BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was operation Barbarossa the turning point of WWII

In order for Pro to win he will have to prove that "Axis was winning the war before operation Barbarosa and started losing right after it." Con's Argument is -Operation Barbarosa caused USSR to join the Allies -The USSR was detrimental for the axis defeat -Therefore Operation Barbarossa was the turning point This argument has 2 flaws Flaw 1 The fact that USSR is important for the allied cannot prove that the axis started losing the war right after operation Barbarossa. Pro tried to claim that axis was losing the war just after Barbarossa by referencing events that happened 3 years after. It does not make much sense really. Flaw 2 The same argument can be used to prove that pearl harbor is the turning point -Pearl Harbor caused the US to join the Allies -The US was detrimental for the axis defeat. -Therefore Pearl Harbor was the turning point of the war. I have now dismantled pro's argument. Operation Barbarossa is not the turning point of the war
Was operation Barbarossa the turning point of WWII

(You realized you just agreed with me, right?) Operation Barbarossa was the turning point of WWII because it gave the allied forces the USSR as an ally. Before Operation Barbarossa, The USSR was allied with the axis. After Operation Barbarossa, The USSR joined the allies and took on the important role of attacking Germany from the east. They pushed back Germany and managed to liberate several concentration camps. (http://www.ushmm.org...) The USSR joining the allies and fighting Germany ultimately lead to the Battle of Berlin, and Hitler's suicide. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...)
Border Defence

>Again, I thank my esteemed opponent for this debate and for his response. >I will now respond to my opponent's rebuttals 1 by 1 (his definition is accepted). >Rebuttal of my value (freedom): Many people have the ability to find jobs legally within the United States as my opponent says. He disregards the quota system, however. As can be seen from . http://www.immigralaw.com... there are not unlimited opportunities to immigrate to the United States. Knowing that not all of them will be accepted, these people illegally immigrate. >Rebuttal of my value criterion (equality): My opponent agrees with my value criterion. By doing this in he has forfeited a major point. The entire negative or CON case in this debate is that the illegal immigrants DO NOT deserve the same treatment as the United States, and therefore should not be allowed to immigrate which would happen through border fences. Agreeing with me means that my opponent will undoubtedly contradict himself. >Rebuttal of my first contention (individuals deserve the same chances to get a job): My opponent jumps strait to the conclusion that I think illegal immigrants should not pat taxes. Of course they should! Even though they are not citizens, they are still obligated due to social contract to pay taxes. Though this is not the current United States system, I believe that it should be which is perfectly valid considering the hypotheticality (I am not sure if that is a word. Could be hypotheticalness? ) of this debate. >A valiant attempt by my opponent, but futile. He does some basic math: "This is over 16 million people (. http://www.thinkandask.com......). Now in 2004 it was also believed that around 20 million illegal aliens were living in the U. S. at the time. Now about 174,000 illegal immigrants were sent home a year in 2004. In 2008 that number has risen to 350,000 people (. http://www.foxnews.com......). So in 2004 we had 16 million unemployed people and 20 million illegal aliens. By some basic math we can deduce that without illegal immigration we would have 4 million extra jobs. " This is sadly (for him) invalid. In reality, not ALL illegal immigrants actually HAVE jobs. Most illegal immigrants travel in families, and only one works. Therefore, my opponent's math is incorrect. >Rebuttal of my third contention (a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy): My opponent bases his rebuttal here on one site (. http://www.progressiveu.org...). I refute the validity of this site. It is extremely biased, has no evidence at all, and last but mot certainly not least: is a blog. It is a thoroughly invalid source in basically every possible manner. My point, "a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy," still stands. >My opponent ends his post with a short list of what he thinks the downfalls are of illegal immigration. If he wants them to mean anything in this debate, he must elaborate and put them all in paragraph form, not as a simple numbered list.
girls are more emotional than boys

I don't think that anyone can specifically say that all girls are more emotional than boys. Of course girls can be emotional, but boys can be just as bad. Each sex gets overwhelmed with different things, a girl might become very emotional if they see their crush hug another person, a boy may become emotional if his favorite sport team lost the big game. What I'm saying is that, any one person can be just as emotional as the next. And being emotional does not make you a drama queen or an attention seeker.
Donald Trump is not a racist

First, I would like to point out that at the start of Round 2, I mentioned that my links did not paste properly in Round 1, and offered new links. Using the links from round 2, you will see that they refer to specific documentation showing that the UN has accepted discrimination against Muslims as a form of racism.UN rulings aside, Pro seems intent that it is the dictionary that provides the ultimate definition of words. The dictionary citation Pro used was exactly the same as mine. From that page, Pro has quoted definitions 2a, 3a and 3c, but has omitted 2b which states:"A class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics"Pro's own citation offers a definition of Race that includes Muslims, through their shared interests, habits and characteristics. Ignoring the citation does not make it any less applicable. Because the definition of Race includes Muslims, discrimination against Muslims is racism. Trump ran on a policy that discriminates against Muslims, therefore he has campaigned using a racist policy. Donald Trump is racist.---Again, I would like to point out that even if you disagree with my conclusion, Pro has still not proven that Donald Trump is not a racist. If the debate topic were 'Donald Trump is Racist', and I were Pro, then the onus would be on me to prove that he is racist. However, this debate is about proving that he is not racist, and thus the burden of proof is on Pro to prove he is not. Instead of offering arguments and evidence to prove the debate topic, Pro has spent this entire debate simply rebutting my arguments. Even if you agree that Donald Trump is not racist against Muslims, there has been no proof offered that he is not racist against any other race. This debate ends without any proof that Donald Trump is not a racist, so Pro has failed.
Donald Trump is not a racist

Let me first point out that the actual definition of race is not as my opponent claims it is: {1}"a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock""an actually or potentially inter breeding group within a species""a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits"So, right, anyway- Anti-Semitism isn't a form of Racism either since "Jew" isn't a race, there are Black Jews (Beta Israel), Middle Eastern Jews (Sephartic), European Jews (Askhenazi), even Native American Jews and Chinese Jews. Second of all, what the UN says does not represent the definition used by the majority of people, that can be represented by what the dictionary says, and as I have shown from above, race is still defined as a group of people from a certain genetic stock, sharing certain physical features. Third of all my opponent cites the UN website and say that they define Islamamophobia as a form of racism, the issue is he cited the UN's home page, nowhere in which does it say that Muslims are a race. It's like me challenging him to a debate that the moon is made of cheese because Barrack Obama says so, and citing whitehouse.gov as a source, but never actually citing here Barrack Obama said that. {1}. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Donald Trump is not a racist

Racism has always been defined as discriminating against people on account of their race, and despite what the U.N. says, Islam is still not a race, Muslims are still a religious group not a racial group, and Donald Trump is still not discriminating against Muslims. If the majority decide that the sky is red and the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't matter, the sky is still blue and the moon is still made of rock., it doesn't matter what the U.N. says. Another point, Trump advocated for the shutdsown of Muslims entering the country on account of their ideologies, so even if my opponent is right, Trump would be "discriminating" against the Muslim ideology, and NOT the Muslim "race." And rightly so, because Islam is indeed a sick ideology, save the Korranites they're great guys.
Donald Trump is not a racist

In round 3 pro argued that Islam is not a race, it is a religion. I have already agreed with this point and have no contention of it. My argument is not based on discrimination against the religion of the Muslims. My argument is based on the discrimination against the Muslim people. Pro has yet to show my argument is invalid.It is important to cite the U.N. to show international acceptance of word definitions. The meaning of a word in a language is set by the world that uses it. To me, racism could mean one thing, while to my opponent it could mean something else. The only way to know whose definition is correct is to compare it against the rest of the users of that language. Whoever's definition is closer to that of the broader community is correct. This is how language morphs and changes over time.In this case, the international community, consisting of 193 member states [3], and representing an overwhelming majority of the world's population, has defined racism to include discrimination against Muslims. Because this definition has received such international endorsement, it is a valid definition and stands up in an argument.As an aside, I have to admit that Pro's line of argument so far has been rather concerning. Instead of defending Donald's actions and arguing that he does not discriminate against Muslims, Pro is arguing the point on semantic grounds. Pro appears to be conceding the fact that Donald discriminates against Muslims. Even if Pro's semantic arguments were valid, Donald's actions remain just as condemnable as being racist.3. http://www.un.org...
Donald Trump is not a racist

This is just an appeal to authority, it doesn't really matter what the UN says, Islam is still not a race. The UN can say that Israel is the aggressor and the sky is redall they want- it doesn't make it the truth. Islam is literally defined as a religion:"the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah."Again, Islam is still not a race, the UN doesn't get to control reality and deny objectivism, this isn't 1984, they don't get to do that. The Party doesn't define reality.
Donald Trump is not a racist

Before I respond, my links did not paste correctly in round 1. Here they are:1. https://www.donaldjtrump.com...2. http://www.un.org...Pro states that Trump cannot be racist against Muslims because Islam is not a race. However, Pro does not give any arguments as to why that statement true. I will argue that Pro's statement is false.I agree that Islam is a religion, not a race. Therefore it is impossible for someone to be racist against Islam. However, Muslims are not a religion; they are people. And the United Nations has formally recognized discrimination against Muslims as one of the "contemporary forms of racism". [2 above] Because discrimination against Muslims is internationally accepted as a form of racism, someone who discriminates against Muslims is racist. Therefore, Trump can be racist against Muslims, and Pro's argument is false.
Donald Trump is not a racist

I accept and look forward to a good debate with Pro.On December 7, 2015, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".[1] By singling out Muslims, the policy is discriminatory against Muslims. The United Nations officially recognizes discrimination against Muslims as a form of racism. [2]ArgumentPremise 1 - Donald Trump campaigned to discriminate against MuslimsPremise 2 - Discrimination against Muslims is internationally recognized as a form of racismConclusion 1 - Donald Trump campaigned using racismConclusion 2 - Donald Trump is a racist.1. https://www.donaldjtrump.com......2. http://www.un.org...... (Point 17)
Does God Exist

The existence of God is evident in our association despite efforts to the contrary. One may insist that the success of a project lays in the preparations leaving little to chance and that narrow possibility of chance has been addressed by placating the Gods thru ritual and the belief in the use of Talismans. Whatever reason we use to define our continued existence in seemingly hostile environments, we sometimes find ourselves confronted by events that escape our rational attempts to explain them. Belief in God is a sustaining force in the face of overwhelming odds. I will now demonstrate: My name is Burley David Smith and my address is 20 Little Laurel Rd, Richwood, WV 26261, USA My phone # is 304-618-2670 and my password to this site is L0llip0p
Does God Exist

Pro did not answer any of my arguments against the existence of God. He says this is due to him having the burden of proof. Very well. He hasn't met the burden of proof either. He has provided Zero evidence for God. He argues there must be an authority for the universe? Where is his prove. Science isn't about must bes it is about evidence and empirical evidence to be precise. What is the evidence for an authority for the universe? Nothing! What is the evidence for a super natural agent? Again nothing. People used to think there was a supernatural agent or god behind lightning. We now know this isn't true. We know lightning is a natural phenomenon. Science has proven this. How does pro know the universe has no authority and is a product of blind chance? Science is speculating on the concept of parallel universes. Our universe could be one of many and each universe might have different laws of physics and ours just happens to be the one fine tuned for life. Now there is no more proof for the multi verse than God, but I would argue it is more likely. As I mentioned with the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit argument, god, if he exists is a complex entity since he can think, is personal, and can do miracles. This complex design of god means he too must have a creator. This creates an infinite regress. Therefore the ultimate cause of the universe or the unmoved mover as Aristotle called it, must be an impersonal entity rather than a personal entity such as God. It could be a big bang singularity that created the universe rather than a personal agent such as god. It is also more likely since a singularity is more simple in design than God. So therefore in this round pro never answered my arguments and never proved the existence of god. Furthermore I took apart his argument of a universal authority. We will continue our rebuttals in the next round.
Does God Exist

Pro didn't provide any evidence for God. He just said we can't see atoms therefore we can't see God so God could exist and be unseen like atoms. There is a problem here. First of all everyone knows god could exist. The question is, is there any evidence? I argued there isn't. Try praying it never works. There is no logical way or scientific way to prove God exists. The layman can believe in unicorns or fairies that doesn't make them real. So we need to look at physical evidence. Since there is no physical evidence God exists he is no more real than Santa Claus. I was hoping pro would offer more rich arguments such as Kalam Cosmological Argument but since he didn't use it I have no need to address it. I have argued good points why God doesn't exist. I look forward to pro addressing them in the next round. Thanks good luck Pro.
Does God Exist

Here I confine myself to the 2nd round opening statement as designated by Kafir123: The nature of invisible things is proven by scientific research. We believe water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom because scientists agree on the matter and we respect their opinion even when we cannot repeat their experiments for ourselves. Metaphysical scientists tell us there is a God but we don't have to believe them just as we don't have to believe that water is made up of H2O; But it may be easier for the layman to discern the existence of supernatural forces than to pin down the nature of water.
Legalization of Gay Marriage

Gays raising kidsI take it what Pro is getting at here is that sexual orientation does not necessarily translate into how good or bad a parent will be. There are and will continue to be both good and bad parents both heterosexual and homosexual. I can grant this. What is marriage ? What is the right to marry ? SSM = Same sex marriagePro claims that to deny same sex marriage (refereed too from now on as SSM) is denying a "right to marriage". But what EXACTLY IS THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE ? At the very least the advocate of SSM must be of the view that the right of marriage whether legal or natural allows for two people of the same sex to enter into a marriage. But Pro can't just assume that without begging the question [1] in favor of SSM. So what reason has Pro given us to believe that the right of marriage allows for two people of the same sex ? Pro says. .. "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations"Even if we grant this its a complete non sequitur in support of SSM. People can share rights and obligations without entering into marriage, yet alone a SSM. Consider where Pro argues for SSM. .. "If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be. "This is a nice sounding argument on the surface, but ultimately unsustainable. This kind of reasoning could be used to justify a brother and sister marrying. So either Pro can bite the bullet and admit that this kind of reasoning allows for a brother and sister marriage or drop this line of argument. Defining marriage as between a man & a womanI will refer to the procreative in type argument to justify that marriage is between one man and one women as Contradiction puts it. .. "In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive. " The procreative act, therefore, is at the heart of what marriage is. This fits in with how the traditionalist defines marriage -- as a union between one man and one woman. It is only when it is understood this way does the state's role in marriage make sense. The state, therefore, has a compelling reason to recognize as marriages only those relationships which are procreative in type. This is precisely why the state subsidizes heterosexual marriages with certain legal and economic benefits. Because homosexual marriages are non-procreative in principle, they do not count as marriages to begin with. Hence they are not being denied marriage rights or due process simply because their relationship doesn't count as a marriage. " [2]This gives a justification for why the state should recognize mixed sex marriage as opposed to no justification for the state to recognize SSM. Summary1) Pros begs the question as to whether the "right to marry" entails allowing SSM2) Pros argument that if two people love and respect one another they should be allowed to get married justifies incest marriage. Will Pro bite the bullet ?3) The state has an interest in recognizing mixed sex marraige, but not for SSM. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.debate.org...
The U.S should adopt a new national anthem

We should not replace the National Anthem, 1) The Anthem is very old and very historic so it came from a time where it was truly and originally "American". replacing it with a more "modern" song would bad idea because making a national anthem only so that it would be more appealing to people would be morally unjust. The point of a national anthem is to remind us of our country and our roots not so that it sounds good enough for someone to want to put it on their Ipod... 2) If you have ever listened to the national anthem at any sporting event, or after the tragedy of 9/11 for example the National Anthem indeed can become very important and rally millions of people to act as one united country, called America. 3) If remembering the song is too hard then lets replace the National Anthem with a song everyone can remember, which would you prefer, a) The National Anthem b) singing the alphabet c) the happy birthday song We should not replace the National Anthem for these reasons...
The U.S should adopt a new national anthem

The U.S should adopt a new national anthem because of three contentions stated below. My first contention is that age of the national anthem reduces the quality of an object to a modern audience. According to Fordham University, one of the top universities in New York, the age of a given object or idea makes it grand or a tattered little thing or idea. My second contention is the American anthem does not rally and move people to action in the cause of Liberty, and it did not have the ultimate effect of liberation. According to the Smithsonian Institution, the national anthem of America does't have a huge effect on people during the war to motivate them compared to other national anthems. My third contention is that The American Anthem is harder to sing from the point of view of music a remembering the lyrics. According to http://americanhistory.si.edu..., America's national anthem has more than 5 verses and each verse has a complicated sequence of words.