BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington

Now it was a while ago that a show called Deadliest Warrior which puts warriors that never fought each other. Now you can find the show if you wish, but here is a quick look at the weapons they used: Artillery Napoleon's 8lb vs. Washington's 6lb Napoleon won the artillery round with his cannons proving to be more powerful and more advanced. There was a test at round shot and then a test at grape shot. The grape shot that Napoleon had was used against Washington's shrapnel because there was apparently a lack of grape shot in the revolution. While Napoleon did deserve the win for having a better cannon for being faster and more powerful, Washington's was faster. Muskets Napoleon's Charleville vs. Washington's Brown Bess and Pennsylvania Long Rifle I do not recall the name of the rifle, but it had a greater range than the French Charleville. Washington also used the Brown Bess so he got two guns. Napoleon's standard was the Charville that could reload far more faster. Washington was proven to have better muskets. Swords Napoleon's Cavalry Saber vs. Washington's Colichemarde Sword The Colichemarde was proven to be better with the cuts it made than Napoleon's sword. They also included tactics where Napoleon won and logistics where Washington won. Several X factors were included in it. Then the battle was computerized and it turns out Washington beat the battle against Napoleon. Now despite what a computer simulation puts I do not think that Napoleon could beat Washington. I do not hate the show, but I just do not agree with their argument. We must know that the computer is not really them, but just representing them and their army through weapons and factors. In this debate I will do everything I can to prove that Napoleon would actually win the battle than Washington. I am against what the show said that Washington would beat Napoleon. The opponent must defend Washington. Now apparently videos are not well liked in this debate site. So I will only allow that you can use 1 video in the entire debate so you must choose wisely what video and when it will help you best.
Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington

Ok. Here are a list of battles that may interest you: Napoleon: Pyramids - Victory and was outnumbered Aboukir Bay - Victory and outnumbered Marengo - Victory Ulm - Victory Austerlitz - Victory and was outnumbered Jena/Auerstadt - Victory Eyalu - Victory and outnumberd Wagram - Victory Borondino - Victory Ligny - Victory and outnumbered At Waterloo Napoleon could have won if his subordinates did not cause trouble. Washington: New York City - Defeat and failed to defend his flanks Fort Washington - Defeat Brandeywine - Outnumbered the British, was flanked again so he failed to learn from his mistakes, and lost Germantown - Outnumbered the British again and lost Monmouth - Despite training through the winter, Washington could only gain a draw here. Yorktown was won because of French help and without them the war could last longer and lead to a possible American defeat. Washington could have possibly been replaced throughout the war.
Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington

1) My opponent has compared Russia, a major threat to Napoleon that sits right on the borders of his empire, to Cuba, a relatively small and poor nation that has no chance of standing against the United States. Russia was no doubt an enemy of France and in exchange for wood to Britain, Russia gained money from Britain so Russia could raise their army to fight again. If Napoleon could strangle Britain he could virtually conquer his last enemy that he failed to do defeat because he could gain control of the seas. There is no proof that Napoleon wanted to conquer Russia just for more imperial gains, but it is a fact that they disobeyed the treaty made by Napoleon and because of this they could gain money to raise an army. Washington may had been victorious, but only for certain reasons. He was not fighting in the South until Yorktown. He would still not be able to take Yorktown unless he had the French fleet to block the port. Yorktown was heavily fortified with 6,000 British troops while Washington's army which had nearly half of it French troops. 2) If Washington knew how to learn from his mistakes then he would understand that a campaign target would be Yorktown where the British were weak, but no. Instead it was French Admiral De Grasse who suggested Yorktown. Napoleon rarely had mistakes until Moscow and even then he was doing practically the same as Washington. Both Washington at Valley Forge and Morristown and Napoleon during Russia needed to rely on the land for supplies since supply lines were either hard to keep control of or the land just had rarely any supplies. By saying that Britain was a military giant, my opponent must have meant that Britain had an amazing ammount of resources and troops that could all spend their time in America. Britain had a far larger empire that expanded all over the world. Britain cannot concentrate their resources on America and in battles the British army was virtually the same size as the Americans in most battles. Bunker Hill: 2,400 British troops against 1,500 Americans Trenton: 2,400 American troops with 18 guns. 1,400 Hessians with 6 light guns. Guilford Courthouse: Around 1,900 British against 4,400 Americans Washington was fighting a wounded enemy that was full of debt, weak (and weaker when the French joined the war), and spread out. 3) There is more to warfare than the size and mobility. Logsitics played a role in Napoleon's demise when the Russians launched a Schorched Earth policy. Russia had the weather to its advantage and the terrain. Russia had far more advantages then Washington had in the American Revolution. . http://www.britishbattles.com... . http://answers.yahoo.com...
Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington

1) My opponent has made the claim that Napoleon had good reason for his invasion of Russia. My opponent says it was strategically smart because Russia was trading with Great Britain. By this logic, the United States today should invade: Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Japan, India, etc. because they all trade with Cuba, who the United States has had a sour past with. Now, doing this would be a bad idea for the United States, and therefore we have the foresight NOT to do this. Unfortunately for him, Napoleon did not have the foresight we do today, he still attacked Russia and it still became his downfall. Besides, it is a stretch to say that he invaded Russia purely because they were trading with Great Britain. Come on now, he marched a million men across the Russian winter, purely to stop Russia from sending Great Britain wood? (Which by the way was their main export to Great Britain.) No, Napoleon's invasion logically must have come from some other motivation. The only motivation I can fathom behind this idiotic blunder by a military genius is sheer boredom, or greed for more power. EVEN then, it does not stop the fact that Napoleon made this huge blunder and Washington never made such a mistake. Napoleon died defeated, and Washington died victorious. My opponent also mentioned France's involvement in Yorktown— this was well before Napoleon's reign— in fact the French revolution which put Napoleon in power was in part caused by the French people seeing Washington's success. It's a stretch, but if Washington is a chicken, Napoleon is his egg. 2) I believe my opponent misunderstood me with this contention, for which I apologize for my bad wording. I meant that Washington knew the consequences of his actions, not just the immediate battle, but as a campaigner. He new how to control a small army effectively against a military giant (a burden Napoleon never had to hold). He knew how to gain French involvement— and he knew the consequences of his actions short term and long. My opponent brings up the example of Austerlitz, but this one insight does not excuse him form his blunders. 3) As a new point of contention I would also like to bring up the fact that in Napoleon's campaign in Russia (yes, I keep harping about Russia, but hey, it works) Napoleon was defeat by a small, more mobile, ruffian army— much like the one Washington commanded. So if these two generals were to meet in a campaign, history has already given us insight into who would emerge victorious. Thanks you—
Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington

1) Napoleon had a good reason for invading Russia. Russia had surrendered during the Napoleonic Wars, however Russia kept trading with Great Britain, which was the only country at war with France at the moment. Napoleon wanted to cut all trade from Great Britain, in order for the country to be strangled economically and this was called the Continental System. Russia was forced to do this in a treaty, but eventually disobeyed this term. Unlike British propoganda after the war which says that Napoleon was a mad man who wanted to destroy Russia just for his own empire, he really wanted to invade because they disobeyed the Continental System. The reason why armies were smaller during the American Revolution was because that generally adapted to the time of the war and when Napoleon came to power he created a corps system which allowed him to have larger armies. Washington got help from France during the war. As a matter of fact, if France was not in the war no end game at Yorktown could occur. 2) If Napoleon could not see foresight he would had not one the Battle of Austerlitz, his greatest achievment. Napoleon did not take the high ground at Austerlitz and he instead took the low ground and gave the high ground to his enemies (the Russians and Austrians). He predicted that his enemies would attack a weak flank he made in his defensive line. Sure enough, the Russians and Austrians attacked with practically half of their army. Napoleon sprang his trap that flanked and destroyed the Russians and Austrians and then launched an attack taking the high ground. Washington on the other hand could not even manage his own flanks at the Battle of New York City and lost the battle due to that. You would think he would secure his own flanks for future battles right? No! At the Battle of Brandeywine Creek, at battle where Washington outnumbered the British and had new muskets from France, Washington lost again the same way! He was flanked from one side and he once again was suprised from the attack the British made! I think if he had foresight he would able to learn from his mistakes? If he had foresight he would understand that the British were weakest in Virginia at Yorktown. The French instead picked Yorktown as the target, not Washington. Washington wanted to attack New York City which was a very strong base. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.virtualarc.com... http://www.britishbattles.com... http://www.britishbattles.com...
Napoleon Bonaparte vs. George Washington

I recently watched said episode of Deadliest Warrior, and I do agree with the show's finding that George Washington was a more effective general than Napoleon Bonaparte, however I do not necessarily think this is true for the reasons the show gave. CONTENTION 1: Greed, power and addiction. Foremost among the reasons that George Washington is a more effective general is because he was able to make decisions more effectively than Napoleon Bonaparte because he was not fighting for power as Napoleon was. As John Emerich Edward Dalberg said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Napoleon had absolute power, and his career was based on achieving more of it. Napoleon was bent on conquering Russia even though it made NO strategical sense to do so. Napoleon was defeated because he was blinded by power, he attempted taming Russia not for good reason,but because he had the power to do so, and he wanted more o that power. And that became his undoing. Washington on the other hand never had the power Napoleon did. He never commanded great armies, he never ruled an empire; he was modest, humble and was able to lead effectively because of it. Napoleon was not. Therefor, Washington is the greater general. CONTENTION 2: Washington had foresight. Washington was able to use his meager supplies to the colony's advantage, which required incredible foresight in how the war would be one. Throughout his campaign, Washington rarely made a mistake because he had the foresight to know what would be effective, and what would not. Even as president, Washington was able see beyond the war before the battle. He warned against the creation of political parties, one of the most adept observations a president has ever made. Napoleon, however, was not able to see past his own nose. Not able to see the consequences of his actions and was defeated because of it. Couldn't he see that he could never fight war on three fronts without first organizing a strong internal infrastructure to support his wars? As Homer Simpson once said, "duh." I urge a strong vote for the affirmation. Thank you—
on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process

In this round i will be going line by line down my opponents contetions and refuting his points Contention One: This ruling allows corporations to influence voters by the media. he starts off by claiming that the media propegates false information and cites the fact that crime has gone down and yet people still think crime is a major issue. The problem with this arguement is that it doesn't actually show a misinformed public in fact there where 12966 murders in the US in 2010 thats about 30 times per capita the murder rate in britan. Clearly crime is a major issue in the US. This means that the media was actually informing citezens on a pressing issue in the US today so this arguement actualy flows towards the con. my oppenent go's on to say that corporation are now capable of showing negative ads that may be false The problem with this is again my opponent does not show that these ads are actually misleading and if you look at my second contetion what you actually see is that citezens united creates more informed citezens and thus this also flows to the con Lastly in his first contetion my opponent states that citezens will automaticly belive anything on TV This arguement is purly speculational and if you look at it from a logical perspective you see it is patently ridiculous. It seems highly unlikly to me that the average voter is so gullible as to belive anything he or she see's but even if you want to assume this you would have a constatantly changing voter who would switch his decision every time he see's a new ad and thus it would not effect any canidate unequaly. now i would like to address my opponents second contetion. This ruling allows corporations to donate money to politicians. Ok this is simple false the rulling does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party so just on that his contetion falls. Anyways just to be thorough all my opponent claims 1) the koch brothers gave texas money to increase pollution: again he offers no warrant or evedince to support this claim and doesn't adress the fact that texas may have a high level of pollution because it has lots of people 2) rick perry turned down a healthcare check: this has absoloutly no relevance to this debate so i ask that you drop this arguement thankyou and i look forward to further arguements
on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process

I believe that the Citizen's United versus Federal Election Commission ruling harms the election process. Furthermore, I believe that the Citizen's United ruling undermines democracy in the United States. Here are my contentions:Contention One: It can allow corporations to instill fear into American voters, andContention Two: It will allow corporations to give large amounts of politicians. In return, these corporations expect the politicians they give money to to pass laws and acts that don't bebefit the populace.I can't wait to read my opponent's case.
on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process

As the resolution asks if citezens united causes harm my only burden as con is to show how citezens united has no net harm. I argue that the three goals of the election process are to maxamize voter turnout, create informed voters and increase transperency. structure round 1- state position list arguements and defenitions round 2- post case with contetntions listed in round one round 3- rebutall round 4- summary speech(what are the most important issues and why are you winning on them) round 5-conclusion this is my first online debate so thnx to anyone who accepts this
Seat Belt Laws

"It is ridiculous for them to save lives IN THAT WAY."So you're saying it is ridiculous to save lives in that way? That's basically saying it's ridiculous to save lives if it doesn't make sense to you or if you don't agree with it. I would think it important for someone in authority to save lives in ANY WAY POSSIBLE. Especially when it's their job to do so.With most people, a verbal warning is not enough. Most people don't listen to verbal warnings. So giving a verbal warning doesn't seem like a great way to take care of this problem. And why pull someone over if all you're going to do is tell that person to put on their seat belt? That makes less sense than issuing a citation. "If the statistics of people who die from not wearing their seat belt doesn't scare you enough, than it's your loss."Statistics don't scare me. Reality does. I would think that someone scared by statistics would be apt to agree with the safety issue and the prevention of said danger. If you want people to be safe, precautions must be taken. The question would be what type of precautions if you don't agree with the current laws. If you don't agree with something, the best thing to do would be to come up with some alternate ideas.I have already given reasons as to why I don't agree with the assertion that issuing citations to those not wearing their seat belts is not ridiculous, so I will leave it at that. Safety laws should be continued as long as they work. Seat belt citations work.
Seat Belt Laws

It is rediculous for them to save lives IN THAT WAY. It isn't affecting any one else, therefore in my opinion it should be a personal choice. If the statistics of people who die from not wearing their seatbelt doesn't scare you enough, than it's your loss. There are too many abusive cops out there anyway, and this is just something they can fine you for even if you are wearing it since it's such a minor offense that they can get away with lying about. you never know. Nevertheless, I understand that that is a seperate issue. Also to avoid any further confusion, I was NOT defending streaking. I was refrencing what you said, and then said that I disagree with you, because streaking and jaywalking DO affect other people.
Seat Belt Laws

As I have already stated, the reason it isn't rediculous for cops to issue tickets to persons not wearing their seat belts is because it is the police officer's job to serve an protect. This does include protecting you from your own stupidity if you choose not to wear one. They are paid to do this. Our tax dollars go to them to do their job. I for one am glad they're using our tax dollars in a productive way and doing their job. I'm not sure why you're even arguing the streaking law. You just reiterated what I said. We agree. What we don't agree on is the law. So I don't know why you even argued that fact. So basically, if a cop is paid to do his job by our tax dollars, wouldn't you want him to do his job to the fullest? And I suppose if you don't want to pay a fine, just do the right thing an buckle up. Buckling up has been statistically proven to save lives. So bottom line is, it isn't rediculous for cops to save lives.
Seat Belt Laws

Sorry, this was my first debate and I forgot about it. In response to my arguer, you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if driving w/o your seatbelt can cause you to get hurt and not die, or harm other people in the car. I'm saying that it should not be enforced. It should definetely be recommended by athorities and everyone should wear them, but if they don't that should be their own fault if they get hurt in an accident. It's not like DUI where you can cause damage to others on the road. When you don't wear your seatbelt you're only hurting yourself. It's like getting fined for having annonymous unprotected sex, it's dangerous because you can very likely get a sometimes deadly STD but that don't mean you can go around fining people for banging at their own consent.
Seat Belt Laws

I will gladly challenge you on this debate and explain why it is a good idea for police officers to hand out tickets if you aren't wearing a seat belt. I will also explain the differences between what is our "right" and what is our privilage when it comes to driving and wearing our seat belts. I believe strongly that we should obey the rules of the road, which include wearing your seat belt, whether you're a child in the back seat or an adult behind the wheel. Let's take a look at your first question. You asked if anyone else thought it was completely rediculous for cops to write tickets to those not wearing their seat belts. I don't think it's rediculous at all. A police officer's job is to serve and protect their citizens according to the law. Therefore, I do not believe it to be rediculous at all. The cop is just doing his/her job to protect the lives of those on the road. Even if that life does not wish to be protected. You also stated that the only reason they (the cops) do this is to prevent us from not dying, not anyone else on the road. Not everyone dies while not wearing their seat belts. They could also be preventing a debilitating injury, not only to yourself, but to others as well. I look forward to debating this with you in the future rounds.
Children should not watch television

I am really sorry that my links weren't transferred properly ... But it's a kind and gentle request to my worthy competitor that it's not a joke here ... We needn't prove the theories here, we are here for facts . Facts have been always with the televisions ... My worthy competitor I have many theories to deal with this debate like you haven't mentioned the time for using televisions. I may open television for 5 seconds and then close it . Does that make any sense. Surely not . Theories have been put on by millions of people of the whole world, but what counts is facts. There have been many uses of televisions like getting weather forecasts, news , sports , like if there's a speech given by countries PM of President . On a television we can see it live, rather then reading it on newspaper the second day. (THESE IS THE LINK FOR SALES OF LCD ) http://static1.businessinsider.com... Another opposition point I wanna say that you want in your rebuttal that please vote for pro, it means that you are rebutting that they shouldn't vote for you . That's all by my side . THANKS YOU ! ( MAY THE BEST WINS )