BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Could the Nazis have defeated the Soviet Union in WW2.

Pro raised no points so i will sate my points. 1# Russia the USSR is an immense area and the Nazis had not the man power to take it all without lousing an immense foothold in europa. 2# Blitzkrieg needed land units to support it. Sappers would not be abel to keep up due to terrain and the lack of roads. 3# Siberia is known for quick blizzards that would show up without warning and decimate air troops. Few generals would want to risk a Blitz. 4# Japan had stopped putting presser on the USSR giving them more veterans with skill in tundra warfare. 5# In five months the nazis lost close to 750,000 men nearly 25% of their force of around 3 million. 6# The USSR had moved most of their factories north making it harder Nazis to shut them down.
Could the Nazis have defeated the Soviet Union in WW2.

The Nazis could have defeated the Soviet Union is WW2 had they mobilized their forces earlier in 1941 to deliver a decisive and fatal blow before the onset of winter. The Soviet Union was extremely under equipped to fight a campaign of this magnitude. Stalin had purged all of his most capable generals in the decade earlier due to his increasing paranoia of a coup from within the communist regime. The equipment of the Soviet military was dated and needed repair. The Germans however were well versed in a new style of warfare never before seen; blitzkrieg or lightening war. The Germans were professional soldiers motivated by radical ideology that would help aid them in their campaign east. They had the momentum going forward, and they also had the element of surprise. Had the winter been a mind one, we may very well have seen the collapse of the Soviet government before Christmas 1941. During this time the Germans were literally close enough to see the Kremlin through their binoculars. The problem for the Germans was that their equipment was frozen to a standstill, and that frost bite was killing more German soldiers than the enemy was. The axle grease of the tanks was literally freezing; making mobile operations impossible. So it was the German army entered a war of attrition. This was no longer a campaign of lightening war; it was a campaign of survival. Had Germany invaded in May rather than June, the final thrust on Moscow would most likely have been realized. The Soviet government would have collapsed. Although the war between the countries would have been won, Hitler would almost certainly have faced a guerilla war thereafter. This is beside the point. The Nazis could have defeated the Soviet Union had they launched their operations sooner, and had the winter not been so hostile.
The BoP.

Okay.FrameworkNot much. Pro did not explain why BoP is shart. BoP is on Pro.DefinitionsBoP: Burden of ProofRebuttals1. Pro fails to give any burden of proof of why BoP is shart, or any kind of evidence. if Pro does, I can rebut his arguments.Arguments1. BoP is a way to make debates organized BoP is a way to make debates organized. Burden of Proof is easier to make debates of who did a better job, who filled the BoP. It is by who gives the most proof in his arguments to win the debate. This is a easy way to know who won, why who filled the BoP.Thank you. BoP is on Pro.Bsh1 states that, "There BOP is presumptively on the person making a positive claim, advocating a change to the status quo, and/or affirming the topic. This presumption may change if otherwise specified in the debate. If the resolution is something like: "Obi Wan vs. Mace Windu: Who is Cooler" then the BOP is typically/presumptively shared.Whether or not someone instigates the debate, to me, has very little to do with the BOP."http://www.debate.org...Thank you.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

ON GUARD! I affirm the resolution: Gary Marriage should be legalized. For the sake of clarity and being terse, the term "gay" will be an umbrella term for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. I am not arguing in what way gay marriage should be legalized (federal or states), but I'm arguing that it SHOULD be legalized because there is no valid legal argument against gay marriage. Do note that since this is in context of being legalized, saying that God is against gay marriage is obviously a moot point. Hopefully this debate won't turn into a debate about God, but rather about the points of gay marriage. ===== Gays deserve the same marital rights ===== My argument is simple and brief: gays deserve the same marital rights as a heterosexual. For a long time, marriage was only a traditional and religious thing. And it was fine for the heterosexuals to hog it for themselves (though if marriage was still purely traditional, I doubt there would be laws concerning it). However, this is the 21st century. Marriages have rights and financial security alongside; things that are vital to living in this society. Gays are being deprived of these rights because they aren't allowed to marry for arbitrary reasons. This is all for now. I realize that my opponent will probably add some other arguments, like the slippery slope or the nature of homosexuality. I realize these possible counterarguments, but there is no guarantee my opponent will use such arguments. It's pointless to type out rebuttals to arguments that could potentially never be used. So with that said, I will await my opponent's rebuttals and refute his arguments accordingly.
gravity=(is)weight+force of gravity=down+up=falling+rising

Weight is defined as the force of gravity acting on an object. That is to say, it is product of the mass of an object and the acceleration due to gravity. On the surface of Earth, weight is approximately 10m N for an object of mass m. If an object at rest does not move when you let go of it, i.e. if it has no acceleration, we learn from Newtonian mechanics that that is due to a lack of net force on the object. However, it is entirely possible that although an object has no net force acting on it, it has a gravitational force acting on it (a weight) that is balanced by another force. For example, I have a computer on my desk. My computer has a weight, that is, a gravitational force acting upon it, however the normal force from the table cancels out the gravitational force causing my computer to stay where it is. "Down" and "up" are directions, not forces in physics. The reason a feather in the wind stays in the air is because the wind is acting as a force against gravity. A feather is very susceptible to air resistance and the force exerted by the wind. Metal of the same mass, density, size, and shape of a feather would behave exactly like a feather when in free fall or when blowing in the wind. Any time you have two objects of mass, there is a force of gravity between them in accordance to the law of universal gravitation I described previously. If there is no acceleration, it must be that some other force or collection of forces is balancing out the gravitational force. If the object has acceleration contrary to that given to it by the force of gravity, it must be that some other force or collection of forces is stronger than the force of gravity.
gravity=(is)weight+force of gravity=down+up=falling+rising

a rock i throw into the air must reach a point of 0 gravity application for it to come back down, like a point of not having impact force on earth, an object i let go of that dosnt fall means it has no weight, you cant weigh it on a mechanical scale if its not going down, like a little feather in the wind down is weight, falling is down, not up. if the little feather turned into metal mid air it would fall. weight=force of gravity+down force of gravity=weight+up if it dosnt go down it has no weight, or the force of gravity dosnt apply on the moon there is hardly any difference in weight, and without weight an object dosnt fall at all, and the further an object falls on earth is the more weight it has the more weight is the more force of gravity, becasue the application of the force of gravity ceases to apply at no weight, no up and down for an object
gravity=(is)weight+force of gravity=down+up=falling+rising

The force of gravity is not the difference in density or weight of matter, as Pro stated. Instead, the force of gravity between two objects is the product of the gravitational constant, the mass of the first object, the mass of the second object, and the reciprocal of the distance between the two objects.[1] Pro has stated that a feather moves "more slow" than a bowling ball, due to "down" and "up" of some sort caused by differences in mass. However, it is not a necessary fact that a bowling ball moves faster than a feather. Consider a stationary bowling ball, and a moving feather. The feather is moving faster than the bowling ball. In the context of free fall, a feather on Earth falls more slowly than a bowling ball due to the force of air resistance. However, this is not due to the mass of the two objects. This can be proven experimentally by dropping two objects of varying mass at the same time in absence of significant air resistance, such as on the Moon. This experiment was performed on the Apollo 15 mission to the moon, and confirmed that gravity is not due to mass and the difference is fall rate on Earth is therefore due to air resistance.[2] Sources: 1. http://www.physicsclassroom.com... 2.
gravity=(is)weight+force of gravity=down+up=falling+rising

difference in the "density" or weight of matter is the force of gravity a little feather falls more slow then a bowling ball because there is down there is up, becasue if there isnt down the thing dosnt fall when the force of gravity applies to an object, up is the cause of Down, when the force of gravity dosnt apply, Down is the cause of down wind flow goes out at the top of my window, and comes in at the bottom if a cup cake falls from a tree, how far is it from down? cause+effect=logic
homosexuality is a genetic disorder

homosexuality is a genetic disorder i'm not arguing it is or is not natural, cause you could argue it's the way nature made em. but if homos were functioning they way they were suppose to, they would be attracted to the opposite sex. people with down syndrome dont pretend they aren't disordered. anaology applies to homos. look at their genitals, that indicates they are suppose to mate with the opposite sex and implies be attracted.
homosexuality is a genetic disorder

I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic disorder, rather it's a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association has deemed sexual orientation to be fluid, or changeable throughout a person's lifetime. Sexual desire is not genetic, it is in the mind. I am arguing the opposite position, that homosexuality is not a genetic disorder. However I am going further to say that genetics have nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is no evidence that genetics plays any role in sexual orientation. Studies of identical twins show that if one twin is homosexual, the other rarely is, "only 11% of the time in men and 14% of the time in women" [1]. If identical twins are created by the splitting of a single fertilized egg into two 100% genetically identical ovum, then if one twin is gay, then the other twin would also have to be gay, since they would both share this hypothetical "gay" gene shared between their genetically identical DNA. Therefore, homosexuality is not genetic, rather a product of outside forces not related to genetics. [1] http://amazinghealth.com...
The Second Amendment is essential to a state that will ultimately prosper

Before I start debating I should say I don't disagree that the second amendment is a good thing in the American context and I believe that the right to bear arms should be considered to be a fundamental human right for all law abiding citizens. This being said it's demonstrably not necessary to the prosperity of a state given the vast number of stable and prosperous stats without the right to bear arms. Indeed (sort of with the exceptions of Switzerland) the United States is the only country in the world with such legislation and it is not the only prosperous or stable state that there is. I will not argue that the right to bear arms is not useful, I will not argue that it does not serve to protect rights of the citizens, I will not argue that it does not help to promote the stability of a state. However long term prosperity and stability are more complicated than just the right to bear arms, it is highly useful but neither necessary not sufficient. I await my opponent's response.
Male and Female should not be viewed as the same

In what sense are you talking about being "the same"? Gays or physically? I do agree that girls and boys using each other's bathrooms or anything else. I was reading this on article about a girl who worked at Macy's lost her job because she refused to let a transgender man use the women's dressing rooms. Do you understand how ridiculous that is? What if he wasn't really transgender, she let him in, and he ended up raping a little girl or something? That's terrible to think about, but that's what kind of world we live in. I'm not exactly sure what point your making in your argument, but i'm assuming you want to focus on gays, so that's the path we'll go. Gays are who they are. We all are who we are. Does that make it right? No. As I said before, I do disagree with gays, but it's their life and their choice, not mine. As humans, we have no right to judge each other. God is our judge, and what they do is between them and God. We have no right to tell them not to be gay, nor do we have the right to tell them how to raise their kids. It is sad, in my opinion, that so many kids are growing up lost, gay, atheist, etc. We began as One Nation Under God, but we're falling short of that rather quickly. Last I read, only 32% of the world is Christian. What about us? 75% of the US and Canada WAS Christian, but that number is constantly dropping. Nobody believes in spanking their kids anymore, because that's apparently considered child abuse. That's not abuse, it's discipline! I'm from the south, and believe me, it makes me sick to see the corruption in our world! If you read in the Bible (I use KJV), it says the the antichrist will be either asexual or homosexual ( http://www.stempublishing.com... , http://www.abovetopsecret.com... ), and the world better wake up, because Jesus is coming back. "2 Thess. 2:9 . . His coming shall be after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." I have an idea of who it may be, though I will not publicly state who I theorize about. "Daniel 9:26 refers to [the antichrist] as the ruler of the people that will come, meaning that he will be of the royal lineage of the race that destroyed Jerusalem. Historically this was the Roman Empire; therefore he will be predominantly Roman." This argument isn't exactly an argument, as I'm not sure what in the world your main focus is, so there's my opinion.
Male and Female should not be viewed as the same

I understand your opinion it is one said by many. You believe that the only difference between men and women is physical. But, this is wrong. I believe that men and women are equal, like you, but I realize men and women aren't the same. Aren't same and equal synonymous? No. While 2+3=1+4 are equal but they are not the same. The equations are not constructed the same. Psychologists will tell you that there are psychological and emotional differences between men and women. Now I can't ignore that women can grow to be strong and independent, but our culture is at a point where it's not an issue when a women is the head of the household and makes the money, which is a good thing. But we are in a new realm where courts rule that little boys can use little girls room in elementary school. That is dangerous and as you said leads to unneeded confusion.
Male and Female should not be viewed as the same

I do agree with the whole idea of gays shouldn't be considered the gender they wanna be. We don't need to raise our kids in that way. The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. God doesn't make mistakes, so you WERE born the gender you were supposed to be! However, I don't think that gender matters unless in matters of the church or a relationship. Women can do everything men can, in high heels, and caring for a baby! Women should not rise above men in the church nor the household, as the man is to be man of the house, but who's to put limits on women? We're independent, stubborn, and strong-minded! All in all, I don't think of myself being a female throughout the day unless it has to do with my religion or relationship. I find it rather ignorant to say that women should be limited on how they're viewed. I, for one, am anything but what you'd characterize the average woman as. I will and do speak my mind, whether I should keep quiet or not, I don't over-react, I am not "lady like", and I'm not afraid to be me. We were all created equal!
Male and Female should not be viewed as the same

The argument is simple. Beyond body parts, are male and female the same? No. And if you believe no and are not for the redefining of marriage you are called a homophobic monster or a hater as the slogan said "Prop H8". I like have compassion for gays and I know it's hard for them they can't get what they want, I have family members who are gay. But laws should not be made on wants and desires. But this issue is not the debate but a factor as it is pushed that " what's the difference between a man and female?" and "Aren't we all the same?". I think we agree on more than you think and you are not part of or aware of the movement to make the division of gender obsolete. This is seen again by bathrooms and as you brought up changing rooms be integrated.
3minem iz th bet raper

As you can see, con has not provided a stable opening with evidence to back it up, claiming that he is a "god". I see no proof of his omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, so this is easily refuted. Now I will follow up on why I Eminem is the best rapper. 1: Sales and Records Eminem is the best selling rap artist of all time, and has since 2014 surpassed Tupac in amount of albums sold. He has had 83 top 100 chart songs, as well as many platinum records. He is the most successful rapper, and probably the best known of all time (Although that is speculation, not based on evidence, I will point that out right now. ) 2: Lyricism Eminem is best known for his witty rap, and his un-politically correct demeanor in rap. He is able to change between different characters, and basically "Ract" Out the situation, or explain it clearly using his own words and rhythm. His song "Rap God" Has the most words in a hit song ever, with around 1600, and each one of them is heard very clearly. 3: He has a disability! It's true, Slim Shady has a disability that affects his brain, and how it functions. In high school, he was beaten badly by a bully, and his head was damaged in the process, causing him to have at least one seizure. If this brain injury affects him, and he is still out-preforming most other rappers today, that is something to marvel 4: Closing... All in all, Eminem is not the best person in the world, or the most horrible. He's a normal human being, and that's what makes him so great. He doesn't rap about the club, prostitution, hoes, bitches, guns and money. (Maybe guns..) but other things....that are just as controversial. So, as you can see, all these things make Eminem great! Vote Pro! http://thesmokinggun.com... http://www.nydailynews.com... http://www.houstonpress.com... http://www.yorapper.com...
Starbucks Red Cup

Okay. So let me first start off by saying that it is entirely clear in a society that respects private property that Starbucks has a right to do almost whatever it wants with its cups. My critique is not that Starbucks shouldn"t have this right, but that this right was exercised in poor taste. Specifically, I believe so because Christmas in America is as much a commercial holiday, and thus secularized, as it is a religious one. If we grant, for a moment, that this is the case, it is easy to see how Starbucks" removal of its Christmas paraphernalia from its cups inadvertently targets the secular holiday that is Christmas in America as much as the religious holiday. It is this targeting, however benign, of secular American culture that I find most troublesome. And it is hardly a problem just because I find it troubling. I argue that if the American public revises too much of its established traditions it will both lack the means to establish new ones and be unable to preserve the existing linkages among us that impel us to a common understanding of ourselves as Americans. In other words, greater common identity is forged in Santa-- whether you are Muslim, Buddhist, Animist or Christian-- than in the milquetoast color of red. When something can mean anything, it means precisely nothing. This is, at any rate, my charitable rendering of an argument against Starbucks' decision. :)
Starbucks Red Cup

A new argument has come to light recently about Starbucks. Apparently the all red cup is offending certain people. First let me say I am 100% Christian. One argument is that they removed Christmas from the cup because they hate Jesus...............Like what. First of all if they hate Jesus it's none of your business, it's called freedom of religion. Christians hate it when people try to press their religions on them, so don't do it back, there are so many people that go to Starbucks of different races and religions. Do you ever think if they get offended with all the Christmas stuff on the cups. What if they put something Muslim or Jewish on the cups. How would you feel about that. Also I thought Christmas was about celebrating Jesus' birth, not decorations on a cup. And if they put something red on anything around Christmas time, that usually already symbolizes Christmas to me. Another argument from people is that it represents satan and one lady even took a sip of her coffee and it burnt her tongue which "proves" it's satanic. What?! I red is satanic why do we keep it as a christmas color. Oh my lord I'm wearing red right now, I must be satan. Like red is a color for Christmas. And then with that lady, it's coffee.......it's going to be hot. If you do not have that type of common sense then something is terribly wrong with you. And finally, I watched a video on Facebook where the guy "tricked" Starbucks employees to writing Merry Christmas on his cup. First of all you didn't "trick" them, it is part of their job to write what you say your name is. AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO WRITE MERRY CHRISTMAS ON IT FOR IT TO BE CHRISTMAS. IT'S RED IT ALREADY HAS CHRISTMAS ON IT. Also what are you like two, you are a grown freaking man, start acting like it. Starbucks is just trying not to offend anybody by putting Christmas stuff on it, not everybody celebrates Christmas. You are not the only ones in the world Christians. But honestly at the end of the day, you are just going to throw the dang cup away, so what does it really matter???
Islam (pro) vs christianity (con)

I will be defending Islam. Opponent will be defending christianity Definitions : God - The necessary, uncaused, omnimaximal, timeless, spaceless being. Rules : -no trolling -no forfeits -no semantics (tweaking definitions in the dictionary) Versions of the bible: Please use the protestant bible and to have a fruitful debate, let's exclusively use the KJV or the NIV. Rounds : Round one - acceptance R2) arguments R3) Rebuttals arguments R4) Rebuttals R5) Rebuttals BOP : Burden of proof will be shared.