BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Desperate Housewives is the best American TV show

that said, I hereby disagree with the topic presented, that "Desperate housewives is the best American TV show" for maximum clarity, I will be explaining my own stance, then going on to to show why my opponent's is untrue first of all we must look and see that the topic says "best" meaning that in order for Pro to leave this round victorious he must show beyond the shadow of a doubt that Desperate housewives, is indeed the best TV show. now with that we run into the biggest problem. This is only an opinion. I will clarify this more when actually attacking my opponent's points but this is first and foremost a big issue we must look at. Second is the issue of quality; both in content in production. while The later is something I would say desperate housewives definitely meets (seeing as it is a huge Hollywood production) however the former is going to be something entirely subjective. To a 10 year old child the content of Spongebob (personal favorite) may be the best TV Show in America, to a 50 year old man, CNN news may be the best The point is, we can never know what is the best in any kind of entertainment; because there is no best. Everything is subjective. Now I'll go onto the Pro's arguments. 1. The Simpsons are on Season 22, The guiding light on season 56, and Meet the press on season 61. If number of seasons is going to be something we use to weight this debate, then Desperate housewives is already down and out. as for viewers, these things are measured by the week. My opponent does not tell us when Desperate housewives was at 12 million viewers, it very well could have been right after it started. and even if it is current, more than 45 million people watch american idol every week, which encompasses comedy/drama/tragedy/and music 2. The fact that these actors and actresses are contracted does nothing to advocate that it is the best T. V. show in America, it simply means these people have job security. Which if anything, can prove against the Pro; the only reason the show is still running, could be because they can't let these people go yet! 3. My opponent does not tell you what the rating are, and unless they top 45 million; American Idol still has it beat. also, there is not warrant as to why Emily Bergl or Vanessa Williams is to be attributed for that. 4. This is only an opinion, there is no warrant to this. the only thing I would have to say to counteract this is that Desperate housewives is none of these things. Desperate Housewives is none of these things. and so in conclusion thus far, my opponent provides both his opinion, and faulty, weakly linked evidence to try without success to prove that his favorite show is the best. While in reality the fact is there is no best show because as I've already said these things are subjective to opinions on what makes a show the best.
Desperate Housewives is the best American TV show

Desperate Housewives is the best American television show. 1. "Desperate Housewives" is in its seventh season and the ratings are better than ever. At over 12 million viewers, the comedy/drama is full of good news right now. 2. Luckily, all four main characters of the show - Teri Hatcher, Felicity Huffman, Eva Longoria, and Marcia Cross - have a contract good for at least another year and it sounds as if the actress plan to reside on Wisteria Lane until the very end. 3. Season seven has seen some its highest ratings and the return of Paul Young (Mark Moses) with new wife, Beth (Emily Bergl) and new resident, Renee Perry (Vanessa Williams) has certainly contributed to that. 4. Desperate Housewives has the perfect mix of comedy, drama,and mystery that appeals strongly to both males and females!
Creation vs. Evolution.

Even if no plagiarism existed, you cannot merely copy and paste from a source with no quotes. So its really still plagiarism. Also no, dont dismiss this debate. Why should we? I do not accept your request for a tie. I spent time on this debate and expect results (win or lose). My opponent has dropped evolution and therefore concedes its existence... and therefore loses. He also does not refute my age of the earth arguments and, therefore, concedes them as well. CON OBVIOUSLY WINS THIS DEBATE
Creation vs. Evolution.

I said, "I will cite everything at the end" I intended no plagiarism. I put my argument on a seperate word document (which had the sources) and it exceeded the character limit. I posted the argument late last night and i was not paying much attention. I apoligize. I ask that this debate to be dismissed and we can debate at another time. As there is a rebuttal for every argument you propose. I understand how i could have shown lack of conduct. Next time i will be sure i have a adequate amount of time to debate with you. Thank you in advance.
Best General of WW2

While my counterpart has brought an excellent General to light I think he exaggerates his importance and skill. Heinz Guderian took Blitz Krieg and made it work. He did so with Rommel at his side in the Ardennes. My counterpart still wants to insult Rommel despite the fact that Rommel is the only military commander that predicted that the allies would attack at Normandy rather than at Pas de Calais. The Soviets were NOT a tough opponent. The Russian climate was a tough opponent. The Soviets foolishly used human wave combat. They won the great tank battle at Kursk but just barely. It's because they had allot more tanks. If the allies had not attacked Italy the Germans may still have won in the Soviet Union. This is inspite of Hitler's bad decisions. The Germans had the finest military technology in the world. Manstein had the finest collection of military minds in history. He had the finest military equipment ever developed. It would be a surprise if he didn't win. His call to go through the Ardennes rather than up and down to go around it was an excellent decision. My counterpart says Ike was a great manager but not a great general. That's an absurd thing to say. To be a great general you must be a great manager. And the genius of Pas de Calais is not merely the deception. What makes it a smart move is that Ike knew to plant the fake there and not in the direction of Normandy. Instead of playing the guessing game which you never win. He'll know, that I know, that He knows, that I know etc. Rather, what doesn't change is your enemies nature. The Germans could be counted on to stick to their aggressive, fast, Blitz Krieg style of attack would be more likely to attack at Pas de Calais because it was a quicker more direct route. The Germans would therefore assume that we would do the same thing. They got locked into their own way of seeing things and assumed that everybody must think the same way. I wanted to mention that my counterpart doesn't understand why cost Rommel the second battle of El Alamein. He lost because his tanks got bogged down in the soil. He had bad maps and Monty had good maps that showed this danger. Ike's ability to make strategically sound decisions, keep over inflated egos of the worlds most powerful men in check, and win I believe show him to be the greatest general of WW2.
Best General of WW2

My counterparts attitudes and statements range from the obnoxious to the bizarre. To refer to Erwin Rommel as an amateur is both. The logistics problems of N. Africa weren't Rommel's fault. That was Hitler's doing. Rommel was 2 days late to the Second Battle of El Alamein. So my counterpart exaggerates. I don't know why he's telling me that he was "Doomed" I pointed out that Monty ended that conflict. My counterpart wants to deny Ike any credit for his leader ship and give all of it to people like Monty and Bradley and Patton. Patton was benched because of his behavior in Italy. So he didn't participate directly in D-day. My counterpart completely ignores Ike's brilliance with the Pas de Calais deception. He gives Monty credit and says Ike caused a delay in the end of the war, but it was Monty's disastrous Market Garden campaign that did that. In regard to Italy again my counterpart is off his nut. First airborne was used in Husky in Sicily NOT IN AVALANCHE. Second Patton took Rome in 30 days after landing in Italy. I think it's true that there was greater difficulties with N. Italy but they wouldn't have had proper support given the disagreement among the allied forces about where resources should go. Ike's brilliance lay in the fact that he could take people with huge egos and stubborn opinions and get them to work together and bring about success. Churchill, De Gaul, Roosevelt, Patton, Monty are the kind of people he had to deal with. Now, my counterpart neglects to give credit where credit is due. Without Rommel and Guderian his beloved Manstein would not have been successful in taking France. It was Guderian that led the Germans to the gates of Moscow and had Hitler not interfered the Germans would have won in The Soviet Union right then and there not because of Manstein but because Guderian. Why does he not give credit to Manstein's stable of talent like he demands of Ike. Manstein had a hell of allot more to work with than Ike did. By the way, what historians think Ike screwed up? I'd like to see some names.
Best General of WW2

Erwin Rommel, while a great tactician, never learned the most important lesson in warfare. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. Ike was perhaps the best manager of all time. Not the best general. You bring up the Operation Avalanche. The use of paratroopers was a good idea, though that lead to the most humiliating invasion the Allies had to conduct. It took them a span of two years to finally take Italy and Eisenhower has to take credit for that invasion. Eisenhower in North Africa was not decisive as you like to believe. Following the Second Battle of El Alamein, Rommel was doomed. He played a limited role in the battle and wasn't even there for some of the time due to illness. As Churchill said about the Second Battle of El Alamein, "This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."Again, Eisenhower was going up against a weaken German military. The Eastern Front was were the war was lost by the Germans. Manstein was going up against superior forces in most of his battles such as in the Third Battle of Kharkov. He destroyed three entire Soviet armies and fought off three more. He was going up against the strongest armies in the world, not some weakened German Afrika Korps or the weakened forces on the Western Front. Eisenhower didn't have to worry about air support which is often the most important supprt one can have in battle. The Luftwaffe was so weak that they could barely contest the bombing runs over Germany, much less play a role on the Western Front. In contrast, Manstein had to capture the principal port on the Crimea and he did that with air support. He had to petition Hitler for it. Eisenhower always had been able to get support. He can't take credit for the battles won in France or Germany, due to his subordinates such as Patton, Bradely and Montgomery doing the acutal coordination." Eisenhower worked tirelessly to address the demands of the rival commanders to optimize Allied forces, often by giving them tactical, though sometimes ineffective, latitude; many historians conclude this delayed the Allied victory in Europe."He was a great manager. But as a general he was not the best of World War II. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Best General of WW2

Dwight David Eisenhower was a commander in the Pacific theater in WW2. His talent was noticed and he was recruited to serve in the Atlantic theater. Ultimately he was given the rank of Supreme Allied Commander. His first attack against the Germans was in North Africa. This was called Operation Torch. Here he would face one of the greatest masterminds of the battlefield in the history of man Field Marshall Erwin Rommel. With the help of the British General Bernard "Monty" Montgomery, he beat the "Desert Fox" at his own game. The Germans were defeated. The next step would be to put boots on the ground of Europe it self. The plan was called Operation Husky and the point of attack would be Sicily. Eisenhower set the date specifically on July 10 for moon light. The first part of the night would be reasonably well lit for an airborne assault, the first major one of it's kind for the allies, and the later part of the night would be dark and suitable for naval operations. Husky was another victory for Ike. Eisenhower's next victorious venture was onto the mainland of Italy itself and was called operation Avalanche. Here he faced disagreement about the importance of the location and how much focus should be placed on it. Ike had trouble getting the appropriate supplies and equipment. The British offered many needed things but the US which was focused on the eventual invasion of North West Europe gave much less. Eisenhower in classic form worked with both nations to produce a victory over the Germans and eventually and finally secure Italy for the Allies. What we are most familiar with is Eisenhower's magnum opus. Operation Overlord which is more popularly known as D-Day. There was of course Ike's amazing ability to coordinate people and resources. I think his finest bit of artistry was in the Pas de Calais deception. He knew that in their minds because of the Germans commitment to Blitz Krieg; the only conceivable route for attack would be the Pas de Calais. It was the shortest and fastest route from Great Britain into France and then to Germany. So, with the help of a magician he built an entire invasion force out of wood and rubber some things were placed over vehicles so that they would appear to move. Patton was sent to the area openly so that German spies would spot him. The Germans were certain that any invasion of France or Germany would involve Patton. The invasion of Normandy was planned for June because of the weather. One of the unique things about this operation was the massive application of airborne troops. Incidentally the only person who didn't fall for Ike's ruse was Erwin Rommel. He begged for Panzers to come to the area of Normandy. https://maps.google.com... http://www.history.army.mil...
Best General of WW2

Thank you for acceptance. First Mainstein was the one who envisioned the invasion of France. He had help from Heinz Gurderian, but the plan made the numerically superior French and British, who had better tanks and somewhat better aircraft, lose. Though Mainstein didn't lead the attack, the Battle of France was an utter annihilation of French forces and only due to the stupidity of Goring and Hitler allowed for Dunkirk to happen. Mainstein also showed that he had the iron in his bones to stand up to Hitler. He defeated the Soviets several times, often with no air support, and shred himself a master of siege warfare at the Siege of Sevastapol. He also defeated three Soviet armies and forced back three others at the Third Battle of Kharkov. He also demolished the Soviets at the Battle of Kursk, though they had much more reserves than he previously thought and was a Soviet victory. He also managed to save thousands of German lives when the Soviets attacked Ukraine, a move that made Hitler sack him. Ike was a good leader no doubt about that. But he was never outnumbered, always had support, and didn't have to deal with soviet armies numbering in the millions. Though he was responsible for the liberation of France and Operation Torch, he was Supreme Commander and had the ultimate say in dealing with monty, Patton and Bradley.
The Bombing of Japan in 1945

Since pro has not provided any arguments for his defense, only Truman's reasoning behind the bombings and the selection of location, I will start by providing my first point. P1. Truman wanted to end the war with as little american casualties as possible, but what makes American casualties any worse than Japanese casualties? No matter who loses their life, it is still a lose of a life, correct? Japan was wrong to bomb pear harbor, yes. However, does that give us the right to kill innocent people as well? If someone were to beat up you and a few of your friends, does that mean that is alright to attack him AND his innocent friends as well?
The Bombing of Japan in 1945

I think that American was in the right to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese would have of just kept on fighting until they had no more men to fight. President Truman had decided to bomb them because he was responding to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he wanted to end the war with little american casualties as he possibly could and he wanted to show off to the soviets to impress them. President Truman decided to bomb Hiroshima because they had several large ports and industries. He also decided to bomb Hiroshima because they also had a big army. Nagasaki was bombed because they wanted to make Japan surrender
most self identified political labels have very little meaning

Hi,To restate my argument, political labels matter in that they lead to 1) Different positions on abstract issues2) Different preferences for concrete policiesTo point 1, you appear to offer little resistance. You seem to have conceded that conservatives and liberals do hold different beliefs when it comes to more abstract topics. Against my point 2, you initially claim that there is substantial agreement on concrete policies between liberals and conservatives. However, in the very next paragraph, you backtrack and concede that there would be disagreement on some issues. Given this backtracking, t would appear that you have offered little response to my position and your own argument in favor of your position remains unclear.You have offered no reason to support the belief that political labels are meaningless. In fact, you concede that they do have at least some meaning in your very last sentence of the final round.Thank you for your time.
most self identified political labels have very little meaning

i commend you for a well argued post. "First, American liberals and conservatives do differ on many issues. For example, take a poll from the Pew Research Center (1), liberals strongly prefer ethnic diversity (76%), few conservatives do (20%). On separation of church and state, liberals are almost twice as likely as conservatives to have a problem with violations of this separation (2). Similar polls can show fundamental differences on other major issues such as the role of the military or on how important it is to be patriotic. This leads to your second point. Actually, it is relatively clear to any follower of politics that substantial differences exist on concrete policy proposals made by liberals and conservatives. There is not just disagreement on abstract ideals. Most conservatives are for example quite clear in their desire for lower taxes and government spending. These are consistently challenged by liberals across multiple domains." most of your poll examples are abstract themselves. they are not concrete examples like i gave as examples. "is ethinic diversity good" is vague. if you were to ask specific scenarios, there would be much more likley agreement. this goes for by far most policy points. you do have a point, in that to basic questions like 'increase or decrease taxes" there might be disagreement. but, if you edcuated people about how to approach balancing hte budget, most would probably see that it can't be done one way or the other, and their differences would then vary by the person, and not as much by the label. though i couldnt disagree that it probably matters some, the label.
most self identified political labels have very little meaning

I will argue that in fact political labels do hold important meaning, and that there are important differences in how ideologies lead people to think and act. Let me first rephrase your argument. Your thesis is that political labels are arbitrary group distinctions (like cheering for one sports team versus another). You offer two reasons why you think this is the case.1) There is probably widespread consensus on most issues that conservatives and liberals appear to be arguing about.2) Abstract differences may exist between ideologies but people will tend to agree on concrete policy recommendationsBoth of these points are not supported by the evidence. Let us take the US as a test case. In this country, the two dominant ideologies are liberalism and conservatism. These can be broken down further into sub groups but let us stay on a simpler level of analysis for the moment. First, American liberals and conservatives do differ on many issues. For example, take a poll from the Pew Research Center (1), liberals strongly prefer ethnic diversity (76%), few conservatives do (20%). On separation of church and state, liberals are almost twice as likely as conservatives to have a problem with violations of this separation (2). Similar polls can show fundamental differences on other major issues such as the role of the military or on how important it is to be patriotic. This leads to your second point. Actually, it is relatively clear to any follower of politics that substantial differences exist on concrete policy proposals made by liberals and conservatives. There is not just disagreement on abstract ideals. Most conservatives are for example quite clear in their desire for lower taxes and government spending. These are consistently challenged by liberals across multiple domains. In sum, while I commend your desire to challenge political labels, there is plenty of evidence that people of different political beliefs differ both in their position on key issues and in what concrete policies they support in government.1- . http://atheism.about.com...2- . http://www.pbs.org...
most self identified political labels have very little meaning

most self identified political labels have very little meaning for most people, they are more a tool for psychological self identification than anything, more an indicator of the biases you've grown up with than a thought out label. i would bet if you did a study, you would find that there's a significant or even most people, who actually agree with each other more in actual substance than just their self proclaimed label. for example. if you tested this hypothesis. what i would suppose you would find. if you asked people "what should a person on welfare be able to get...." and then list some things, or ask "should food be a necessity for those who are trying their best and aren't lazy" or "which of the following environmental situations do you most support for environmental purposes... water, air, saving natural parks, etc". and continue giving more concrete specific scenarios. i would guess there would be a great number of people who say they are conservative when in reality, they agree on just as much or more things than the liberals.... and vise versa. they only disagree with each other in the abstract, where often the ideologies are so basically vague they have very little meaning.