BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

I am a Socialist first off. Now if the allies never performed D-Day France would be under Fascist Controll and also at the battle of Berlin Hitler would have fled to Paris or Other Axis held territory in Western Europe so the Western Powers Canada US & UK would not have been able to set up defended there and kill Fascists the German military would also be Much Much Stronger. Because they wouldn't have D-Day casualties. The Soviets would still liberate the east but the squeez attic would never come to play. And not very many understand that Paton's Invasion of Italy was part of D-Day but if D-Day never happend Mussilni would have been able to Support Hitler with Italian Forces and Renforce Nazi held territory Such as Czechoslovak territory and Austrian and Yugoslav. So the Axis would still control and have far more reinforcements in the East than if D-Day had happend. So in this Reality the Soviets would face million more causilites than with D-day happening.
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

D-Day, also known as the Normandy Landings had no effect on the outcome of WWII. In WWII, there were two possible outcomes to the war. Outcome #1: Axis VictoryOutcome #2: Allied VictoryI will be arguing that if D-Day had never happened, Germany would still have lost the war no matter what. My opponent will be arguing that Germany had a chance of winning WWII by the time the allies invaded France and might still have won the war if D-Day had never happened.Note: In this debate, saying that the allied invasion of France stopped the Soviets from invading France is not a valid argument.My opponent will attempt to argue that D-Day did have an effect on the outcome of the war (axis victory) and I will be arguing that the Normandy Landings had no effect on the outcome of WWII.Round 1 is for acceptance. Good luck and have fun.
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

But the Fascists would still have Vichy France as a ally and Romania Bulgaria and other Pro-Axis nations in the Balkens. The war would be prolonged to the 1950's. Which would give the Fascists time to rehabilitate. Also what sources would I have? D-Day did happen so I can't get sources for no D-Day and just putting links to German defeats in Russia and Ukraine dosnt mean to much yes Stalingrad was a great victory for the Soviets. But Germans were still in Eastern Poland at this time so the fact of the matter is the soviets would have no support and would be left to Boys and oldmen as well like Leningrad. And the west wouldn't be able to help the soviets in sertin battles in Germany. Germany would have a larger chance of a terrible but enviable victory. I know military strategy I know D-Day was need for a Comutrune & Allied victory and to take down fascism for good.
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

"The USSR would have been pushed back to the Polish border..."These are empty words. My opponent has said nothing that can prove this and he has provided no sources for support."And the Croats would have also had a stringer chance..."The Croats barely had an army during WWII. They couldn't possibly do anything against anybody."So the Fascists would have a advantage in the alps and also in the Balkens pushing the Soviets back to Poland-Belorussia and Moldova."With what army? Like I said earlier, Germany was heavily outnumbered by the Soviets. They were low on supplies and the German army barely had any tanks/planes left. These are once again, empty words."So Vichy soldiers would have supported the Fascists in France and Fascists also drafted citizens in occupied nations so the US and Other western nations not invading and Soviets on Germany's front door the Fascists would have drafted far more French,Belgian, and Dutch soldiers."Vichy France was nothing during WWII. Many of the French soldiers who fought alongside German forces didn't even have a wish to fight against the allies. This argument makes no sense. Vichy France could not possibly have effected the outcome of the war by 1944.I don't think there is any reasons for me to reply to any more of Con's arguments considering the fact that Con did not bother to reply to any of mine. I shall therefore conclude.ConclusionI proved that by 1944, Germany was all but defeated. They no longer had sufficient tanks/planes left. The Soviet Union was outproducing Germany by at least 3:1. My opponent replied to my arguments by stating that if the Western Allies had not invaded France, Hitler would have gone to France and continued the war from there. Con did not say anything about how he would do this. Also, I showed that the German population was not in France, but in Germany. Con also made the mistake of assuming that D-Day took place in Italy as well as France. I'm not sure where Con learned his history, but here is a source that proves that what Con is assuming is compltely incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org...My opponent did not prove that Germy had a chance of winning the war by 1944. I, on the other hand, showed how Germany was heavily outnumbered and could barely produce sufficient material to keep its army fed. By 1944, Germany was down to boys and old men. Germany no longer had any chances of winning the war and that is the reason that D-Day had no effect on the outcome of the war.
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

The USSR would have been pushed back to the Polish border and also Romanian and Bulgarian Soldiers would have also pushed back due to US airraids never occurring for the distance would be to great. And the Croats would have also had a stringer chance as well due to Paton never invading Italy as part of the Italian front on D-Day he wouldn't have made it to Austria and Modern day Slovenia under Croat controll. So the Fascists would have a advantage in the alps and also in the Balkens pushing the Soviets back to Poland-Belorussia and Moldova. And the Germans had Vichy France on tree side as a puppet like Slovakia and Croatia. So Vichy soldiers would have supported the Fascists in France and Fascists also drafted citizens in occupied nations so the US and Other western nations not invading and Soviets on Germany's front door the Fascists would have drafted far more French,Belgian, and Dutch soldiers. Because D-Day not liberating them and Hitler would have gotten asylum in a Paris bunker. Yes the French would be upset but they have no power over that. Also if the Soviets made it to the Rhine the French built defences in the Alslac-Lorrien since the Franco-Prussian war so the Fascists would just reuse and rebuild the forts and the Italians & Croats would have cut of Soviets in Czechoslovak territory and in the Austrian-German alps. And the Fascists funded insugergant movements in the Caucasian Region such as Chechnya so Soviets would also face domestic issues along with forieng issues. With Romania and Bulgaria in Support with the Fascists the Nazis would have a large Navy in the Black sea as well because of the British-American involvement in the Meditaranian as part of the Mid-East theater of D-Day so Fascists ships would pass through easier. The Soviet Army alone couldn't fight Nazis by them selves in outside lands. Mongolia & Tuva didn't provide very much help and The Chinese Soviet didn't want any thing todo with the USSR until the late 40's. So the USSR wouldn't have to much support. And Soviet arms at the time wernt the best on earth there best wepon was the PPSH-41 an amazing gun off topic but there arms were that of the 1890's. The Nazi weapons were far more sophisticated. The MP-40 & MP-44 were examples of it the MP-44 was what the soviets based the Modern Ak-47 off of. Also V-2 rockets were also held by the Germans and I think we both know in a desperate time hitler would have used a wepon such as that. The cloesest thing the soviets had was Stalin's Orgen which is just a large rocket launcher. So the Fadcists would have more defences more territory and more resources.
D-Day had no effect on the outcome of WWII.

"I know D-Day was in France but it also took part in Italy as well."D-Day took place at Normandy, not in Italy."So Fascist strongholds in France would still exsist so thus meaning that German Conscripts would still be alive so reinforcements would be more abundant."Throughout WWII, there were few German soldiers in France."Yes defeats in the Eastern Front helped greatly in the Fascist defeat but D-Day opens Europe to foreign forces to invade."Foreign forced (Red Army) were invading long before D-Day ever happened."With out UK & American soldiers the Rhine and the low countries would still be held by Fascists and give Soviet forces a harder time by pushing through the east..."Sure it would have been harder and would have taken much longer, but this fact does not prove that Germany could have won the war.Con seems to think that just because there were German forces in France, the USSR would have lost. The fact is that there were so few German soldiers in France, that at D-Day the allies outnumbered Germany 15:1[1]. He has not stated any real arguments. I await more...Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Government will abolish the policy about free schools

since this is the last round of our debate rounds, i will going to make it very significant for i am debating an intelligent one, yes you cannot deny the fact that the negative impact of free school is the existence of the misappropriation of funds if it is then lack of supervision of those authorize security which is very typical as it is happens in your country, but then it will be avoided if it is handed by a reliable person and there is strong strict supervision should be done by the authorize agents am i right? The parents should not assume that all the "needs" and "wants" of the children as it is stipulated in your statement that the government will shoulder all the expenses for their educational needs which includes the uniform and transportation, for this will cause a great adverse effect, it will lead then to a debt in the world bank just to supply what is then need by the students especially if the country is not fast growing one, if that's so i can conclude that your countrymen are parasites aren't they? they want everything to be granted by the government, dependence wont help them to stand for their own but rather they should learn to be independent for their own and for the betterment of your nation, so what is then the purpose of salary receive by the parents monthly ? is it not intended for the educational needs of their children? in my last word i just want to label that government should not abolish the policy for free school , it might be annoying to hear by anybody but then it has a role being played to improve ones economic standing , for then it to be achieve a hand in hand agree of this implementation, the probability of this may not be start today but it will be tomorrow.
The Government will abolish the policy about free schools

the negative impact of free schools policy is the possibility of misappropriation of funds if the lack of strict supervision, as many cases occurred in the country of Indonesia. The reduction in parental concern for the child's education will no more spending on schools. (tuition / books etc). because most parents assume all been provided by the school. so the parents think the child / student has been able to follow the lessons well and each semester will receive a report card. Awareness of students / children about school declined
The Government will abolish the policy about free schools

before anything else i just want to extend my gratitude of responding my argument regarding the motion you have started, going back to what we begin, my question is "how will a free school complicate and contribute to the problem of the poor people? do u really think that implementing the abolition of free school would really lessen the economic problem of the nation? your arguments are somehow impressive for those who did not fully understand it, your arguments are yet skeptical. i just want to open it up my last post that the " government should not abolish the free schools" it is not an assumption but it is a firm opinion . Free schools is neither a problem nor a hindrance for students yet it is an opportunity and privilege grant for those unfortunate and uneconomically uplifted by the government, i know that you are referring to poverty if that is your concern with , students cannot sent themselves to school due to money matters is not an issue you can go to school even if you don't have money, transportation is not a hindrance, here in the Philippines many children attend school everyday even if they will walk barefooted just not to missed a single lesson taught by the educators, it has something to do with the willingness of the students to have a higher educational attainment, on the other hand if u are concern with the uniform and study tools too, it is not already included in the list of government desires , parent's are the one responsible for it, we should remember that government did not only focus on one side though the government can fund the assistance of uniform, study tools and transportation but how about other areas like program intended for free medical care, agriculture , and industry? simply they will be affected great much. if the government did not do there task as a public servant for the denizens it has something to do with revolting against them , youth have the right to persist what they are doing if the people was not able granted of the benefits promises, you know and i know that you can make a proposal to add lessons and subjects to the commission of education. your arguments are quite good but there are technicalities on it, you should be aware and watch out for that , it may be the cause of your confusion in the motion.
The Government will abolish the policy about free schools

well, if you mean on the last your argument, that "a free schools policy is a great much help of a developing economic nation, it is an ingredient for promoting and uplifting an economic status". but in actually, free schools will make complicated and will be big problem for poor people. if you have assumption that government shouldn't abolish the free schools, so what the function subsidized early from government? while we know that the subsidize include begin from healthy of their children, happiness their life so that not cry or sad about their daily economic untill education's guarantee for their children also. in the other side, the "free-school" is not include the uniform,right? it's not include the transporation such as how we can go to school for study? it's just for guide-books and school-paid. you can look in the Indonesia if in senior high school we has having only 3 lesson. and that's ridiculous if I just learn history, bahasa and mathematis. how about other lesson? so, the government is not consistent with their early promise. because until right now we don't know when the other guide-books will come meanwhile the teacher always push us to keep have a guide-book in each lesson.
The Government will abolish the policy about free schools

well in behalf on my opponent in this motion, i firmly believe and i stand for my opinion that the government should not abolish the policy or the program for a free education in a public school where education can be attain freely without much paying a high tuition fee, this motion is somehow a multidisciplinary since it may interconnect other aspects ,field and other areas, example given: poverty, economy and etcetera, if this will be abolish many would cry for frustrations since this abolition of a free education program would simply states that, a good quality education can only be attain by those who can paid for a tuition or to be specific wealthy and elite one, we should remember the fact that education is the ticket for a better future as what ms. ariella arida says(miss universe 2013 3rd runner up) a free schools policy is a great much help of a developing economic nation, it is an ingredient for promoting and uplifting an economic status.
The Government will abolish the policy about free schools

free-schools is the one of new government program for the all student who study in government schools. and this is also in conjunction with a new curriculum (curriculum 2013) that is in the country of Indonesia to every government schools. the government should abolish the policy about free schools. why? because the all system from this new policy is getting abstract and will complicated the poor people because although any free school but their children have to get uniform,right? and free school is not include the unifrom, and tools study for them.
agnostic=i accept i dont know

Pro failed to address any of my arguments. Pro reasserts the original premise, while offering no argument for its validity. Pro makes two new assertions. The first , is that a hypothetical acceptance of a unicorn heaven created by unicorns will lead to arguing from that position. The second is that there are three possible beliefs regarding Pro's hat: acceptance, rejection or ignorance.Unicorn Heaven BeliefI fail to see any relevance at all.Hat BeliefFirst, I fail to see any relevance. Hypothetical catagorization of beliefs in hats, or words to describe them, have no bearing on the specific standard of catagorization used for beliefs in gods. To put it simply, if Pro wishes to label beliefs in hats using that statndard, I don't care. Second, Pro fails to address another catagory of belief, which is the complete absense of belief. The Pirahã, indigenous people of South America, were found to have no concept of god prior to contact with outsiders. They did not "accept they didn't know". They literally never considered the issue at all. Presumably, there are peoples of the world who have no concept of hats, or of Pro, and therefore never have and possibly never will consider his/her hat. The hat-belief labeling system proposed would exclude them.In summation, Pro has not provided any further reasons to accept the definition for atheist being "athiest=no", and failed to address demonstration it does not.
agnostic=i accept i dont know

a is a letter atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary, a no based on a belief to the contrary, belief is theism, disbelief is belief atheism is defined as belief in god, based on a belief to the contrary. if you believe in unicorn heaven and unicorns created everything you will argue from that position in a clash with a christian, atheism vs atheism can be is not, life is atheism is disbelief, not lack of belief i am wearing a hat right now. you can believe, disbelieve, or accept you dont know there is no knowledge of unknown claims know is true.. if you know god is false god is false
agnostic=i accept i dont know

In summation, Pro provided no relevant arguments for his/her position. Pro's entire debate has consisted of an argument by assertion fallacy.I have provided the following arguments: The accepted definitions for "thiest" and "athiest" are in contradiction to Pro's claims. Making "agnostic" an overlapping middle area is needlessly vague and confusing. The root word meaning of "gnostic" and prefix of "agnostic" are in contradiction to Pro's definitions. Pro's definition exempts those with an absense of beliefs from all catagories, creating a void for yet another standard. The definition provided by Pro does not allow for there to be any "gnostics". The only reason for creating a middle area is often specifically to slander self-labeled atheists. Pro can call his belief in his hat and or unicorn heaven whatever he chooses. Pro has not addressed any of them.Pro failed to provide any sources, has used lax grammatical standards. Pro showed bad conduct by laughing at my arguments without explanation, as well as essentially forfeiting rounds. If Pro was did not intend to actually debate the topic, then Pro should not have challanged me to a debate.
agnostic=i accept i dont know

Pro still fails to address any of my arguments. Pro fails to address the flaw in his/her proposed hat-belief naming system. Pro re-asserts original premise with no support.I'll use this round to correct some things, while having no need to address Pro's latest statements..First, here's my source for the Pirahã:https://en.wikipedia.org...Second, I misstated Pro's proposed hat-belief categorization as "acceptance, rejection or ignorance." What Pro actually proposed was acceptance, rejection or acceptance of ignorance.Finally, as clarification, acceptance of ignorance is not neccesarily relevant to belief. People hold beliefs in absence of evidence, or more specifically overwhelming evidence, all the time. Therefore, it creates an overlapping standard. There could be those who accept, but admit ignorance, or those who reject based on ignorance. Ergo, Pro must actually define the terms as a hierarchy. Those who admit they are ignorant are called [Hat1]. Those who are not [Hat1], may then be labeled [Hat2] or [Hat3], as acceptance or rejection.
Conducting Background Checks with Gun Sales is Reasonable

Background checks are a way that the government keeps guns out of known criminals' hands and people with mental health issues, without infringing upon the rights of normal citizens. By screening people who want to buy a gun, many criminals are prevented from buying guns. Many guns used in crimes are bought legally, and background checks help address that. In approximately 14 years (in the US), 1,024,000 people were prevented from buying guns because of mental health or criminal record. 171,028,000 checks were carried out in this period, which shows that background checks do not limit the 2nd amendment rights of the law-abiding, mentally healthy citizen. Main arguments against background checks include hassle and increased cost, but deaths are a much larger price to pay than hassle and costs. Imagine how many deaths those million guns could've caused. Sources:http://www.washingtontimes.com...; s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" data-src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; data-sz="f" />
Conducting Background Checks with Gun Sales is Reasonable

Law Abiding citizensThis is totally incorrect. Since the Brady Bill was passed, about 94 - 99% (depending on the estimate) of people stopped or slowed by background checks were false positives. In other words, people who are allowed to buy guns--or there is no evidence that they are not allowed to buy guns--were stopped as a result of the brady bill [1. http://nws.mx...]. Therefore, to say that background checks will not affect the average citizen is false, as up to date these laws have been primarily affecting law abiding citizens. MAForcing dealers to do background checks affect who? The public... So I dont see what your point is here. MA passed the most stringent gun control laws in this country, and the effect was increased crime. This refuted my opponents contention. UPA study Forbes notes, "The obvious selection bias is so problematic here that it is shocking the study was even attempted" [2. http://onforb.es...].
Conducting Background Checks with Gun Sales is Reasonable

Law-abiding citizens are not affected by background checks, they should only be worried if they have something to hide. About your graphs: They all seem to show what you stated, but that Massachusetts law only affected public, not private gun dealers. About 40% of guns in the US are acquired from private dealers, exempting them from the current background check legislation. Therefore, I consider data where only publicly purchased guns were checked to be a bit useless. Guns don't protect you. A study at U.P.A. found that gun owners are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than a control (didn't own a gun). Owners are also more likely to go into potentially dangerous situations that they might have avoided without a gun America already has the most guns in the world AND the most homicides commited by firearms. The US has already done what the NRA said: They got more guns. But that hasn't helped. My sources are in the comments section (URLS are long)