows on Fox and shouldn't have been cancelled.

Fair enough it might have had poor ratings in the begining but they were gonna cancel it earler than they did but the fans raised money and the ratings and then they completed the series so that shows that the ratings would have gone up, had they kept the series going plus it has an amazing fan base and they made a lot of money on the movie and yet, Fox still killed the idea for the next season
Firefly was one of the best shows on Fox and shouldn't have been cancelled.

I personally have never seen Firefly, although I have heard that it is phenomenal. What I do know is that it had bad ratings near the end of its run, and that's what I'll base my case around. Fox is a company, they want to make money. The way television stations make money is through sales of ad spots. Spots for a popular show are high-priced, as the demand is high, while on an unpopular show, the demand is low, so the prices are low. Firefly unfortunately was not popular enough to be kept on air, so it had to be canceled. Its ratings in 2002 hit 2.4/4 (http://www.storypundit.com...). This is not profitable enough to be kept on air. Even if it was a good show, Fox has no obligation to keep a show that costs them rather than makes them money. So while I don't contend your first part of the resolution, I feel that Fox is allowed to make money, and canceling Firefly was necessary.
Firefly was one of the best shows on Fox and shouldn't have been cancelled.

Also, to win, my opponent has to convince me and/or the general public that Firefly deserved to be cancelled and/or is a shitty show in general. First, Firefly was a show on Fox a while back and it was by far my favorite show pretty much of all time. I have my reasons for this, and I intend to prove each one of them in turn. One: Acting First of all the acting is phenomenal. Nathan Fillion, Adam Baldwin, Alan Tudyk, Jewel Staite, Summer Glau, Gina Torres, Ron Glass, Morena Baccarain, and Sean Maher make up an amazing cast who are all as original as characters can be in this day and age and all have their clever and funny moments. The majority of them have gone on to do many other films or T. V. shows or both, or have done amazing work in the past. Also they all went on to star in an amazing movie based on the film. Two: Writing Joss Whedon was the director of the series and he picked Tim Minear to be his show runner/assistant director and they picked an amazing writing staff who have all written for several shows and even some movies in the past. The writing is original in that it may take from several different styles of film and television but it takes aforementioned styles and combines them into one beautiful style. It found a way to be funny, dramatic, full of action, suspenseful, and sad almost in every episode or throughout the movie. I have never seen a television show that can do all of those emotions and do them well without it being forced and/or well, for lack of a better word, crappy.
animals have rights, just as humans do

I will offer assurance that I do understand where my opponent is coming from. The fact that I do not take it in the intended direction is merely a product of my insanity. 1. If humans and animals do not have all the same rights, than they would not have the some rights. If animals do not have all the rights that humans have, than they would not have just the same rights. The fact that animals cannot use all human rights is not a flaw in my argument, but a fact that obviously supports it. In any case, the ability to experience pain is not necessary a basis on which we extend rights. It may lead to the conclusion that it is immoral to hurt animals but it does not necessary grant them rights, and certain not rights that aren't related to pain or are beyond their ability to use. 2. My opponent may feel that animals are loyal, but animal behavior does not support this. It cannot simply be said that they are loyal despite any actions to the contrary because thier minds are different from those of humans. My oppenent also neglects to address the fact that some animals are too simple to be loyal. The point that rights are not extended on the basis of loyalty is likewise neglected. Conclusion: My opponent's arguments are that loyalty and the ability to feel pain are a basis to extend human rights to animals. Animals are not loyal and neither loyalty nor pain are a basis to extend rights. Furthermore, humans have many rights that animals would not be able to exercise even if they were granted.
animals have rights, just as humans do

Thank you for the prompt reply from my opponent. I am led to believe that my opponent does not quite understand where I am coming from. 1. My opponent assumed that when I said that animals should have the same rights, that I meant all the same rights. But it is obvious there are some rights animals cannot use, due to the fact that they are not human and do not live the same way. The example of pain is just that, and example, it is not the extent of all the situations that should allow an animal to have rights. 2. Animals minds don't quite work the same as our minds, their loyalty is always there, even after defending themselves against what they consider a threat. Just because an animal attacks does not mean it is trying to kill. Once again my opponent assumes such things. Even after a dog bites its owner when being cornered, it will go back and lay on their lap. the only reason they attacked was because they were threatened, not because they wanted to kill. Even after striking out they will still stay loyal and save our lives when need be conclusion: As I stated in this rebuttal I did not state that animals should get ALL the rights that humans get, because there are some that could not be used. The one example that my opponent gave was a right that an animal could clearly not use, therefore it helps his case in no way. I used no sources, like my opponent due to the fact that I am explaining my standpoint so my opponent can understand my stance better. Pain is a small example of reasons animals need rights and my opponent took it as my only example. My case still stands. My opponent never sufficiently argued his case therefore I ask that you the audience, find that animals do deserve the rights that humans deserve.
animals have rights, just as humans do

Thanks to my open for the timely response. However, the resolution that animals deserve the same rights as humans as still not upheld. My opponent does not seem to have understood exactly what I am arguing. 1. The point that animals do not have rights by virtue of being living creatures has not been argued, and silence is consent. Therefore I will assume that it has been conceded. 2. Many animals do feel pain as humans do. I have not in any way failed to understand this However, the resolution is not that animals specifically have the right, for instance, to not be tortured. The resolution is that animals have all the rights humans have. The capacity to feel pain my grant some rights, but it does not grant others. I offered the right of self-determination as an example. Animals do not have the right to establish their own states just because they can feel pain. 3. I used the fact that animals attack us to demonstrate that they are not loyal to humans. If animals attack humans, that is a clear sign they are not loyal. There may be a reason why they attack, but that does not alter the fact that trying to kill someone is a disloyal thing to do. This does not apply to humans that attack us because we do not extent rights to them on the basis that they are loyal. Why would we extent rights on the basis of loyalty anyway? I can safely say that the trees in my yard would never intentionally betray me, but that does not give them human rights Conclusion: My opponent has not argued that animals deserve some of the rights that humans do. My opponent specifically stated that they deserve "the same rights that we have." I have demonstrated a human right (self-determination) that does not apply to animals and explained why the arguments she offered in support of the resolution are invalid. No sources were used in this round because it seems I only had to clarify my points. Being able to feel pain does not give an animal all rights and neither does loyalty. In any case, animals are not universally loyal to humans, as evidenced by the fact that, for whatever reason, they kill people. My opponent has not justified her arguments.
animals have rights, just as humans do

1. Though it is true that not all rights have to do with pain many do, and since this is true than why do animals not have, at the very least, those simple rights? What my opponent fails to notice is that animals are so closely related to us, that they feel the same kind of pain we do, in the same amounts we do, as is shown here: http://www.directessays.com... 2. My opponent also makes the argument that there are animals that attack us. But are there not humans who also attack us? as the site below shows, these animals that do indeed attack, are only doing so out of feel of threat, or simply being egged on by those who feel themselves superior, in this case, humans. http://www.metacafe.com... conclusion: my opponent has not sufficiently disproved my arguments to show that animals do not deserve some of the same rights as humans do. The second point which he stated does not apply I have shown does indeed apply, and the third which my opponent states is not true has a simple and logical explanation.
animals have rights, just as humans do

My opponent's resolution for this argument is that animals have rights, just as humans do. To clarify, this makes the following assertions: A. Animals have rights B. Humans have rights C. Animals and Humans have the same rights I could contend all three of these points, but for the sake of this argument I will concede A and B. My only concern in this debate is to show that my opponent cannot prove that humans and animals have the same rights. As I understand it, my opponent makes the main arguments in support of the resolution: 1. Animals are living creatures 2. Animals feel pain 3. Animals are always loyal to us So in order to satisfy that my opponent cannot prove the resolution, I will have to refute each of these arguments. 1. Plants are living creatures, but they are not given any rights at all. We use them to build houses and make paper. We also kill them and burn their bodies for warmth. They do not seem to have any rights. I doubt anyone would argue for their rights. Bacteria are also living creatures. Attitudes toward bacteria can be seen here: . http://news.thomasnet.com... So, we do not grant a thing rights on the basis of whether or not it is alive. 2. Conceded that most animals do feel pain. However, not all human rights are related to the ability to feel pain. One example of this is the right to self determination. A UN general comment on self determination can be read here for further information: . http://www.unhchr.ch.... I don't think many people would argue that this right ought to be extended to animals. It has nothing to do with pain or suffering. 3. . http://animal.discovery.com... Animals are not always loyal to us. They frequently attack humans. Conclusion: My opponent has not adequately supported the resolution that humans and animals should have the same rights. The first two points do not explain why animals should be extended rights as they do not seem to apply. The third point is simply false.
Would a Correct Form of Socialism Work in The United States of America

As you can see my opponent has not been able to give me an example of a "good correct form of socialism". The reason is that there is no correct form of socialism. Let's just take a look through history and you'll find that the only mildly successful socialist governments were oppressive tyrannical dictatorships or oligarchys. Here are some notable socialist governments throughout history. Nazi germany, fascist Italy, the former Soviet union, Castro cuba, north vietnam, north Korea, and china. They don't sound like fun to me.
Would a Correct Form of Socialism Work in The United States of America

I wish to open up the debate with a question. What do you define as correct good socialism? Would you prefer fascist dictatorship or communist dictatorship because either way communism and socialism can't work in any society without a large, oppressive, and powerful government. That may sound good to you but to me it is a bell that rings the sound of tyranny. Ask anyone from the former Soviet union or modern day china and I bet you they would disagree that there is any good socialism. Karl Marx was wrong.