BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
March for Lives is the Best

There is absolutely no possible way that this can stop any kind of shooting. Yes, it may be a good way to raise awareness, but awareness does not stop suicidal killers. Honestly, having a whole school walk out of class at the same time makes a perfect environment for a school shooting with so many students all over the place. Gun control would not solve this problem very well either, because, if it's made criminal to have weapons, then only the criminals will have them. Criminals, such as shooters. Realistically, the only way to protect against murderers with guns is to have a gun on-hand to protect your friends, family, and fellow citizens. This problem can not be solved by simply marching out of class. People will keep being killed, murdered in cold blood, unless we actually take action to protect ourselves. This "March For Lives" will not save anybody.
Con is more likely to win a debate

They are both interchangeable since resolutions can make the pro act as the con and make the con act as the pro. "calling such a person pro-anything is questionable. "Exactly! sometimes the Pro has to argue either for or against a positive or negative resolution because the wording of resolutions affects who has the burden of proof to fill even if one is pro and one is con. "If he argues 'con' against a resolution he does not agree with, he's really saying that he's pro-something. "In any debate the Pro has to state his views and present arguments to defend them while the con also has to prove his side with his own arguments as well. Both sides have to attack the other sides logic so neither have a distinct advantage.
Con is more likely to win a debate

I don't really mind, but in the future, I will probably enforce my rules. Onto my counter argument. When arguing against something, that should be defined as con. My opponent describes a situation where pro's premise argues against socialism. Ergo, calling such a person pro-anything is questionable. As for going second, the author's true resolution will always be pro-something. If he argues 'con' against a resolution he does not agree with, he's really saying that he's pro-something.
Con is more likely to win a debate

"the pro side has to prove their ideas are logical"Not necessarily. The Pro and the Con of any debate have to prove their side to any argument equally because debate resolutions can be framed both ways. If pro argues "Socialism is bad" then the pro only has to show why socialism is bad whereas the con has to both defend socialism while also poking holes in the pro's arguments. If con argues "Socialism is good", then as con he would be against socialism, the same as pro in the debate "socialism is bad" which means that con has to prove his case while the pro now has to defend capitalism and attack con's arguments. Point is, resolutions make the role of the pro and the con interchangeable, meaning that being pro or con does nto influence chances of winning"con has the gift of responding to pro instead of vice versa."Thats just flat out untrue for any and all debates where the instigator is the con and the pro accepts the debate to respond to the con.
The USSR was the most valuable Ally in WWII

OK, I apologize again for making my debates unclear. When I'm talking about the "smaller countries", I was talking about the non-Tripartite Pact Axis states, such as Hungary and Bulgaria. Why were most of Eastern Europe communist after WWII? Because the Soviet Union controlled all that land during WWII (this excludes Greece). This includes Poland, Hungary, and Romania. The U.S., along with its allies, landed in Normandy, while the Eastern Front was the Axis against the Soviets alone (excluding aid). The USSR was extremely valuable because Hitler's actions made it so. It wasn't that the USSR was the most valuable naturally, but so what? The Russians were the most valuable, and we can do nothing but get used to it. History can't be changed. Heroic actions by Soviet troops weakened Germany. That includes a harsh winter. In contrary to your arguments, it requires great value to conquer several countries single-handedly. If the Soviet Union wasn't so valuable, it probably wouldn't have succeeded. In the paragraph, I will debunk a common misconception; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to Japan's surrender. That is not necessarily true. In August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria, which shocked the Japanese, leading to surrender. In fact, after the atomic bombings, it wasn't immediate surrender. The Soviet Union played a big role in there as well. Go here to understand the meaning, tune in at 6:37 and look at the Pacific theater: To conclude my debate, I have debunked the common myth that the United States was the biggest hero in WWII. The Soviet Union was. The Soviet Union was the one that conquered East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and made major contributions to the defeat of Finland and Japan. The US, with allied aid, conquered West Germany and Italy, and made itself look like the reason of Japan's surrender, when the real reason of surrender is the Soviet-Japanese War of 1945. Please vote for me, and thank you for reading my speeches. - Billy
The USSR was the most valuable Ally in WWII

Your argument made it seem as if the entire reason why the Russians were the most valuable allies was because of Operation Barbarossa and the Soviet Union's harsh winter. You also stated that the Soviet Union crashed through the smaller countries that were taken over by the Germans first. When I watched the YouTube video, here's what I saw: The USSR watched Germany take over Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Then, when threatened by Germany, they made an effort to get them out of their beloved country. The U.S. was invaded by Japan on the other side of the globe and used the "island hopping" strategy and forced Japan to surrender all by themselves. The U.S. also fought in Africa against the brilliant tank officers from Germany. Then, the U.S. along with the help from Great Britain invaded the beaches of Normandy freeing France, and going further to Germany. If I am not mistaken, they also fought in Italy as well. So the U.S. troops fought and helped defeat all of the Axis powers while the Soviet Union sat there, and took over the smaller countries while the other countries did the heavy lifting. Finally, the 8.6 million Soviet casualties is impressive, but when you consider that many died because of starvation, and of hypothermia it doesn't make them look so good. Also, while the other Allies were helping free prisoners from force labor camps, the Soviets were making their own in Siberia. https://answers.yahoo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The USSR was the most valuable Ally in WWII

Okay, I admit, that I made the "WWII Every Day" phrase seem unclear. Here's a link to see the battlegrounds every day: If you have seen that YouTube video, you could see that the Soviet Union crashed through Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Other than shipments, the Soviet Union had to force their way through the land all by themselves. The United States had its allies to land in Normandy Beach. Yes, Operation Barbarossa was Hitler's mistake. Nevertheless, Stalin weakened the Germans. Think about it this way. The Russian Empire, Soviet Union, or Russian Federation has a natural lethal weapon: a brutal winter. Unprepared for the upcoming winter, Hitler charged into Soviet territory, with Soviet heroism in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Nazis weren't the only group that fell into this trap, More than 100 years ago, Napoleon's unsuccessful invasion of Russia led to his abdication. Well, to wrap it all up, I'll make another statement: More than 8.6 million Soviet militants died in the war, but Russia had a broad victory over Germany in 4 years.
The USSR was the most valuable Ally in WWII

I am willing to agree that the Soviet Union was a good ally during WWII, but I am no willing to accept that the Soviets were our best ally. It simply doesn't make sense. First of all, the Soviet Union didn't really join the Allies until Germany invaded the country. Even before that, Stalin had even signed a Non-Aggression pact with Hitler for peace. That means that at first, the Soviet Union wanted and had nothing to do with Germany's empire. Also, they were also invading other countries. The second reason why I disagree with this statement, is that the United States was the real power. They fought Japan in the Pacific Ocean while fighting the Germans in Europe. They had the weapons supplies, and the right men for the job. They dropped two atomic bombs on Japan ending the war there. I also never recall ever hearing anything about the Russian advance on D-day; It was the British, French, and American forces. The Russian missions must have been insignificant or top-secret. "If you see a WWII Every Day type of things, you can see the Soviet Union did a ton of work for the Allies, and made it look easy. In a matter of 43 months, the Soviet Union went from 25 km from receiving its Nazi fate to conquering the Axis." This statement is false. The Soviets never conquered the Axis they may have won small, insignificant battles, but overall, never took over the entire Axis power. The U.S. advanced using the "island hopping" teqnuiques, and ended the war with two atomic bombs. As well as the fact that the U.S. liberated the troops under German rule in France. there is no way that the Russians could have done anything more significant than that. When Hitler made the terrible mistake of opening up two fronts and attacking the Russians, it was Hitler's mistake. Not Russian blood, sweat, tears, and success. There is no way that the Russians were our best ally in WWII.
The USSR was the most valuable Ally in WWII

Hello, I'm Billy. If you're a British or French person, you may have heard this from an American: "We saved your butt in WWII." As an American, it may sound irony, but I disagree. Many Americans don't realize how powerful the Soviet military was. Before I get into that, I'll list the Allies and the Axis states. Allies (combatants): Soviet Union, United States, United Kingdom, China, Poland, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, Brazil, Cuba, Philippines, Mongolia, Finland (1945), Iraq (1941-1945) Axis: Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Thailand, Finland (1941-1944), Iraq (1941) The Soviet Union borders or is relatively close to Germany. Italy, Finland, Japan, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. All Axis states were affected by Soviet intervention except for Thailand (Japan was affected near the end of the war). If you see a WWII Every Day type of things, you can see the Soviet Union did a ton of work for the Allies, and made it look easy. In a matter of 43 months, the Soviet Union went from 25 km from receiving its Nazi fate to conquering the Axis. I admit though, not everything was great at the end, when Eastern Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and other Eastern European countries had communist governments established. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union was still crucial to making the war lasting less than 6 years. Without the USSR, the war could've dragged on for a much longer time.
The Chicken came before the egg

The Chicken came before the egg. Whichever reason you believe in, argue against that one: 1. Creationism- When God created the earth, he said something and it was created. IN the beginning, he created animals. It doesn't say he created eggs. It said he created animals. So chickens appeared. Then chickens got "married" and had eggs. So in summary, chickens came then eggs. 2. Big Bang- The Big Bang Theory is the theory that nothing came into something with an explosion. So there was a *bang* and whalah(flourish) there were things on the earth; including chickens. It happened with bang and again the chickens had little eggs and so on. So the chicken came first. End of story.
The Chicken came before the egg

Why would he have wasted the time to make the egg when he could have just created a chicken first to produce the eggs? It would have saved steps for a new generation: My Way: chicken, egg, chicken Your Way: egg, chicken, egg, chicken. 3-4, Less steps=better (I win). If we are going to talk about God then I'll end with this. He created the whole world in 7 days so he was pretty big on time management. Because of this, he would have done the faster version which as we can see above is the chicken being first.
On balance, the UK made the correct decision in voting to leave the European Union.

This debate is Round 2 of Tejretics's Summer Tournament. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and wish him good luck going forward.RulesNo Kritiks.No Trolling.No Google Docs, all arguments must be presented in text in the debate.All sources shall be presented in the text of this debate. No new arguments in the final Round unless it is Pro responding to a new argument brought up by Con in the previous round. Use sportsman like conduct in this debate. My opponent's acceptance of this debate shall be his consent to the waiving of his rights to contest any definitions that are defined or have yet to be defined in this debate. No semantics.Violation of any of these rules, or the structure of this debate shall result in an automatic forfeiture of the debate.StructureR1: Terms and definitions by Pro, acceptance by Con. R2: Opening arguments on each side.R3: Rebuttals.R4: Rebuttals and conclusions. DefinitionsOn ballance- With all things considered.UK- Nation consisting of England, Scottland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and colonies. Correct- to set or make true, accurate, or right; remove the errors or faults from [1]Decision- the act or process of deciding; determination, as of a question or doubt, by making a judgment [2]EU- an association of European nations formed in 1993 for the purpose of achieving political and economic integration. Incorporating the European Community, the European Union's member states are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. [3] Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...)2. (http://tinyurl.com...)3. (http://tinyurl.com...)
On balance, the UK made the correct decision in voting to leave the European Union.

My opponent is very vague here talking about. The UK has been the only nation that's even voted on leaving the EU let alone actually left. My opponent then has moved into talking about the potential loss of economic clout in the market place. The EU allows nations that leave the EU to set-up trade deals with other nations before they leave [1]. Do keep in mind the UK is still in NATO, WTO, and the UN. The UK still has plenty of say in many world events and even those in Europe. The Scotland second leave vote is just a scar tactic. Even though many people claim they will, many British politicians show that they have given their mandate already to show that they want to remain in the UK and leaving won't be close to a reality and if it does occur, this would harm the democratic process [2]. The EU has also stated that if Scotland had left the UK, they wouldn't gain access to the EU immidiately [3]. This would detter a great probability of the second vote as they wouldn't be able to get back in as quick. As for the 2/3's vote. Maybe that could be, but that isn't what the debate is about. The fact is still that democracy had won out in the end and they made a decission. Do keep in mind that the UK has yet to actually leave the EU. 2/3's is quite hard to achieve in a popular election. There hasn't been many US Presidential elections that has even touched that number. Sources1. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (. http://tinyurl.com...)
On balance, the UK made the correct decision in voting to leave the European Union.

United we stand....I wonder how leaving the European Union would be a correct decision. Remember all those countries that split and realised painfully that somehow the whole was bigger than sum of the parts?UK could lose being the preeminent leader in the financial markets. They could lose their clout in the decision making process in Europe / World. List of losses could be elephantine. However, they will achieve the bit of limiting the number of immigrants. But, I thought immigrants brought in some advantages. Well, thats another debate.Another related point is of Scotland. Scotland seem to be interested in staying with the EU. Their voice for another referendum is strengthened by this "Leave" vote. Are they ready to separate from Scotland, which is endowed with resources? Crucial question.I read an interesting article. It argued that such important matters should not be decided by a simple majority. It should be mandatory for at least two thirds of the population to side such a crucial decision. Many could have voted due to high emotional upheavals during the campaign. There is a possibility that many people do not understand the far reaching consequences of these complex situations. Again, thats another debate.Are they moving from being Great Britain to Little England!!!? Only time will tell.
Taxation

Taxation is, in essence, government appropriation of funds. These funds are then put to use for various purposes, most of which do not benefit the person who obtained the money in the first place. The many expensive welfare programs which result in budget deficit and national debt are funded by taxpayer dollars. The U.S. has had a budget deficit every year since 2002, which speaks of the scope of this issue. dollars, that's $13,000 in taxes. While only making 8 times as much, the rich pay almost 13 times as much in taxes. Not to mention, the poor and middle class receive many benefits that the rich don't need. (goo.gl/VBUzkF) Here's a list of the many welfare programs, adding up to a total cost of over a trillion dollars. As one can see, the rich are clearly getting the short end of the stick, which could potentially discourage people and companies from bringing capital into the country. One example of this is Microsoft's convoluted scheme to evade taxation. Needless to say, tax evasion is very justifiable, and increased government efforts to discourage it would simply lead to less money flowing into the U.S. economy. I would also advocate decreased taxation to bring more money into our country, which could lead for the first time in many year a budget surplus. Sources: http://taxfoundation.org... http://federalsafetynet.com... http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... http://federal-budget.insidegov.com... http://www.seattletimes.com...
The Cleaners

First, a few observations and thoughts: 1) ANYONE who tries to improve the quality of the site by ANY means will be criticized by others for various reasons, both vocally and "in practice." a) This does not mean that we should not still try and improve the community. 2) "Vote-bombing" exists and will continue, probably no matter what anyone does or says. There are simply too many childish, petty, and ignorant users in the community. a) This does not mean that we should not try and stop this trend, or at least curb it. 3) Some members seem to be against "groups" of ANY kind. I personally am against a group that is a voting bloc, i.e. one that votes blindly for or against an ideology or other stance. a) It is not groups themselves that necessarily have this in mind. There are, however, individuals within the groups that will act in this manner of their own initiative, and would/will act like this whether the group existed or not and whether they were/are a member of whatever group. b) As there is soon a feature called "Groups" coming to the site, we should all get used to groups. I do not personally think that The Cleaners as envisioned by Kleptin would be a voting bloc. As he said, it would be more of a Court of Appeals type deal, as well as set the example for voting responsibly and objectively as possible. NO ONE can deny that this is a problem, in as much as voting is concerned. I for one would love the feedback - how are any of us supposed to become better debaters, etc. without constructive criticism. Yes, win percentage is a fairly irrelevant and superficial way of telling how good a debater is. That said, it is not losing that bothers me. However, it would be nice to know WHY people thought I lost (or won). Now, the somewhat controversial CWO was ostensibly NOT a voting bloc. It was created in order to help conservative debaters. A noble cause, indeed. However, it soon deteriorated into that, from all evidence I have seen, because someone felt disrespected/insulted. It is not my wish to bring this controversy back to life. But here we are. The difference I see between the CWO and The Cleaners is that the CWO was secretive and private, and only catered to one ideology, whereas The Cleaners are to be public and open and serve to better both all debaters individually as well as the community as a whole. There are, of course, questions to be answered. As it is Kleptin's idea, he bears the responsibility for answering them, as he has been doing in the comments section. 1) Can we see a more specific idea of the rubric and membership requirements? 2) Can you give a working example of what an action by The Cleaners would look like? 3) Can you guarantee no vote-bombing or abuse of power? If so, how? 4) Will there be anything like an "independent counsel" to oversee The Cleaners if needed? 5) Is the idea for The Cleaners merely a reaction to the CWO? 6) How will the "appeals process" work precisely? That's all I have for now. Back to Kleptin. Britt
The Cleaners

Everyone knows about vote bombing, which is the practice of a small group pouring all their votes with no justification onto one person. Purposes for doing so may range from just wanting to raise each others' percentages to purposely trashing another person's win rate. Whether or not CWO, as made infamous by the other debate, exists to vote bomb or not, one fact is clear: vote bombing exists. I myself have been victim to it several times. The first few by a single person who made several accounts. Logical_Master was also a victim in that case. In addition, I have debated several Early Earth Creationists who, unable to stand their constant losses against me, decided to vote bomb me as well. The most recent case on this site would be after I posted a few statements on the CWO debate criticizing the Instigator, a member of CWO. Today, I wake up to find Tatarize's message in my message box stating "Wow, you got vote bombed just as hard as I did, you went from about 70 wins to 35" Although I have gotten to the point where win rate isn't quite as important anymore, I was shocked to see that both Tatarize and I were victims of such injustice just overnight. Thus, my proposal: I will be forming a group of highly intelligent, unbiased debaters. This group will be large enough to wield significant power, but always with justification. Should any situation arise in which vote-bombing has occurred without any rhyme or reason, The Cleaners shall intervene and put right where there is wrong. There will be harsh guidelines to restrict membership, but this is only to prevent abuse of power. I would like to field questions both in this debate and in the comment section.