BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the Battle of Moscow was won by Hitler, the Second World War would've been won by Germany

Hitler could've asked the Japanese, who seeing Stalin's weakness, would've probably attacked. Look at the facts: France surrendered shortly after losing Paris, Poland after Warsaw and in 1945 Germany after Berlin. Since Moscow can easily be described as the Russian equivalent of Berlin, that proves Russia probably would've surrendered. As for Great Britain, the Home Guard was a joke. Men and women either reaching or during retirement were called in in an attempt to fight an army who had taken Luxembourg, The Hague, Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Brussels, Warsaw and Paris. So you, Con, are underrating the superiority of the Wehrmacht. As for aviation warfare, the Germans had Stukas which could've bombed British air bases, making the fancy Spitfires and Hurricanes useless. As for radar, I'll give Britain that one. There is nothing I could possibly say about radar. And Britain's lack of food and black outs also were a problem. Men and women, though uncommon, got killed by their own people as a result of lack of light and vision. Food shortages in Britain were a massive problem. With America offering little to no help at all against the U-Boats, Britain relied on Canada, whose navy was weaker than any other. Mind you, barely any food was left, so hunger could've been another reason as to why the British could've surrendered to the Germans. Finally, Britain's real army. The Battle of Dunkirk was successful for both sides, but 200,000 British and French soldiers died at Dunkirk protecting the evacuation. So the Germans had beaten then once. What makes you think Britain could not lose again? It had only been a year and a half. As for holding the territories Hitler gained, you're basing that accusation on the fact you believe Hitler didn't care about holding strongpoints. It sounds like you think they would've offered Moscow back to Stalin! No, Hitler would've overloaded defences on Moscow, as well as the French Coast and all other major cities and towns. With that, I hand back to Con.
Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happenening right now.

Well, congratulations! You have once again wasted another one of your speeches. Just to briefly win my point once more, we debate a topic, not the wording of the topic. Ultimately, we argue the speeches that are given. And, since you have yet to attack any one of my arguments from my first speech, I win there. As far as your last argument, you are so far from being wrong that it's not even funny. You have said twice, "...climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." Now once again seeing it, why would we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if global warming is natural, as you tried to claim in your last speech? Your argument is flawed and you have wasted a perfectly good debate by changing the topic. And by the way, even if I was "off topic," which I still don't think I am, you still had lost your first speech because you never argued my points. Since I have proven that you have gone way off topic yourself, I have proven that you believe that global warming is mankind's fault, and you haven't argued anything, this debate is essentially over and I hope that people who vote for this debate will see that my opponent has lost due to his lack of global warming argumentation. Thank you!
Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happenening right now.

>>The first argument in any debate sets the ground for the debating to take place. That is what the topic is for. The topic is a very clear statment, saying that global warming is happening right now. As the Pro, I have to say that it is. As the Con, you have to say it is not. That is what a debate is. The Con cannot just redefine the topic any way they like it. That is what I do, and the topic is very clear. >>you argue that it is mankind's fault and that we need to do something about it. The topic of the debate doesn't set the grounds for the debate, it just presents an idea. You claim that I am saying this. However, no where in my first argument did I say anything about Global Warming being man-kind's fault. I was quoting the US National Academy of Sciences when I said "...climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." This is what the US National Academy of Sciences and 10 other academies of sciences say. That quote is in not saying that global warming is our fault. It is saying that Global Warming is happening and we have to do something about it. This debate is only about whether or not global warming is happening right now. It is not about whether it is man-kind's fault. Again, just in case my opponent did not understand me, the topic is: Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happening right now. It is NOT Global Warming is mankind's fault. My opponent is arguing the latter topic, but this debate is about the first topic. Therefore, throughout this entire debate, my opponent has not been debating the topic. For my argument, go to the first speech. Thank you
Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happenening right now.

The first argument in any debate sets the ground for the debating to take place. As you stated, "...climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." Because you mentioned that mankind needs to take prompt action to prevent this phenomenon, you argue that it is mankind's fault and that we need to do something about it. The topic of the debate doesn't set the grounds for the debate, it just presents an idea. I merely had refuted your argument and you have just wasted an argument trying to be stubborn. If you really want to start a good debate, watch your beginning argument a little closer. Thank you. PS - There is nothing that mankind can do to prevent such a monumental event. Vote littlelacroix in the voting period! :-)
Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happenening right now.

Throughout your entire first argument, you never debated about the topic. The topic is "Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happening right now." The topic is NOT "Global Warming is caused by mankind." You have been arguing about a totally different topic. The grounds for argumentation were stated in the topic. You must argue that Global Warming is not happening right now. You have not done that. All you have done is help me with your arguments showing that global warming is happening, and therefore I have nothing to refute. Thank you
Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happenening right now.

Before we can really begin this debate, I must set the grounds for the argumentation. Even though the topic just states global warming, in my opponents argument, he mentions that we must cut the emissions of greenhouse gases and thus, my entire argument will be based on whether global warming is due to human or natural causes. I will now argue my three main points: 1. On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history. 2. Carbon dioxide emissions do not correlate with the higher temperature. Around 115,000 years ago, the Earth was in it's warmest phase on record, yet the carbon dioxide levels were among the lowest ever recorded. If that isn't enough to convince you, over the last 200 or so years, the carbon dioxide levels have sky-rocketed, mainly due to mankind, yet the temperature has only risen a half a degree Celsius. So, if we're in a period of warming and mankind has given off so much carbon dioxide, then why has the Earth's temperature only risen a half a degree Celsius? It just goes to prove that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide and the temperature. 3. Finally, during the mid 1990's, two Danish researchers, Henrik Svennsmark and Eigil Friis, had hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover, thus, more cosmic radiation, more cloud cover. Clouds actually cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about twenty percent of incoming solar radiation back into space. The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the sun's magnetic field which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures. The influx in cosmic radiation may have cause the recent spike in temperature in recent years and may have been a factor during the time when Earth had temperatures this high as well.
Global Warming is a phenomenon that is happenening right now.

Also, I would like to ask everyone who will vote to vote based upon who made the better argument, and rebutted their opponent's arguments better. Please do not vote in this debate based upon your own opinions and beliefs. Thank you. Now to the debate: Global warming is a true phenomenon recognized by experts all around the world. For instance, the US National Academy of Sciences once issued a report with 10 other National Academies of Science with a quote saying, "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. " In other words, they accept that global warming is happening, and we have to do something about it. This is my only argument for this round, and I await my opponent. Thank you.
It is ok for men to marry multiple women. Women should only have 1 husband.

My opponent has ignored my first contention. He has only argued that men and women are not equal, but has not properly applied this logic to the specific case of polygamy. He has effectively forfeited this point. "My opponent seems a bit insensitive to alternative lifestyles. " I am not insensitive. I have no problem with alternative lifestyles in general; but I do have a problem with ones that are harmful. Contention 2 "Show me the proof in this contention and I will argue against it. " There is no such thing as proof; I assume that my opponent means "evidence". For really good evidence, we'd need a study, and I do not thing there have been any studies on the relationship between marriage and turmoil. But I will provide some logic to support it. In this day and age, when Sally is in love with Tom, she wants to spend her life with him. She wants them to form a deep relationship between herself and him. But when she finds out that Tom is seeing another woman, her deep sadness is only matched by her anger. And this is exactly what happens when polygamy is in place. What is the difference between an affair and polygamy? Only that an affair is secretive. But how bad is a secret, really? Polygamy is the worst part of it. Faithfulness is seen as a wonderful and respectable trait. But polygamy encourages a break of faithfulness by a man having multiple wives. Society cannot accept this. "Do you consider it murder when the [black] widow kills the male? " No. It's normal for their species. It is not murder. If this quote is my opponent's only attempt at a refutation to that point, then the point is conceded. "Too many men in the room with only one woman creates war. " So does too many women with only one man. Look at the Iroquois: they were very warlike, and the women were in charge. "the man is able to share himself with the community and create a new tribe loyal to him" This is inappropriate for the reasons mentioned in my second contention. *** My opponent has responded to my contentions, but has not responded to my rebuttals of his own points except for a single question. Consider his arguments conceded.
It is ok for men to marry multiple women. Women should only have 1 husband.

A wise man once said, "A great deal more is known than has been proved". That makes good sense. Contention 1: Gender Equality In today's society, men and women are much more equal than they used to be. Therefore, if men get certain marital rights, why should women not also receive these rights? There is no sound reason to restrict women that also does not restrict men. Are men and women identically the same? Of course not, there are certain things women can do that man can't and there are things men can do that women can't by our own essence we have been created with a set of restrictions and freedoms sometimes they don't match each other and a sometimes peculiar situation arises. However it is important to remember that we are all socialized to believe one thing and because a few people agree that restrictions have to be evenly spread does not make that person right. Perceived oppression creates panic, sometime we have to go through a process to understand which way is is forward and then try to become a plumb line. My opponent seems a bit insensitive to alternative lifestyles. Contention 2: Multiple Marriages Lead To Turmoil If a man is allowed to marry multiple women, it is damaging to the lives of the women. To have this one man moving between them is harmful to each of their relationships with the man. Show me the proof in this contention and I will argue against it. Contention one, although addressed once before, deserved a few words. Contention two ignores preference and seems to imply that all women are effected the same way, one in which the woman is left "damaged". This is a huge generalization. Do you consider it murder when the widow kills the male? Too many men in the room with only one woman creates war. multiple women and one man is less volital, as the man is able to share himself with the community and create a new tribe loyal to him, it is almost impossible for a woman to provide this function.
It is ok for men to marry multiple women. Women should only have 1 husband.

"I think it would be a bit ridiculous and silly to pretend not to agree with my claim." It depends on how you're counting. By phyla, most animals are hermaphrodites. Their competition structures are completely different. By species, because of insects you are correct. "[For women to eat their husbands] is okay with me and would and could possiblly be classified as an abnormality." So my opponent is saying that it is acceptable to commit murder? I fear I have misunderstood. "We often cite the homosexual behaviors between dolphins to justify Human homosexuality so would this not fit within the ball park of that reasoning system?" The logic in this quote is flawed for the same reason that my opponent's logic is flawed. "There is only one human mating ritual I know of this "tree" has hundreds maybe thousands of leaves. The flaw is my opponents perception of a leaf and not of the actual rooting system." This is a beautiful metaphor, but it doesn't actually prove anything. "haveing more than one wife allows for lots of people doing lots of things all at once." I see no reason why having multiple wives would increase productivity. Assuming it does for a minute, why would a woman having many husbands not also increase productivity? "Men are by nature very protective" Women are more protective. Women are the ones who take care of the children. They need to be protective. Men don't; traditionally, men are the ones who hunt and gather for food while women take care of and protect the children. "Mother protection is normally for her young ONLY." Protection for one's young spreads to protection for the community. And protection for one's young is much stronger than any other form of protection. "The male protection is constantly at guard over the home females are not expected to take this role." Tribal females are tough. They don't need protection. *** Both my contentions stand unrefuted. My opponent has only tried to support his own case, which I have effectively attacked. In order to have a chance of winning, my opponent must attack my case.
It is ok for men to marry multiple women. Women should only have 1 husband.

More often than not. It is true that this phrase leaves the door open for all sorts of abnormalities, however I will cast out the interpretation on the validity of this statement,toward the heavens and allow it to fall on to the domes of those who will vote on those things, I just hope more people agree with me, saves a bit of time. Sorry, I did believe in the system of citing a source; but I believe it is high time for more people to trust and believe in one another. There are some things that are so obscure that we need to cite the source, but in this case I think it would be a bit ridiculous and silly to pretend not to agree with my claim...."More often than not..." "that makes it okay for women to eat their husbands" This is okay with me and would and could possiblly be classified as an abnormality. In any case I would have no problem with this happening as long as we both agree on what it means "to be eaten". "Simply because some other animal does it doesn't mean we should do it. Humans are very different from many animals." We often cite the homosexual behaviors between dolphins to justify Human homosexuality so would this not fit within the ball park of that reasoning system? "Human mating rituals are not as applicable as ......entire premise is flawed. There is only one human mating ritual I know of this "tree" has hundreds maybe thousands of leaves. The flaw is my opponents perception of a leaf and not of the actual rooting system. Marry: to combine, connect, or join so as to make more efficient, attractive, or profitable. haveing more than one wife allows for lots of people doing lots of things all at once. Is'nt that close to our structure of labor. This efficincy could naturally turn into an attractive deal which would then become more profitable. There can never be two Lion Kings, that is nature not me. However here is my perception of why this is so. Men are by nature very protective, which is not to be confused with Mother Protection. This reqires a small explanation. Male type of proection is for either the individual or the group Mother protection is normally for her young ONLY. The male protection is constantly at guard over the home females are not expected to take this role. Men on the other hand are,"more likely than not" (me 2009) stronger than women and are better equiped to handle whatever the gaurd has to handle, better. This is also nature.
It is ok for men to marry multiple women. Women should only have 1 husband.

"Throughout the animal kingdom, more often than not, we find males competing against one another for a group of females. " "More often than not" is a key phrase here. Is this really true? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't know, because my opponent has not cited a source. This claim should not be accepted until a reliable source is provided. "If we are all part of the same animal kingdom then, it would seem ok if Men married as many women as they are able to win in through battles of testosterone. " Since we're in the same animal kingdom as Black Widows, that makes it okay for women to eat their husbands[1]! Simply because some other animal does it doesn't mean we should do it. Humans are very different from many animals. *** Human mating rituals are not as applicable as they were twenty thousand years ago. Social evolutions have caused large changes in human mating habits. Our elaborate mating structures are much different from the ones of more primitive society. Because of this, my opponent's entire premise is flawed. *** I will now provide my own contentions. I either have to prove that it is not okay for men to marry multiple women, or prove that it is okay for women to have more than one husband. Marry: To engage in a lifelong commitment for purposes of mating. Contention 1: Gender Equality In today's society, men and women are much more equal than they used to be. Therefore, if men get certain marital rights, why should women not also receive these rights? There is no sound reason to restrict women that also does not restrict men. Contention 2: Multiple Marriages Lead To Turmoil If a man is allowed to marry multiple women, it is damaging to the lives of the women. To have this one man moving between them is harmful to each of their relationships with the man. I may offer more contentions in the future. For now, I will leave it at these. [1] . http://www.pestproducts.com...
It is ok for men to marry multiple women. Women should only have 1 husband.

We are all animals. Throughout the animal kingdom, more often than not, we find males competing against one another for a group of females. The victor of this struggle takes all the females in the pride, school, ....etc. If we are all part of the same animal kingdom then, it would seem ok if Men married as many women as they are able to win in through battles of testosterone. What say you?
Abe Lincoln was a bad President

It doesn't matter what a President says while passing law, it's the law that matters. And in this case, the EP and 13th Amendment, while potentially contrasting with Lincoln's spoken position on slavery during the Stephen Douglas debates, have not had their impact changed simply because their creator once said something negative about African Americans. I made add that the first quote that Pro references can't be found online (the other two both occured at the 4th Douglas Debate in Charleston, Illinois). More point by points. 1. "Lincoln didn't give a crap about the Slaves he only cared about his county" See intro. Lincoln may have been a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney and have said anti-equality comments during his Senate run, but his position on the slaves post-Sumter was generally a supportive one. And I like that you admit he cared for his country. Is that not the symbol of a "good" President? 2. "Lincoln freed them from the states that applied to make the South poor and make them bail out on agriculture" Is Pro attempting to state that Lincoln was part of a large conspiracy to cripple the South's agriculturally based economy for the next 150 years? Decline to comment. 3. "The Confederacy Freed her slaves a couple months later after the proclamation for them to FIGHT IN THE WAR. " Although the first idea of Confederate black emancipation was proposed by General Patrick Cleburne 11 months after implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation, the idea was rejected almost unanimously by Davis' Cabinet. A statue was finally passed on March 13th of 1865 by a 40-37 House vote and 9-8 Senate vote, but only 200 blacks (all in Virginia) were mustered in via this law before the end of the war. (Bruce Levine, Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves During the Civil War. ) 4. "During the war, Lincoln assigned that all Confederate prisoners will be killed-witch is a war crime. " No such law was passed during the Civil War. The Battle of Sailor's Creek, of April 6th, included 7,700 captured by the Union. None of these men were summarily executed under Presidential orders. 5. "regional new paper has been writ in about him and he order to shut down the sight and jail the writers" Valid point. Lincoln did sidestep the First Amendment during the Civil War by closing multiple anti-war newspapers. First real knock against him. So, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have to say.