BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S.A was stronger then the USSR during WW2 (1944)

While there's plenty of arguments regarding the nations strengths and weaknesses. I find this argument too specific to find a good case against, or for the con. To specifically claim that the United States was stronger than the USSR in a specific year is hard to find credible sources against this statement when it's commonly accepted for this. While I wish it weren't true, I find no contradiction or valid counter arguments that really mean anything in this debate. Say it ain't so, but this is an official forfeiture of the debate. I see no leads for the con's argument, and thus request this debate be cancelled and removed. I would like to sincerely thank the opponent for taking the time to debate this, and sincerely apologize to that opponent for there is not enough credible evidence to make a claim against the debate. Once again, thank you for your time. This is an official forfeiture, and should either be a cancelled debate or an automatic win by the opponent.
U.S.A was stronger then the USSR during WW2 (1944)

Very interesting, and good points. "While there's no denying the high amounts of production by the United States; the argument provokes the question on how much that production actually costs?" After the war the U.S. had a period of economic prosperity lasting until the 1970s. Creating a large, well educated middle class, and raising the standard of living for the country. Which a higher level of average wages levitates the governments taxes helping to fill their coffers. See source 1. "A lot of the airships and tanks made by the USSR were much more tactical and successful in stealth, mobility, and overall functioning." In air combat whoever holds altitude holds the advantage, that's how U.S planes worked high altitude escorts and strategic bombers. The Soviets believed in the other end of the spectrum. When the first allied bombs fell on Moscow and more importantly the industry east of the Urals many Soviet planes would be diverted to intercepting American escort fighters, in an environment where the soviets had no business being in. But the U.S. had a very capable Tactical Air Fleet (Seven Ton Milk Jug anyone?) Not to mention it's just over a 2:1 ratio. The VVS would be outclassed in this "doctrinal vacuum". "While the Russians no doubt could have used the assistance of the United States with the Lend Lease, it certainly wasn't necessary." According to Wiki, American Lend-Lease to the USSR amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles, 11,400 aircraft, and 1.75 million tons of food. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) "but since Russia was practically slaughtering German invasion without any assistance" The Soviets had an estimated 8,800,000- 10,700,000 combat deaths.(2) The Germans had about 4,000,000, I believe it was actually the Germans slaughtering the Soviets.(3) " I am not sure what my opponent is comparing." I am comparing the average fighting power, for example this statistic is referring to the Germans capability to take no less than seven Russian Divisions of comparable size when the Germans were on the defensive. Sources (https://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://www.nationalww2museum.org...) (https://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)#Casualties)
U.S.A was stronger then the USSR during WW2 (1944)

My opponent has provided very strong arguments to show how the industrial capacity and production in the United States were to the USSR's in the United States. I heavily disagree and even counter-argue that the industrial capacity of the United States was too big for it's own good, in fact hurting the country. To achieve this, I will go forth and rebuttal each of my opponents arguments in the order he presented them. 1 & 2. My opponent states that the United States had a much greater mass production rate than any other country during World War II, especially the Soviet Union or USSR. My opponent then provides statistics of plane weaponry and resource materials. While there's no denying the high amounts of production by the United States; the argument provokes the question on how much that production actually costs? When the United States entered World War II, it went 3 years with spending less than 16% of GDP and federal spending for defenses and production. In two years this jumped to an alarming 36%. The Soviet Union spent only about 190$ Billion for wartime, while the United States spent nearly 300$ Billion in wartime. Furthermore, bigger is not always better. A lot of the airships and tanks made by the USSR were much more tactical and successful in stealth, mobility, and overall functioning. The USSR already had a Rocket Program before the Manhattan project was launched. 3. While the Russians no doubt could have used the assistance of the United States with the Lend Lease, it certainly wasn't necessary. The Russians economy simply needed production help. The locomotives and aircrafts provided were transportational help, but since Russia was practically slaughtering German invasion without any assistance, it is safe to say that without support to Russia; it still would be plausible that the war would turn out how it did. The aid to Britian and France were much more essential due to the much weaker Britian and France army. 4. I am not sure what my opponent is comparing. How German combat worked against the west compared to the East? I would like my opponent to clarify this more so I can give a more clear argument. Sources: http://www.macrotrends.net... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.quora.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
U.S.A was stronger then the USSR during WW2 (1944)

Alright, thanks for accepting! Before I begin I beg that you do not forfeit any rounds as that always is a downer but anyway... The U.S was easily the strongest nation of all countries during the year of 1944. Why? You may ask, well it is because of: 1. The American home land is resource rich producing territory, only America was the true mass-producer of WWII. The U.S. was able to produce 1.8 Billion tons of Aluminum during the year of 1943, in which production then reached its max during march of 1944. Also producing steel at over 80 million tons, 1.2 Billion tons of refined copper, and 600 thousand Long tons of rubber, all during the year of 1944, just to name a few resources. See source 1. 2. Now on to aircraft the United States produced 96,318 aircraft of various types during 1944, while the Russians "only" produced 40,300, there were instances of Soviet pilots and U.S. pilots mistaking each other for Germans and engaging in aerial battle (see https://en.wikipedia.org...), losses where pretty much equal therefore it would be a war of attrition in which the one with greater numbers would be favored. But that is not taking into effect the fact that soviet Yaks lost performance at altitudes above 15,000 feet, in which P-38 Mustangs Excelled. And to loose air superiority is devastating, demonstrated by the Germans on the western front. See source 2. 3. The Soviet Union needed Lend-Lease or else it would not have been so successful. The U.S. supplied millions of tons of equipment to the Soviets throughout the war, an end to lend lease would have meant an end to Stalin. 4. The best way we can compare the American fighting man to the Soviet is by comparing German feats against its two enemies. Germans were able to wrestle control of the air to support operations on the eastern front, while American air superiority was overwhelming and permanent. A German Division combat ability was 20-30% more effective than divisions on the Western Front, while being 50% more effective on the Eastern Front. See source 3. Sources: http://ibiblio.org... http://www.nationalww2museum.org... http://ww2-weapons.com...
Students should not be forced to go to school

I accept your challenge, Thank you. Students should not be forced to go to school for one reason. Choice. Every student and every person is an individual human being and controls their own destiny. As it stands (at least in the United States) it is the law that students must go to school. This is a breach of freedom for two fundamental reasons. A. Unless I have entered into a social contract with the government it has no authority over me, Therefore any laws it imposes on me are null. I have not consented to be governed. To enforce laws onto an someone who has not even consented to be in your society breaches the individual's free will and their own autonomy as a human being. B. As previously mentioned it violates freewill and more importantly forcing education upon students is a form on legislating morals. It is simply the government's (or oppressor's) opinion that a student should to school. There is nothing inherently unethical or dangerous about not going to school. Therefore, No one should be forced to go to school, For the student should have just as much of say in their life as the enforcers do in their own.
Music has a connection to all humans' soul

Philosophy of music is the study of fundamental questions about the nature of music and our experience of it. Music plays a central role in many people's lives. Music is perhaps the art that presents the most philosophical puzzles. Music's emotional expressivity is a philosophical problem since the paradigm expressers of emotions are psychological agents, who have emotions to express. Neither pieces of music, nor performances of them, are psychological agents, thus it is puzzling that such things could be said to express emotions. There is a saying by Heinrich Heine that "Where words leave off, music begins. " . thus Music has always been a matter of Energy to us , a question of Fuel. Sentimental people call it Inspiration, but what they really mean is Fuel. we have always needed Fuel. Most of us are a serious consumer. On some nights we still believe that a car with the gas needle on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. Music is the soul criterion behind the success of so called development of human beings. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Music has a connection to all humans' soul

Pro hasn't justified how music can connect with the soul, nor he has given a rebuttal to my arguments. Albert Einstein and other geniuses weren't musicians, were they? The music and the brain's relation is a bare assertion, and it doesn't pertain to the resolution, for the brain is not the soul. Plus, do you mean to imply that before the invention of music, man lacked a brain? From what we know about the human race, there wasn't a time when we lacked such a fundamental organ in our structure. Even the smallest of animals have a brain, and show elementary signs of intelligence. I argue that the practices of hunting, farming, building shelter and using fire had started much before the invention of music, and these activities require intelligence. Plus, if I like transformers to the extreme, doesn't mean that it will connect with my soul. The soul is the immaterial part of our human body (according to the definition), and no things material will be able to connect with it. Sounds, smells, sights are all part of the material world.
Music has a connection to all humans' soul

No, I disagree that music has a connection to all human's soul as music is a man-made invention, meaning there was a time when man lived without music. Furthermore, there are some people like me who dislike music. The resolution requires that all humans' like music. Plus, it isn't necessary that our likes and dislikes connect with our soul. Our likes/dislikes would have to be extremely strong to form any connection with the soul, if it exists. Not everyone is a diehard fan of music. Would my soul have a connection with the transformers just because I like them? Music, like everything else, belongs to this material world, and nothing can connect with the immaterial soul. While all cultures have some or the other type of music, it isn't necessary that everyone likes it. Music may connect with our brain, our mind, our emotions, but it can't connect with our soul. Why? Because music belongs to this world, and as time passes, it too evolves.
Music has a connection to all humans' soul

Thank you my friend For challenging me on this debate in this New One . You said Music is separate than all humans soul Ithink you are wrong. Music moves people of all cultures, in a way that doesn"t seem to happen with other animals. Nobody really understands why listening to music " which, unlike sex or food, has no intrinsic value " can trigger such profoundly rewarding experiences.A poet tells us the soul "comes from afar trailing clouds of glory," and many musical composers have endeavored to inspire us with their perception of the refining process of earth life. Music is a subtle, suggestive medium of communication, inevitably open to many interpretations depending upon the interpreters, their thought patterns and cultural heritage. Profoundly devotional natures, whatever their backgrounds, would be bound to "tune in" upon the music of the spheres, and experience deep within themselves the moving contact of the outer self with the inner soul or spirit. Music itself does not know the barriers built into the many languages and dialects we have. It leaps over all cultural patterns, transmitting its own inherent meaning, regardless of the mental prisms that color the impacts. Though no two people may feel the identic reactions, the effects take place, whether it is a rhythmic response in the lesser part of ourselves, or the depths of the soul or spirit that are affected in a way that is beyond words to describe.Our human minds and of course you gonna think of our soul gets moved by listening music and ou emotions get out.
Instead of letting transgender students use what ever sports team or bathroom they want we should...

What you want is to tell people that trans genders are FORCED to use a bathroom or join a sports team based on their physical appearance. Who's to say that that is any different than forcing them to use a bathroom based on their born "gender". It isn't. Trans genders should be able to use whatever bathroom or whatever sports team they choose more comfortable in. A "nonker" isn't going to always see testicles. I don't know about the bathrooms you go to but people don't usually walk around the bathroom naked. So the chances of "nonkers" seeing a trans gender's testicles is very rare unless they're peaking under the stall. Now on to sports teams. You say that they divide teams by gender because of their physical ability. I am very weak. I am a male. I have very little physical ability. So by your standards if I want to join a, let's say, baseball team based on my physical ability I'd have to be on a softball team? I find that very hard to believe. I believe that the only reason why they separate the boys from the girls or "kronkers" from "Nonkers" is that they feel like a girl (or "nonker") has way less abilities than the boys (kronkers). So, what I'm saying is, if a trans gender student has a "nonker" body then they should be able to join a male team if they are more comfortable with that.
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

Fine if you want me to rebuddle your useless garbage then i will. although i still dont know if your taking this seriously or not. Anyway, my job was not to refute YOUR points. Actually it was the opposite. I gave you my criteria for what should be debated, and two rounds into this now you have still failed to acknowledge any of my points about the guns or the killstreaks. I cant really debate with you if there is nothing argued by you
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

As my opponent never refutes my points or back his up, he essentially agrees with me. And my point about nukes being DAbOMB is pretty much a non-sequitur: it had nothing to do with this debate. Zerg rush>Nukes>Flimsy CoD:MW2 metal rods that propels lead at high speeds. <3
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

I disagree. The nuclear bomb in Starcraft is quite the weapon. Not only can you surprise people with a cloaked ghost, but it also is literally DA BOMB. Zergling Rush>Nukes any day, anyways. 4 drone, Spawning Pool, 6 ling, your opponent says GG.
In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

As clearly stated in the title, i want tot debate 2 things about Mw2. i want to debate 2 of the guns and two of the killstreak rewards. My arguments are: 1. The ACR is better than the Tar 21 for many reasons. The ACR has FAR less Recoil. Therefore your shots are more accurate. The ACR is unlocked at a higher level than the Tar-21 (ACR unlocked at 48-Tar-21 unlocked at 20) therefore showing that the game developer Infinity Ward also believes that the ACR is a better weapon. 2. The Chopper Gunner is worse than the Ac130. This is also for many reasons. First let me make it clear that both killstreaks are unlocked after getting an 11 killstreak (10 with hardline). When piloting the chopper gunner, you are very low to the ground in most cases. So when playing maps such as Skidrow often times your vision is blocked by towering buildings or corners of buildings. Thus minimizing the amount of kills you may get when operating the vehicle. Another large problem that occurs with the Chopper Gunner is the movement involved when shooting its guns. The Ac130 is virtually still when its guns are being fired. This is quite the contrary for the Chopper Gunner, for when you shoot it has notable recoil, and the Helicopter itself is always moving constantly, making it difficult to get a clean shot off. These are the Arguments i posted, but if for any reason my opponent wants to add any additional arguments, then so be it. But i would like my posted Arguments to be answered. Good Luck
It is likely that a God or gods exist

Is it likely that a God or gods exist? I am not interested in a semantic debate. By God or gods, I do not refer to a specific monotheistic Judeo-Christian conception of God. Rather, I use a more general, commonplace definition in which gods are either supernatural creators of the universe or even simply supernatural entities that are responsible for a specific aspect of the universe (for example, Poseidon is the god of the ocean, or Mars is the god of war). That is not to say that God cannot possess attributes such as being omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. Rather, Pro does not necessarily need to establish both that the creator of the universe exists and that he possesses characteristics ascribed to him by Judeo-Christian theologians and philosophers. Both Pro and Con share the burden of proof. Pro must make arguments for the existence of a God or gods. Con must make arguments against the existence of a God or gods as defined in this debate.
There is no logical reason why gay marriage should be banned

All your arguments have an inherent flaw and that's that they assume homosexual marriages will always be small in percentage compared to heterosexual marriage and so wouldn't disturb society at large. In fact, this assumption itself indicates that you consider this type of relationship an exception and not norm. Let's say, for a moment, we assume that logically there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriages. Now it means we should not have any issue if everyone around opts for that type of relationship. But if you think logically, this is indeed not the case. Homosexual relationships are against the natural law of reproduction and so they can't sustain our species. Well, now just to survive our species, lets say people of opposite sex come together and gave birth to children. But this type of reproduction system doesn't ensure proper support system to younger generation that existing family-system provides; and which is based on heterosexual relationship. In heterosexual relationship, a kid gets required support from it's parents because it belongs to them -- there is a natural bond of love that ensure this support. Now there are cases where kids are grown up by parents who are not really the biological parents but those are again exceptions and not norm. And when making a logical choice, norm values more and not a few exceptions. As I mentioned in R1, human society is based on the concept of family system. Now yes, there might be species which do not have family system in their worlds but as an intelligent species, human beings have accepted family-system because we see a value in it. And the family cycle is driven by heterosexual marriages as it leads to next generation and ensures required support in their forming years. Having sex is different than marriage. If two homosexuals have sex then that fact itself doesn't disturb the family system. But when we consider marriages between two people of same gender, it certainly affects the well-established family-system. Now again, if we see the nature's recommendation, then it suggests a sexual relationship between a man and a woman as this relationship is further conformed to our reproduction system -- which is a very essence of survival for any species. So whether we think naturally or logically, homosexual marriages don't make sense.