BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

I would like to argue that the Tiger is in fact the best tank of WWII. The one thing I'll give the t-34/85 credit for is it's mobility; it was faster and had a longer range. This, however, does not make up for its lack of firepower and armor when comparing to the Tiger. The Tiger had the ability to penetrate the t-34/85's frontal armor at 1,300m. The t-34/85, however, could only penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor at 500m. (This same pattern is shown when comparing armor on other areas of the tank, with the thickest armor on the Tiger completely impenetrable even at point blank range.) This coupled with the German's superior optics would allow the Tiger to engage and destroy the t-34/85 before it could get close enough to actually do any damage. You also have to consider that the German tank crews were better trained than their Russian counterparts, especially at the beginning of the war, and even later in the war they were at least on par if not still superior to the Russian crews. It is true that many more t-34/85s were made, and Russia did manage to beat the Germans, but there is a reason the Germans had a 7-1 kill ratio with their tanks. The t-34/85 is comparable to the Panzer IV, but not the Tiger.
The Tiger was the greatest tank of ww2

Thank you. The tank that"s the best tank of WWII is T-34/85 The main qualities of tanks are its armour, mobility, and firepower. Tiger Armour: 1-4.3 inches. Speed: 24 mph road, 12 mph cross-country. firepower: 3.5 inches gun. Let"s see why Tiger tank is not the best. Its armour, though thick, was not good very innovative. Unlike T-34/85, the armour is not sloped, which means that its armour is literally 4.3 inches thick at its maximum. This affects the power/weight ratio, which was 11.1hp/ton. The weight of the tank is 60.1 tons, making it one of the most heaviest tanks in action during WWII. This causes the tank to be unable to cross many bridges in Europe. Its interleaved running gear also has tendency to get blocked. "It"s width was also a problem because narrow transport tracks had to be fitted (a slow and laborious process) before it could be loaded onto railroad trucks."-Quoted from my source. It"s unit cost was $1,053,360, which is expensive, especially when German economy was under strain during WWII. I will acknowledge the fact that Tiger was also impenetrable and its firepower is fearsome, but it doesn"t change the fact that its heavy and expensive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T-34/85 Armour: 0.9-3.5 in Speed: 31 mph road, 12 mph cross-country. Firepower: 3.3 Inch T-34 was one of the most successful and best tank in the world. It had sloped armour for all-round shot deflection. It had one of the most famous suspension in the world, the Christie suspension; Its engine was diesel, which was less inflammatory than gasoline. Its power to weight ratio was 14.1hp/ton, which is pretty good. It had successfully combine all the qualities of the tanks: Reliability, armour, firepower, and speed. The weight of T-34/85 is 35 tons. This enables T-34/85 to cross many bridge in Europe. T-34/85 is also reliable and its fuel consumption is less than Tiger. T-34 oil consumption is c.225 litres per 100km road, which is less than Tiger"s oil consumption (912 liters per 100 miles). It"s interesting to note that while the Tiger was fearsome, many of them became out of action simply due to lack of oil. T-34/85 unit cost was 193,000 Ruble, which was cheaper than Tiger tank. This allows Soviet Governments to buy more T-34/85, and overwhelm the Germans in the end.
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

I. Well that depends on how you look at it. A border barrier of any type is designed to keep out foreign trespassers. The government can outfit it the way they like. Let's just say we were talking about Obamacare. There's a lot of different aspects that goes into Obamacare. My description of the wall was just that, a description, and if you notice, I said "along the lines" So I didn't mean exactly like the Berlin or Great Wall. I didn't mean the border wall being the only thing to depend on when it comes to keeping illegals out. You need manpower that is properly outfitted for the task at hand, which is why I suggested the drones and radar. 2. Nothing is stopping them from breaking through right now because the fence we have no is incomplete. They can just walk around it. Sure it would make sense to complete the fence, if you like having a barrier that a 6 year old with a pair of bolt cutters can get through. You would need more manpower or high explosives to get through a wall, another reason I suggested the technology that I did. 3. Part of the homeless? No I think all of the homeless would have jobs considering there's only about 2/3 of a million of them(1.) And the majority of the unemployed would have jobs considering the amount of illegals we have almost equal that of the unemployed (2.) . So just by getting rid of the illegal immigrants, we've given opportunities to the American people. That's the way it should be. Legal citizens of their home country should have "first dibs" if you will, at all their country has to offer before anything being offered to an illegal immigrant. Anything else is neglect of your own citizens. I. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of volunteer bp unless they've gone through the same training that the BP has, and in that case, why not just allow them to be full time BP if they want? Secondly a volunteer force wouldn't be as professional and I suspect they may be more racist than a full time BP. II. There wouldn't be a riot, because if there were, they would pretty much be admitting that they had intent to trespass on American soil. Which is a crime. I don't see how tunnelling under it would be any better, considering they'll just pop up on radar as soon as they come up ( If we had it) . All You have you have to do for water transport is just have all incoming vessels inspected by the coast guard. III. Sure it would. ( I didn't notice it at all) 1.http://usnews.nbcnews.com... 2.http://www.rpc.senate.gov...
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

1. Yes, the border police would have to solve the problem. Except today, the border patrol is heavily outnumbered. And sometimes the illegals don't have to cut through the fence. It's not a complete fence. Texas and California have some open space in the fence with just nothing. That's why I suggested the radar and/or drones. It would make it much easier for the BP to find and get rid of the illegals. Think of it like playing hide and seek, except your opponent can see you wherever you are. 2. Yes, it would be expensive. But is it not a worthy investment towards the future of America if we halt the flood of low-skilled immigrants who don't have that much to offer to America? (1). And yes, we do have a debt problem, but that doesn't seem to stop the government from spending more than it makes anyway. The real problem is, the money the government wastes for no beneficial reason (2). 3. You claim that illegal immigrants are only taking laborious jobs, which is true. But think about how many people we have who are homeless. Think about the ones who are unemployed with no chance of a higher paying job. It is the responsibility of the Federal government to care for it's people, no? Then they should do everything they can to stop illegal immigration so the needy Americans can have those jobs, not illegals. It is not the responsibility of the government to care for the poor of other countries. 4. They should, I'm a strong advocate for that measure. Why they're not, don't ask me. Go ask your Senator, Representative or Obama. I'm going to address your points in Roman numerals. I. I addressed cost and efficiency in my earlier point. i never advocated hiring volunteer border patrol agents. I don't believe that sending foreign aid to Mexico would be of any help, because of the levels of corruption due to the Massive drug cartels in Mexico(3). If you ask me, Mexico should be the one doing the most work in keeping control of their own citizens. That's just me. 2. I'm not quite sure of what you mean by peace on the border. The only people who should be at the border, are border patrol agents, and legal immigrants. If the protest in Mexico, that's Mexico's problem. And how exactly are they going to find another way through it, if there's guards lining the walls (Which I do not advocate.)? 3. I've already addressed finances. (On a side note, I'm going out of town for the rest of the week, if my opponent could hold off on publishing his argument for at least 12 hours so I can get back to a computer by the weekend, I'd be very grateful.) 1. http://www.motherjones.com... 2.http://www.forbes.com... 3.https://en.wikipedia.org...
A complete border wall along the U.S/Mexico border.

1. ) A border wall as I described in R1 is not as "fragile" per se as the chain link/sheet metal style of fence we have now along the U. S/Mexico border. When was the last time someone broke through a brick wall with a pair of bolt cutters? I'm not saying it can't be broken, it'd just be much harder to do so with a brick wall. 2. ) A complete (By complete I mean it stretches from the West corner of California, to the Gulf of Mexico. ) border wall provides a physical barrier that is nigh impassable to the average illegal immigrant, granted it is tall enough. Outfitted with supplementary technology, like a long range radar system and/or drones, and it will be more effective against drug dealers and criminals. 3. ) America's prison population will free itself up, a little ,if we don't have as many illegals coming in. According to (1) illegal aliens make up 25% of the prison populace, yet only make up roughly 4% of the national populace according to (2). The less illegal immigrants we have in America, the less jobs they will take from Americans. Source (1) also shows that for every 100 illegals hired, 65 Americans are displaced. 1. . http://www.citizensforlaws.org... 2. . http://immigration.procon.org...
There is no logical reason to pray

The first part of my opponents argument is the logical fallacy ad hominem and is to be ignored. ___________________________________ When you say that god's plan is not effected by a heart attack, I hope that you don't mean it doesn't effect his plan. Since anything that happens is already planned by god (Psalm 139:16). I have no idea what you are getting at here, other than the logical fallacy argumentum ad passiones, or appeal to emotion. Also, if the bible is to be believed, then it is set in stone. Again, Psalms 139:16, Jeremiah 1:5, etc. ________________________________________ You really should finish the bible, when read with full understanding, the bible is useless, indeed, and the best tool to make one an atheist. Also, on the topic of gods benevolence, I'll quote Epicurus, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" " Epicurus No, because as I have stated already, he will heal you if he sees it to be good. If it is not good (how that's possible, I do not know), then you will not be healed. __________________________________________ Not that I don't believe you here, gods book certainly makes it clear he lover worship, but would you mind siting where it asks that to be done through prayer? Assuming you do find it, I will argue against it now since this is my last round. Now god wants you to pray for the purpose of worshiping him, I think I've made it clear that it can't affect your life, but is it what god wants you to do anyways? Well, let me ask you this, does it really matter? Your life is planned out. Heaven. Hell. Decided already. God knows right now where your going, it doesn't matter if you kneel and pray right now. If it's part of his great plan, you're going to be burning in eternal hellfire. Thanks for the debate, should have made it longer but this will have to do! :)
There is no logical reason to pray

My opponent is not the first one to think up this argument. Indeed, George Carlin made the same argument (while he argued that we should all worship the sun and pray to an actor).Just pointing out an interesting fact._______________________________Okay, were first assuming that there is a god.I do that often!God will of course, do what he see's is right, his will.One would assume so.If it is his will something will be done about, for instance, a sick person, then something will happen. If it is not his will that the person be healed, then they won't be, there is no reason to pray and ask for the person to be healed. It's as simple as that.Your argument is flawed, and I will show you why.What is God's will?In all His book, he seems awfully occupied with having followers (before Twitter!). He even sends people to get other people to worship him!Therefore, we can reasonably assume it is in God's will for people to choose to worship Him.Satan/sin seems to stop people from woshiping God. Therefore, God must want to abolish sin.So, Gods plan is the following:1. Make man.2. Let man choose to worship.3. Send more men to tell other men to worship me (or my son, depending on the version).4. Destroy man if he does not worship5. Destroy source of man's lack of want to worship.6. Take remaining people to heaven.7. They worship me.Where does Rebecca Nechlikov's amputation fall into this? It doesn't. God's divine plan is not affected by Jerik Eprisons heart attack.So, the likelyhood of your 13-year-old daughter being kidnapped at the bus stop (and subsequently raped, and being forced to recieve countless abortions over 10 years while the MORONS, excuse me, I mean people, ignore the screaming) is not set in stone._______________________________________________In his book, which I'll finish reading one day, God proclaims himself to be benevolent, and he claims to answer prayers (though he doesn't say he'll say yes).Therefore, you may assume that God might save your pancreas from removal._________________________________________________________________Also written in His book, he states that prayer is not only a cosmic-amazon.com, but that it also is a means for communicating and, you guessed it, worshiping God.
There is no logical reason to pray

Okay, were first assuming that there is a god. God will of course, do what he see's is right, his will. If it is his will something will be done about, for instance, a sick person, then something will happen. If it is not his will that the person be healed, then they won't be, there is no reason to pray and ask for the person to be healed. It's as simple as that.
Abortion

This is my first time participating in a debate, so please advise me on any proprieties I fail to adhere to. As Pro, I will be debating in favour of abortion. Regarding the rights of the fetusAbortion is controversial in our society because some believe that abortion disrespects and violates the fetus' right to live - yet it is commonly acceptable in society to slaughter animals for one's own gain and benefit. Some argue that a fetus is a human being and thus should be considered in a different respect from animals. However, a fetus in the womb has no experience in living nor any knowledge; it does not possess will beyond basic survival instincts as an animal. A human fetus is incapable of even experiencing the sensation of pain before 18 weeks [. http://informahealthcare.com...]. As humans, we consider ourselves tertiary and 'intelligent' beings because of our ability to comprehend complex ideas. A fetus has no such capability and so should be considered a life form that is similar in social status, if not inferior, to other animals. The benefits of abortion to the motherUsually a mother has a rational reason for wanting to abort a child. Common reasons include financial incapabilities, social opposition, concern to physical health or just simply unwillingness. No one has the right to tell a mother, "Your reason for wanting to abort is invalid. " Abortion is a choice to no one else but the mother. It is the mother that must go through the pain of labour to bear the child. It is the mother that must take on the responsibility to care for it. Abortion relieves the mother of this burden. Forcefully burdening the mother with a responsibility that she doesn't want or have the capability to fulfil is unethical and could be potentially harmful to many more people than simply the fetus - for example crushing a family's financial capabilities. I have presented my points, and shown that the benefits of abortion outweigh the detriments. I await my opponent's response.
Abortion

Abortion involves terminating a pregnancy by the removing or expelling of a fetus or embryo from the uterus. This is sometimes due to the death of the fetus; however, it can also result in the death of it. Abortion is a very controversial topic because its frequency of occurrence, legal, cultural and religious status varies extensively in different regions of the world. There are many high-profile groups that champion either pro-choice or pro-life, and such organizations bring up a host of issues to further their often political agenda. In the United States, pro-life groups favor greater legal restrictions on abortion, or even the complete prohibition of it. They argue that a human fetus is a human being with a right to live, so abortion is similar to murder. In contrast, pro-choice groups argue that a woman has certain reproductive rights, especially the choice on whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. One of the most common reasons why some women want to have an abortion is because they have the desire to delay childbearing because they themselves are young. Other reasons include not wanting to stop work or schooling and/or because of financial or relationship instability. These reasons are consistent across numerous countries, including America. Most abortions that occur in the United States are obtained by women of a minority race because they are having higher incidences of unintended pregnancies. In developing countries, women have the additional concern of health risks and complications that occur as a result of unsafe practices in medical settings. Some abortions happen because of societal pressures. This occurs to when there is little social support, when a specific gender of a child is preferred or when governments enforce population control, such as China's one child policy. It is suggested that sex-selective abortion could account for disparities between the birth rates of male and female children in some countries. Many countries in Asia like China, South Korea and India have cultures that prefer male children. When abortion occurs because of societal pressures, women sometimes have to resort to unsafe practices because the legalized healthcare route is not an option. As a result, countries that have restrictive abortive laws have more women that seek unsafe abortions. Unsafe abortions occur when they are performed by individuals without adequate medical skills or in an unhygienic environment. Such situations occur globally, and result in about 70,000 maternal deaths and 5 million maternal disabilities per year. Currently, laws regarding abortion are diverse and differ by states in the U.S. Some states have a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be carried out and require that information regarding fetal development is given out. The abortion debate also focuses on whether laws should be passed mandating that the pregnant woman has the consent of others, especially if the woman is a minor.
All school should be gender exclusive

Same sex education is something that has almost always been an option, and has not negatively influenced the society yet. Let's start off with the basics. Single sex schools provide a safer environment in both a mental and physical aspect. Being in an all female/male school, it's not likely for your child to be sexually harassed and/or attacked. Your child would not have to worry about the pressure of being sexually active either (considering a majority of the population is heterosexual).
All school should be gender exclusive

There would be a time where these opposite sexes will not know how to interact with each other and there is also a bigger chance of becoming a homosexual.Children that go to a sex school may also become stereotypical, they may think that one sex is superior to the other. When there are same sex school there tends to be more bullying because all are the same gender so an image is built that this gender should look a certain way, we want our children to know that everyone is made different .
abortion

---- Debate ---- Let the audience note: My opponent has only addressed the cross examination section of my rebuttal. By not responding to any of my arguments and counterarguments, he concedes all his arguments and accepts all my arguments; thereby conceding this entire debate. For the sake of an interesting debate, I urge my opponent to address the arguments I made in my opening statement for his closing argument, even if it breaks traditional debate rules. That said... ---- Cross Examination Redux ---- 1) My opponent writes that he believes life begins at conception. That means he believes a human becomes a human when the sperm enters the egg -- two cells. However, this is clearly not the case. If he believes it would be murder to even terminate two cells, then what does he believe about killing the millions of cells in an ant or fly. Had my opponent stated something like the introduction of the nervous system or a beating heart, I could understand more. Two cells do not define a human. 2) My opponent commits the Beethoven fallacy. My opponent writes, "If other people had abortions we might not even have the abortion or Microsoft and other technologies." Well, not to evoke Godwin's law or anything, but if Hitler's mother had just had an abortion, the mass devastation he caused would have not happened. Had Karl Marx been aborted... Had Stalin been aborted... Point being: A human's essence is not premeditatedly determined by some destiny, but is determined by his genes and environment. And furthermore, potential life IS NOT life. Fighting rape potentially destroys potential life. Refusing sex potentially destroys potential life. Not being promiscuous almost certainly destroys potential life... ---- RE: Question ---- My opponent writes, "If you knew that a certain fetus that was about to be aborted would change the world when it grew up into a developed adult but the birth would kill the mother, what would you do and if you would continue the abortion, how would you let this go on?" My response: A human's essence is not premeditatedly determined by some destiny, but is determined by his genes and environment. My opponent's (rather pointed) question begins with an invalid premise; therefore, any attempt to answer it will also be invalid. ---- Conclusion ---- 1) I have put forth many arguments my opponent has not responded to. 2) I countered all my opponent's arguments in my opening statement. My opponent has not responded. 3) I have successfully countered all my opponent's new arguments. I believe the winner of this debate is beyond clear.