BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies

Con spends a lot of time talking about how the USSR sent supplies to Germany and I will agree with him now that he has shown his sources. In addition to this the Soviets had a non-aggression pact BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE WAR. However Con completely ignores my statements from the very first round about how the Soviets played the most important role in destroying the German military machine. 80% of the German forces were destroyed in the east. In addition to this, all of the Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, and Bulgarian casualties were on the eastern front. In Operation Barbarossa which lasted just a little over 5 months, the Soviet forces inflicted 850,000 casualties upon the German forces.[1] Compare this to the German invasion of France where the Nazis only suffered 163,650 casualties.[2] Well, that is if you can compare these statistics. The Soviets may have entered the war late, however their contribution was greater than that of any other country. Now lets compare Case Blue where the axis suffered over 1 million casualties with the three years that the allies spent fighting in Africa where Germany and Italy only suffered ~500,000 casualties.[3][4] Once again, no comparison. Con spends a most of his time trying to imply that the USSR did not play a greater role in WWII because it sent supplies to Germany BEFORE IT WAS IN THE WAR. The Soviet military contributions overshadow the mistakes that the country made by trusting Hitler. And the Soviets were not the only ones who made that mistake. Britain and France believed that Hitler would stop expanding as he promised so they appeased him and hoped he would keep his promise. Then Con states that Germany would not have had any need to launch Case Blue had the Western Allies not stalled the German advance in Africa. He could not be more incorrect. Hitler's dream was to enslave all of the Soviet Union west of the Ural Mountains. And Stalingrad was west of the caucuses. So it wouldn't really matter whether he tried to go for Stalingrad or Moscow in 1942, he would still need to capture both. I would also like to remind Con that the reason the Middle Eastern oil fields did not fall was because the Soviets did not allow von Kleist to break through the Caucuses and into the Middle East. I would also like to state that about half of Con's sources do not support the arguments he stated in the previous rounds. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

This debate is should not be possible to accept. If you are interested post a comment. Greetings people of DDO! I saw this topic being discussed in the forums and in some debates in the recent past, but none of them seemed satisfactory to me, so here I go trying it on my own.As Pro I will argue that abortion is always a justifiable course of action, thus Con will argue that it is not the case that abortion is a justifiable course of action (this can mean "not in all cases" or "never"). Note that this debate will neither be concerned with legislation nor religious arguments.Definitions: Person: A selfconscious, being that recognizes itself as a distinct entity over time.Human being: Any living creature that carries human genes in its cells.Merely conscious being: A living creature that lacks the criteria for personhood, yet is able to feel certain stimuli like pain. Examples might some invertebrates.Format:Round 1: Opening statementsRound 2,3,4: RebuttalsRound 5: Closing statements, no new argumentsBoP is on Pro.Forfeiting any round will result in a loss.Keep it civil.Accepting without permission, breaking the rules or not keeping the format will result in an instant loss, this includes the usage of different definitions or objecting to my definitions. If you do not feel comfortable with them let me know in the comments, maybe we can work something out.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Opening StatementFrom looking at the definitions one might correctly conclude that "person" and "human being" are not identical, which implies that there are humans which are not persons and persons that are not human.If we consider a person we know from experience that a person has preferences, feels pain, feels happiness and so on. We all have a strong preference to not feel pain and to continue living, hence violating those preferences has to be outweighed by something else. Killing a person violates a multitude of preferences such as the preference to continue living and makes void all of the persons endeavors.To be regarded as a person one needs to be capable of the criteria listed above, thus an embryo is not to be considered as a person. To be capable of pain one needs to poses a neuronal basis which is formed about half way through pregnancy (18-25 weeks)(1), until then the synapses of the embryo are not connected. This means that there is no such thing as hurting or killing an embryo (up to this age), at least not in the sense as in hurting or killing a person. The pain inflicted by an abortion at this stage is equal to the same amount of pain one inflicts on the skin cells she looses whilst washing hands - none.An older embryo however might pass as a merely conscious being, a being, while able to feel pain, has no self awareness, does not see itself as a distinct entity over time and has no (since it cannot have) interest in continuing to live. This means that even then abortion is justifiable under the condition that the life of the fetus is ended painlessly.I am looking forward to a worthwhile debate.(1)http://informahealthcare.com...
A debate on a provocative topic.

Okay, I am in support of cannibalism for many reasons, but I'll just list a few. First, I would like to point out that cannibalism of already deceased human beings harms no one. It may be a little gross to some people, but it does not cause physical harm. In fact, there are even benefits gained from doing so. I will begin by listing the problems with burials and cremations. Burying your dead Grandma is problematic. First, it is expensive, as you have to purchase a burial plot and a tombstone, and second it is a waste of land that could otherwise have been used for housing the world's growing population. Cremation is just as bad. Humans are made out of mostly carbon. You all know what happens when you burn carbon right? You create CO2. This, by most accounts, is bad. Now, here are the benefits of cannibalism: First, as I mentioned earlier, it is harmless. Second, human flesh contains many of the nutrients that we need to survive, as the deceased member of the family ate those nutrients. Third, it is supposedly very tasty (some artist dude ate part of himself, and wrote an article on it). Fourth, it gives us more food. If we can supplement our diet with dead people, then there is more food for the starving children in Africa. Fifth, it's cheap. You already have the meat, you just need it butchered, which you really could do yourself. Sixth, it's fairly green. A fire is carbon neutral, as the wood it burns absorbed an equal amount of CO2 from the air in its lifetime, so burning wood from fallen trees and broken branches is green, and you can cook your loved one the old-fashioned way, over that green fire. Finally, the dude is dead, you wouldn't want the tragic event of his death to go to waste, would you? It's like the reduce, reuse, recycle concept. You reduce dead people by making them live longer, you reuse them by eating them, and you recycle by using the energy you gained from eating them to make more babies. In summation, burials are expensive wastes of land, and cremations are Co2 causing, but cannibalism is green, cheap, it's like recycling, it saves food for the kids in Africa, it is tasty, it is healthy, and it's harmless. Guess what? Cannibalism rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A debate on a provocative topic.

I will list three provocative topics. I am going to support the one of your choosing. So in your R1 post, tell me what you want to debate. 1. Cannibalism of non-diseased human carcasses is a superior alternative to cremation or burial. 2. The world would be better off with a capitalist anarchy. (If you don't know what I mean by that, I'll explain in my R2 post. Basically though, it means that corporations rule the world.) 3.Agriculture was a BIG mistake--that is, man should never have made the change from hunting and gathering to farming.
DDO Needs a History Catagory

I disagree with your first argument, partly because you said quote " What is the US government based off of? It is based off of a document that was created by historical figures. We have been living our modern day lives by a document that was written almost 400 years ago. " this is partially false as our constitution can be due to change at any time, so these documents of history are basically pointless now. Also your other argument, quote "Do you know why there is so much conflict in the Middle East? Wars and fights between peoples and nations have been going on there far before 9/11 and the end of WWII. " I don't really see the relevance of this argument. How is finding the history of these conflicts going to help prevent it? ?In your second contention you stated how the Mayan's astronomical technology is advanced as modern 21st century technology, however you didnt really expand on the topic or give good evidence. The Mayan's most notable acheivements are their accurate calendar and phases of the moon. This piece of evidence completely nails your claim of how, "The Mayans and other ancient civilizations have knowledge that will still do not have today. "Ok now your final argument states how many religions have varying beliefs, while other have the same core beliefs. Trying to prove my preceding argument wrong, you actually approve of my resolution by stating the unstability of the historical document, the Bible. You said, quote, "Not all Catholics believe the same exact thing. There are sects that believe Jesus did not exist, and it is just a story that teaches morals. Other parts of the faith believe that Jesus was only a prophet, or he was an ordinary man. " Catholism and other sectors of Christianity all follow the same historical document, the Bible. I'm correct in verse John 14:6-7 - Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. ” This verse even states the divinity of Jesus. My point being is that these historical bases have no value at all in today's world and can be modified at any time. In Conclusion of my argument I'm trying to point out that history has no value in today's world as it can be completely modified and won't hold the same value as it once did. My opponent's arguments were completely unaccurate as he stated that historical progress still holds great value, however that's not true in the society we live in today.
DDO Needs a History Catagory

"But let me ask you what are some of the most contreversial subjects in the world today? Are any of them history-related? No, you know why, cause this is the present where we have no need to learn about why the "Mayans ran into the jungle" or how the "Paleolithic people really lived" does this help the people who are constantly dying from famine or poverty? Ya, I didn't thnk so. " The most important issues of today ARE HISTORY RELATED. What is the US government based off of? It is based off of a document that was created by historical figures. We have been living our modern day lives by a document that was written almost 400 years ago. Do you know why there is so much conflict in the Middle East? Wars and fights between peoples and nations have been going on there far before 9/11 and the end of WWII. Does that fact that aliens might exist or that everything is made up of tiny partials, or politics help feed people who are starving? No. The Mayans and other ancient civilizations have knowledge that will still do not have today. Ancient Mayan astronomy is still as advanced as modern 21st century technology. "Another important argument you stated is how people such as Jesus and other religious leaders really existed, but doing this means contradicting an entire religion. I wouldn't think of this as a really viable solution. " Many religions have the same beliefs, but different sects. Not all Catholics believe the same exact thing. There are sects that believe Jesus did not exist, and it is just a story that teaches morals. Other parts of the faith believe that Jesus was only a prophet, or he was an ordinary man. Even if we were to come to a conclusion, that doesn't mean it has to be accepted, or that I is the right conclusion.
DDO Needs a History Catagory

I do agree with you on certain aspects of your argument, such as it helps learn about the world around us. But let me ask you what are some of the most contreversial subjects in the world today? Are any of them history-related? No, you know why, cause this is the present where we have no need to learn about why the "Mayans ran into the jungle" or how the "Paleolithic people really lived" does this help the people who are constantly dying from famine or poverty? Ya, I didn't thnk so. Another important argument you stated is how people such as Jesus and other religious leaders really existed, but doing this means contradicting an entire religion. I wouldn't think of this as a really viable solution.
DDO Needs a History Catagory

"Ok, first of all you didn't really elaborate on why we should have a history category. Second, the world has more issues of importance other then figuring out something that's already been resolved!! So, basically what I'm asking is why have a DDO category for something so useless? Come back to me when you have a case worth presenting." History is being discovered every day, and just like science, everything new piece of the puzzle is found, we have to readjust everything we know. Were you alive during the times of ancient civilizations, I wasn't, everything we know about history is mainly theories, the only evidence we have are the artifacts they leave behind, and written documents (which are usually vague, un-translated, or no existing/not found/destroyed). Just like science, history is not fully understood and we still have much to learn. People do not agree on certain aspects of history, such as did Jesus (and other people) really exist, what happened to (certain civilization(s)), why did they Mayan run back into the jungle, how did Paleolithic people really live, was a certain (ruler/military leader) better than another, etc. History is and never will be completely resolved and accepted until time machines enable us to see both future, past, and present. History helps us understand the world around us. If you knew the complete history of the Middle East you would be able to understand the conflicts that are happening there better, and make a better educated decision on how to deal with the situation. History helps us to be more aware of other people's cultures and traditions (hence it is sometimes called SOCIAL SCIENCE). Having an understand of other people, makes us, as human beings, more accepting, and less ignorant towards others. If we did not study history, the same mistakes would keep happening, and no progress would be made. Conclusion: History is unresolved, like science; new information continually changes what we previously thought was right, History does have a use and is important
hilary did not break the law with her email scandal

The issue with Hillary Clinton isn't whether she broke the law. It's whether anyone could get through the political forces around her. Let's start with one very significant error in your thesis: "many of her predeessers used private servers too." The spelling of "predecessor" aside, there are a couple glaring errors here. I refer you to: http://www.politifact.com... First of all, there haven't been "many" former Secretaries of State before Hillary Clinton who used email, period. The only one that did so regularly (Colin Powell) did indeed use a private email ADDRESS. However, Mrs. Clinton did not simply use a private address, which would conform more to her claim that what she did was "a mistake, but not illegal". She also used a private SERVER. There is a world of difference between the two. A server is a physical item, meaning data was physically stored in it without clearance. I direct you to James Comey's report of the findings into Hillary Clinton's email practices: https://www.fbi.gov... As well as a summary of his testimony before Congress: http://www.politico.com... Among the issues at hand, the investigation revealed that Mrs. Clinton did not have permission to store State Dept. information on a private server. Referring to the earlier link, she therefore violated Title 18, Section 793(f) since she allowed the State Dept. data to be "removed from its proper place of custody". Mrs. Clinton also claims to have turned over all emails from her private server to authorities. Per Mr. Comey's testimony as cited above, it is "highly likely" that Clinton's team destroyed work-related emails rather than turning them over. That again puts her in violation of Title 18. Of course, all this is a footnote to that which is irrefutable. Mrs. Clinton testified under oath before Congress regarding this matter and according to Mr. Comey's summary of the investigation (I refer you to the above-referenced links of the official FBI statement and Mr. Comey's own testimony before Congress) Mrs. Clinton did not tell the truth. http://www.nytimes.com... Mrs. Clinton claimed that "all of her work-related emails were turned over" upon request. The FBI investigation proved otherwise. Therefore Mrs. Clinton lied under oath. Her defense is going to be that she didn't know that those other emails had to be turned over (in fact, Mr. Comey's statement could be summed as essentially "yes she broke the rules but she didn't know any better"). Luckily, "gross negligence" is covered under the aforementioned Title 18, Section 793(f). There you have it. Either she did know her email system wasn't being operated properly and therefore lied to Congress making her guilty of perjury under Section 1621, or she was too incompetent to properly secure her own system, which means she violated Section 793 by allowing State Dept. property to be removed and destroyed through her negligence. Either way, she broke a law. Of course, this debate is a moot point. In all likelihood she'll win the general election in November and simply pardon herself if necessary.
The chicken came before the egg.

Biblical Argument: Obviously God didn't make a bunch of eggs and whatnot when He created the animals. He made chickens out of thin air and stuff. (Wow, I sound like I know what I'm talking about. ) You get my point. But as you said, I guess the Holy Bible can't counter your argument, so I'll leave it at that. Evolutionary Argument: Natural selection goes back to the different finches of the same species that Darwin found on the Galapagos Islands. These finches had slight differences in appearance because of the conditions they lived in. Some finches had long beaks to pick out berries, some had large beaks to crack nuts, etc. Now, when the finches got separated between the islands, their appearance gradually changed to suit what they were doing. They were not just suddenly born with the adaptations they needed. They were developed slowly over time. The same goes for chickens: an ancestor of the chicken did not just have an egg and it became a chicken. The ancestors gradually changed over time into modern-day chickens.
The chicken came before the egg.

My opponent should be thanked for picking such a creative topic to debate. Now to prove him wrong. As an overview, if the chicken came first where did it come from? An egg. That's right, the first chicken never could have been born had it not been for that egg it hatched from. Where did the egg come from you may ask? An ancestor of the first chicken. The egg would be a chicken egg because it contained a chicken. Biblical argument: "If he created an egg, it wouldn't hatch because it wouldn't be in the ideal environment." God is believed to be all-powerful. Claiming that an egg wouldn't hatch is not valid. God, if he wanted to, could make an egg hatch. I am not claiming that He did for sure, but that the Holy Bible cannot disprove my argument. Evolutionary Argument: "there's also the fact that organisms became more complicated (evolution). Once the right combination of molecules/DNA/aminos are combined, the chicken is formed. Not an egg." This is not true. Where did the chicken come from? A prehistoric ancestor of the chicken, that lays eggs. The first chicken would have come from an egg laid by its mother, who was not a chicken, but the egg would be a chicken egg because it contains a chicken. When a chicken is developing it develops in an egg, so the first chicken developed in the first egg. The egg had to come first, as that is what happens with all chickens today.
The chicken came before the egg.

And I hope his head doesn't hurt that much XD My argument is the chicken came first. The egg had to come from a chicken. Eggs don't just grow on trees. Now, the con side will obviously state the chicken had to come from an egg. However, in the Bible, God created all animals of the land on the sixth day. God did not create eggs, but chickens. If he created an egg, it wouldn't hatch because it wouldn't be in the ideal environment. If you don't believe what the Bible says, there's also the fact that organisms became more complicated (evolution). Once the right combination of molecules/DNA/aminos are combined, the chicken is formed. Not an egg.