BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allies would have won WW2 without America.

Germany did not step foot in Britain. They hoped to defeat the British solely through air raids by the Luftwaffe that proved ineffective. D-Day did not contribute to the safety of Britain because by that stage in the war, Germany was too weak to attack Britain and had its own problems on the Eastern flank. D-Day was an attack and therefore, even if the Allies did not win that battle, Britain still would be safe. I do not see how D-Day contributed to Britain's security. D-Day, as mentioned in my first argument, proved to be a unnecessary operation. The Soviet operation to capture Berlin began months before D-Day, meaning that the Allies were already on the way to victory. In the first argument, I established that in regards to vehicles/supplies, the Allies would still have an enormous advantage over the Axis even without America. In the above paragraph, I have established that America's contributions in men was also minimal. Here are the main Allies by men lost: Soviet Union: 25,000,000 France: 550,000 Great Britain: 450,900 America: 418,500 http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com... Considering all of the above, I still do not see why the Allies would not be able to defeat the Axis powers without the help of the US.
Allies would have won WW2 without America.

My opponent has provided a very good case, but I will now prove that even without the US, the Allies had all the means necessary to defeat the Axis powers. Let's compare Allies vs. Axis if the US had not joined in. _RAW RESOURCES_ Coal (in millions of tons) Allies: 2,133.9 Axis: 2,700 Iron Ore (in millions of tons) Allies: 194.1 Axis: 261.7 Crude Oil (in millions of tons) Allies: 209.8 Axis: 38.6 _NAVY_ Aircraft carriers: Allies: 14 Axis: 16 Battleships: Allies: 5 Axis: 7 Cruisers: Allies: 34 Axis: 15 Destroyers: Allies: 266 Axis: 86 Convoy escorts: Allies: 757 Axis: 210 Submarines: Allies: 219 Axis: 1,301 (With the US, the Allies still only had about 400 submarines. The Allies were still at a very heavy disadvantage.) _AIR FORCE_ Fighter aircraft Allies: 113,500 Axis: 94,310 Bombers Allies: 58,490 Axis: 35,550 Transport aircraft Allies: 19,100 Axis: 5,670 _LAND SYSTEMS_ Tanks and SPGs Allies: 94,600 Axis: 45,100 Artillery pieces Allies: 685,050 Axis: 179,750 Mortars Allies: 303,250 Axis: 73,480 Machine-guns Allies: 2,026,700 Axis: 1,054,000 Military trucks Allies: 942,100 Axis: 594,840 It is clear from the above that even without the US, the Allies still had a very large advantage and would be able to defeat the Axis powers. Lack of German logistics and oil would take its toll, allowing Allies to easily transport troops/equipment and surround/choke the German forces. I will also note that the US provided nearly none of the most important resource, humans. Almost all the losses were taken by other countries. http://en.wikipedia.org... In regards to D-Day, the attackers suffered 4 times as many casualties as the defending Germans. Not only that, but less than a third of the German forces were located on the Western flank, almost all of Germany's forces were trying to hold off the Soviet advance on the East. Overall, the D-Day invasion played little to no role in helping the Soviet armies make it to Berlin. The Germans knew that Americans would treat them better than the Russians, so they did everything they could to "allow" the Americans to take them over before the Soviets could, leaving almost no resistance to fend off the Western allies and concentrating their efforts on holding off the Soviets long enough. It obviously didn't work. In the end, I see no reason why the Allies would not be able to defeat the Axis without the US. On to Con.
Best/most interesting battles in history

Battle of Gettysburg Was the turning point in the civil war, helped the Union to victory. was fought July 1–3, 1863 The first day othe battle was a Union stalling effort, Buford's cavalry held off superior Confederate forces awaiting the Union troops. The Union Inftry did arrive, but they where forced to retreat the first day to cemetery hill The battle then was a union hook formation on all of the hills near cemetery hill, and the msit famous one little round top. The 20th maine held little round top, and for a longtime against superior confederate soldiers. Once out of ammo, their commander, colonel Chamnerlyn, did bayonet charge and captured hundreds of confederates. That was the most important art of the battle. Conclusion: Gettysburg was the turning point in the American civil war. And in my opinion is the most interesting battle of the civil war. For mor info go to:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Best/most interesting battles in history

Rules: must post one battle every round with a description. (sources optional)I choose Verdun. for the first round. 21 February – 18 December 1916, on hilly terrain Verdun resulted in 306,000 battlefield deaths (163,000 French and 143,000 German combatants) plus at least half a million wounded, an average of 30,000 deaths for each of the ten months of the battle. It was the longest and one of the most devastating battles in the First World War and the history of warfare. Verdun was primarily an artillery battle: a total of about 40 million artillery shells were exchanged, leaving behind millions of overlapping shell craters that are still partly visible. In both France and Germany, Verdun has come to represent the horrors of war look at: http://en.wikipedia.org... ( a picture) Was a siege So it was the first main artillery battle, a turning point (temporarily) in the first world war, had interesting strategies (if you looked at the map I provided), and was devastating. It is the most interesting battle in WW1, and will forever be remembered. source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Good luck =)
Best/most interesting battles in history

broke the rules twice, I deserve conduct. Waterloo: The Battle of Waterloo was fought on Sunday 18 June 1815 near Waterloo in present-day Belgium, then part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. An Imperial French army under the command of Emperor Napoleon was defeated by combined armies of the Seventh Coalition, an Anglo-Allied army under the command of the Duke of Wellington combined with a Prussian army under the command of Gebhard von Blï¿½cher. It was the culminating battle of the Waterloo Campaign and Napoleon's last. The defeat at Waterloo put an end to Napoleon's rule as Emperor of the French and marked the end of his Hundred Days return from exile. [1] Upon Napoleon's return to power in 1815, many states that had opposed him formed the Seventh Coalition and began to mobilise armies. Two large forces under Wellington and von Blï¿½cher assembled close to the north-eastern border of France. Napoleon chose to attack in the hope of destroying them before they could join in a coordinated invasion of France with other members of the coalition. The decisive engagement of this three-day Waterloo Campaign (16–19 June 1815) occurred at the Battle of Waterloo. According to Wellington, the battle was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life."[5] Napoleon delayed giving battle until noon on 18 June to allow the ground to dry. Wellington's army, positioned across the Brussels road on the Mont-Saint-Jean escarpment, withstood repeated attacks by the French, until, in the evening, the Prussians arrived in force and broke through Napoleon's right flank. At that moment, Wellington's Anglo-Allied army counter-attacked and drove the French army in disorder from the field. Pursuing coalition forces entered France and restored Louis XVIII to the French throne. Napoleon abdicated, surrendered to the British, and was exiled to Saint Helena, where he died in 1821.[1] The battlefield is in present-day Belgium, about 8 miles (13 km) south by south-east of Brussels, and about 1 mile (1.6 km) from the town of Waterloo. The site of the battlefield is today dominated by a large monument, the Lion Mound. As this mound used earth from the battlefield itself, the original topography of the part of the battlefield around the mound has not been preserved.[1] French strength: 72,000men Allied strength: 118,000 men. casualties: French: 48,000 Allied: 24,000 Total: 72,000 Conclusion: I deserve conduct because of the FF and rule breaking. I deserve arguments because i have more and better battles and explanations. And I deserve sources as I actually have some. And even If you post so next round I still had more. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]
Best/most interesting battles in history

You have forfeited, therefore breaking the post one battle every round rule, therefore I win. But I will post a battle so I don't break the rules. Operation market Garden: Operation Market Garden (17–25 September 1944) was an unsuccessful Allied military operation, fought in the Netherlands and Germany in the Second World War. It was the largest airborne operation up to that time. Field Marshal Montgomery's goal was to force an entry into Germany and over the Rhine. He wanted to circumvent the northern end of the Siegfried Line and this required the operation to seize the bridges across the Maas (Meuse River) and two arms of the Rhine (the Waal and the Lower Rhine) as well as several smaller canals and tributaries. Crossing the Lower Rhine would allow the Allies to encircle Germany's industrial heartland in the Ruhr from the north. It made large-scale use of airborne forces, whose tactical objectives were to secure the bridges and allow a rapid advance by armored units into Northern Germany. Initially, the operation was marginally successful and several bridges between Eindhoven and Nijmegen were captured. However, Gen. Horrocks' XXX Corps ground force's advance was delayed by the demolition of a bridge over the Wilhelmina Canal, as well as an extremely overstretched supply line, at Son, delaying the capture of the main road bridge over the Meuse until 20 September. At Arnhem, the British 1st Airborne Division encountered far stronger resistance than anticipated. In the ensuing battle, only a small force managed to hold one end of the Arnhem road bridge and after the ground forces failed to relieve them, they were overrun on 21 September. The rest of the division, trapped in a small pocket west of the bridge, had to be evacuated on 25 September. The Allies had failed to cross the Rhine in sufficient force and the river remained a barrier to their advance until the offensives at Remagen, Oppenheim, Rees and Wesel in March 1945. The failure of Market Garden ended Allied expectations of finishing the war by Christmas 1944. Although an allied defeat, it was very interesting battle. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming Skepticism

I hope my opponent will be able to post during the final round. Since he has challenged none of my contentions above, I will go on and post my closing arguments. === Conclusion === That opponent has produced no evidence to show that the climate change that has occured during the past 200 years is due to any human activity. For all he knows, it could be caused by an increase in volcanic activity, a change in the output of the Sun, or a change in the earth's orbit. Likewise, he has not illustrated why it is nessecary for human beings to act to combat global warming. If global warming is not caused by humans and we act regardless, the human race will waste huge amounts of resources on an unstopable problem. Recent events such as "climategate" has shed doubt on global warming research and data from the past decade. When all of this is cobined the resolution stands: the human race should remain skeptical of global warming. I thank my opponent and everybody who took the time to read this. I would like to highlite that my opponent had terrible conduct, he forfeited a round and resorted to relentess attacks. He also has produced no arguments of his own, reaffirming the resolution.
Global Warming Skepticism

Thank you for answering. Please excuse me for the delay in my argument - I was rather busy lately. Due to the fact that you used the same arguments for Round 2, I assume that these are your only arguments. You must introduce new arguments in each round. Your conclusion rather contradicts your other statements. I will explain later on. 1) This is proving that in the past 200-300 years, temperatures reached a global high. Thank you for providing me with evidence that we HAVE affected our climate from coal to gasoline. The temperature is higher in that period compared to the rest of time. "Starting at the end of the 18th Century isn't adequate." - What does this mean? The Industrial Age started at that time, yes, but as you said before, the research about climate goes way far back. There is a general pattern, and the past centuries break the tradition and go unusually higher. Because the Earth evolves just like stars, different 'life periods' of the Earth present varied patterns. Our era presents a pattern that we have changed momentarily. I haven't said said we are going to start with the end of the 18th century. 2) 600,000 years before we got here, the same pattern was present. The data that we have DOES show that since fossil fuels started being burnt, temperatures rose dramatically. I assume that you are closed-minded and think that the only way to fix global warming would be to pump resources into it. Read this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com.... We can switch to reusable sources and curb the use of fossil fuels. 3)Ummm............thanks for the.......tip............. STATISTICS: 1. (used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements. 2. (used with a plural verb) the numerical facts or data themselves. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) According to this definition, statistics cannot contain bias. This is still not a relevant argument. 4) I will dismiss this. You have said that global warming is destined to happen. Aren't you the one arguing that global warming ISN'T real?! Technically, you are saying: "Global warming is destined to happen, according to my opinion." The rest of argument 4 is not relevant to our debate. Please start a new debate called 'Global Warming isn't worth pumping resources into', take the pro side and argue that there. I am not entertaining these extra topics. A TIP: Don't start your arguments with 'I'm just saying'. It sounds grossly unprofessional. 2/4 of your 'arguments' are not technically arguments for this resolution, so I rest my case. If you re not going to forfeit the next round, please follow the correct conduct and HAVE NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND. It is quite boring to waste valuable debate time on using synonyms to paraphrase your old, proved wrong arguments. Thank you. I hope that the next round will be a tad more interesting.
Global Warming Skepticism

I will now respond to my opponent's claims 1) We wouldn't know that based on the incomplete climate record of planet earth. This changes in temperature could actually be based on long cycles in the earth's climate. Cliamte is not made over a couple of years, a couple of decades, or a couple of centuries, to truly capture the scope and understand climate one needs to look at the history of climate over tens-of-thousands of years. Starting at the end of the 18th Century isn't adaquete. This graph shows that the Earth's climate has been to voliatle over the last couple of decades to form any sort of trend, in fact after global temperature reached a high in 1998, it seem to be on the decline. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) 2) It is true that our climate data goes back further than the existence of man, but this still doesn't mean that cliamte change is worthy of human action. We need to know and take into account how the climate was before we got here for several reasons. One being so that we can assess the current climate situation and see if anything similar to it has occured in the past. If we only go back 200,000 years, then seeing a spike in global temperatures post 1700 isn't really put into context; it needs to compared with other warming spasms in earth's history. The data right know doesn't not link human activity to global climate change, meaning that it would be foolish for humans to try to stop climate change as their is no actual evidence to suggest that the problem is man-made. If we don't than we would waste resources on a problem that couldn't be adverted. 3) I'm just saying that people should be skeptical of any global warming "evidence" they hear because global warming is a controversial issue and some evidence and statistics might have hidden bias. Therefore, we should remain skeptical of the evidence of global warming and hence global warming itself. 4) I'm just saying that we should remain skeptical of global warming because not doing so might mean that the human race dump huge amounts of resources into preventing a disaster that is destined to happen (rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic). Therefore, we should remain skeptical of global warming: as it might send us on a fool's errand while more pressing issues, like hunger and poverty, are ignored. === Conclusion === My arguments made in round one, after clarification, stand without tarnish.
Global Warming Skepticism

I thank you for this exciting chance to debate on such an interesting topic. I will now post my arguments in a similar fashion. ========== 1) It is true that such changes have happened before, but according to studies, (http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com...) there has been a much more rapid increase in temperature rates than average, proving that the Industrial Age greatly affected the temperature and general climate of our planet. 2) The first humans evolved 200,000 years ago. Global warming is a potential threat to humanity, so we only look at more recent events that happened. Things change. Planets and stars go through different stages in their 'lifetimes'. We are lucky to see what happened a whole 600,000 years BEFORE we actually evolved. Information before this time is generally irrelevant, especially if the pattern is the same. 3) I do not fully understand the point of this statement. This does not relate to the proposition (or resolution) and does not support your argument. It seems to me that this is an excuse for poor research or if this debate is won by me. Because global warming is now a big issue, the more reason there is to argue it. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying: "Well, you see, global warming has a lot of opinion, and most people think that it exists, so I can't get any decent research." Correct me if I am wrong. If you explain the relevance of this point to your position of the matter, I will be happy to provide a fair rebuttal in the next round(s). 4) This debate is about whether or not global warming is real or not, not about whether it is worth researching or not. Please remember the proposition. Because the last two arguments have not been strong and well supported, I suggest voters to have this in mind. ========== I would like you to remember that this is a 4-round debate, so try not to spill everything out at once, as you did here as I can see due to the fact that half of the arguments were faulty (2/4). Thank you again for such an interesting topic. I await my opponent's (hopefully) satisfying response. == Cpt.Price
Global Warming Skepticism

=== Resolution === The people of the world should be highly skeptical on the issue of human induced climate change. === Arguments ==== 1) Changes in climate have occured before. The ice age that occured some 110,000 to 10,000 years ago [1] is evidence that drastic changes in the Earth's climate is normal. Also, the fact that when the Vikings landed in an ice-free Greenland in 986 is evidence of previous warming, as Greenland is full of ice today. [2] Therefore, there is no reason to become concerned over the fact that the climate is changing now, because it is normal for the Earth's climate fluctuate. 2) Human's understanding of climate is rather limited. The oldest climate data that humans can gather comes from ice cores from around 800,000 years ago. [3] The Earth is around 4.55 billion years old. [4] Meaning that we, as humans, only know about 1.76% of the Earth's climate history. That is not enough to speculate or future climate trends, as we don't even know enough about past climate. 3) The issue has become too politicized. Global Warming is controversial issue like abortion and gay marriage. Feelings on the subject are often strong and people tend to be highly opinionated. Due to this, it is almost impossible to gain an unbiased opinion on the matter. Climategate is evidence of that. 4) Global warming would cost humanity too much. All the money that would be spent trying to avoid the harmful effects of global warming could be better spent. Trillions of dollars would have to be invested in infastructure, science and research, and emergency management in order for humans to avoid total calimity (if what Al Gore is saying is true). This money would be better spent on problems like poverty and world hunger, as we actually know that these problems exist. I thank whoever accepts and I hope to have an intelligent, well-thought out, and enlightening debate. === Sources === 1) Wikipedia: Last Glacial Period 2) Page 46 of Reader's Digest "Atlas of the World", published 1990 3) Wikipedia: Temperature Record 4) http://www.talkorigins.org...
Resolved: Unwinding should be legalized.

According to the book Unwind, this process of splitting one's body into sperate parts to be used for medical reasons not only benefitted the economy, but saved many lives. Although in the book, there was an alternative of "printing organs", my opponent agreed to stay off that topic for the purpose of having a more controversial debate. First of all, one needs to understand that Unwinding is not "killing" the subject undergoing the process, but splitting them. With the use of future medical technology, it will be possible to keep the body parts alive until it finds a new host. Although I do disagree with Unwinding teens against their will, I am arguing for a different cause: Unwinding the criminals who have already been deprived or their rights in prison or death sentence. Instead of confining one to a building for the rest of his or her life, or wasting a life, it will contribute to this society greatly by Unwinding those who diserve punishment. Right now, if you think about it, we are just keeping a bunch of free body parts in a building! Unwinding criminals will provide a useful way of punishing the detrimental and grants society a promising future.
My opponent's screen name is Frenchmoosetwo.

Does my opponent know where King Tut's real house is located? Isn't it buried under the desert sands? My opponent has no evidence he was in King Tut's house. Also, did my opponent resurrect the dead Elvis in an attempt to speak to him? I thought only Jesus could be resurrected. ;) My opponent also forgot what else he was going to say. Unless he can revive his memory we have no way of knowing what he really did, but right now it seems he suffers from delusions that he somehow spoke to the dead.
My opponent's screen name is Frenchmoosetwo.

-Oh i just got back.. i have the cabbage and i did not do to king tuts current home.. i went to his old home.. took his pottery and then went back to get elvis to tell you my true screen name, Buuuut he said no so i have to find some other source of evidence to proove your statement wrong...- -I could rpob just make some tea and crumpets and call it a day... i have now found out a way tyo proove this wrong!- -actually no that wont work.. i also forgot what else i was going to say-
My opponent's screen name is Frenchmoosetwo.

-The only way i can prove this is by swimming halfway into the atlantic ocean, swimming down to the bottom to atlantis, eating ll of their cabbage, going to king tuts old house and stealing his pottery, bringing it back here, useing such pottery to bring back elvis and let him tell you.- -To make it simple in a list- 1,middle of atlantic 2,to atlantis 3,eat cabbage 4,go to king tuts place 5,steal pots 6,go home 7,bring back elvis 8,let him tell you 9,???? 10,profit