BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII.

Rebuttals'I see you have said absolutely nothing about the western allied bombings this last round which means that you have agreed that the bombings of Germany had no effect on the outcome of the war'The fact that I left a point as it was does not mean that it no longer has any significance as a point. It just means that it needed no more developing. Repeating points is a largely unnecessary exercise, and serves little to no purpose. In case the point escaped you, the point was one simple but vital chain of understanding.Soldiers need stuff to fight.To produce stuff, factories are required.The factories have been destroyed, therefore stuff cannot be produced.Therefore there isn't any stuff.Therefore the soldiers cannot fight.A point as simple as that requires no further development.I apologise for the numbers; I misread a source. The figure is anachronistic and includes all the soldiers that served in the German Army in one form or another. The Axis figures are more around the ten million mark for soldiers, and they were posted throughout Europe as occupation forces or as garrisons. The figure in the Eastern Front is more like six million, which is just under half of the Soviet forces.'Saved Stalingrad(the second most important city in the USSR)'It was by no means the second most important city in the USSR; since Leningrad, Kiev, Vladivostok, Sevastopol, Odessa, Minsk, Tblisi, Baku, Novosibirsk, Chelyabisk, etc. were more important than it strategically and economically. 'Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east from where they could reach India and Egypt)'Neither the Axis nor the British had the resources for a war in Mesopotamia and Persia at that time. Germany's supply lines were stretched enough as it was, and Iraq and Persia had terrible infrastructure at the time. 'The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad'They weren't; just weeks after Stalingrad ended, Manstein led 70,000 German soldiers to defeat 350,000 Red Army soldiers at the Third Battle of Kharkov, a counter-offensive that was highly successful. This shows that Germany still had some offensive power after Stalingrad. After Kursk however, they did not, and had very little deensive power too.The soldiers at Kursk included the II SS Panzer Corps and the Wiking division. Hardly untested recruits, I hasten to add.You also make a contradiction when you said that Kursk 'Ended any chances for a Germany victory in the east.', and then state that 'It is clear that the Battle of Kursk did not effect the outcome of WWII. By 1943, Germany simply did not have enough men to win the war ' is a direct contradiction.Vote Con!!!
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII.

I see you have said absolutely nothing about the western allied bombings this last round which means that you have agreed that the bombings of Germany had no effect on the outcome of the war. You still however argue about the Battle of Kursk being more important than Stalingrad. I will prove you wrong. You first state all of these unreasonable numbers on the size of different armies during WWII and you provide no resources to back them up. The USSR had some 25 million men and an air-force larger than all others combined. Germany only had a fraction of this number. In the first few months of the war, the USSR lost some 6 million men. The axis only lost a few hundred thousand. Had it not been for the overwhelming size of the Soviet army, Germany would definitely have won. Here are some sites which prove my statements about the sizes of WWII armies: http://www.world-war-2.info... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk... I will now prove why the Battle of Kursk was not as important as Stalingrad. Importance of Kursk: -Destroyed many German tanks and infantry divisions. -Ended any chances for a Germany victory in the east. Importance of the Battle of Stalingrad: -Saved Stalingrad(the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the USSR -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses(Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east from where they could reach India and Egypt) -A staggering 850,000 German soldiers died -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad *Also, the German divisions destroyed at Kursk were untested soldiers and recruits. The Germans lost battle hardened veterans at Stalingrad. Even if Hitler had won at Kursk, it would still be a long way to Moscow and with the Americans bringing more and more men into the European theaters. On the eastern front alone, Germany was heavily outnumbered and even if he had won at Kursk, he would still be too depleted to win the war. The Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the World War II, not the Battle of Kursk. Even if the Soviets had lost 2 million men at Stalingrad, they would still win the war. In the first 5 months Russia lost 6 million men and still won the battles of Stalingrad and Moscow. The Soviets lost at Kiev, Smolensk, Kharkov, but in the end the Germans were still forced to retreat. Even if the Soviets lost at Kursk, they would still outnumber the German army. The Kursk salient was only a small part of the front and for the 1943 summer offensive the Germans only had 800,000-900,000 men while the Soviets had millions which proves just how depleted the German army was. It is clear that the Battle of Kursk did not effect the outcome of WWII. By 1943, Germany simply did not have enough men to win the war which proves my argument is correct. VOTE PRO!!!
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII.

And yet tanks played no important role in the Battle of Stalingrad. I agree that tanks can be very important, more important than men. However tanks are easier to replace since you can just build them. The western allied bombings were not as important as the Battle of Stalingrad. The bombings had no effect on the outcome of the war. The Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, El Alamein, etc would still have been won. The bombings slowed down German wartime production but even if the Germans were producing without the bombings, the Soviets alone would still produce more than Germany. America produced twice as much as Russia. So it would not really matter. Germany would be outproduced either way. Without the bombings, the war may have lasted longer, but the outcome of WWII was decided in battles, not in the bombings of Germany. Even if Germany had won at Kursk, the Soviets would still have a numerical superiority. During WWII Germany had 3-4 million men altogether on the eastern front. The Soviets had 25 million. America mobilized 11 million (many of whom never saw combat). Britain mobilized over 3 million men. If Germany defeated 2 million soldiers, then its still a long way to Moscow, Leningrad, or the Caucases and they would still be outnumbered. Even if the Germans won at Kursk, they would suffer loses that they had no way of replacing. The Battle of Kursk was definitely not decisive. I also argue that second only to the Battle of Stalingrad, the battles of Britain and Moscow were the most important. Had Britain lost the Battle of Britain, there would be no western allied bombings and had Germany won the Battle of moscow, there would not have been any Battle of Kursk. These two battles saved the USSR and Britain. Neither Kursk not the bombings of Germany did this. Also, during the battle of Moscow, the Germans lost almost as much as they did at Kursk. However the Battle of Stalingrad was clearly the most significant. Germany did not capture the unlimited supply of oil which was a vital resource during WWII. Germany did not defeat the Soviet army or invade the British empire through the middle east. The tide was turned at Stalingrad, not at Kursk. A German army was encircled at Stalingrad, not at Kursk. Kursk can be considered as simply another Germany defeat and the western allied bombings had no real impact on the outcome of the war. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.history.com...
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII.

The Battle of Kursk was not as important as Stalingrad because although many German tanks were destroyed, the defeat was not as large as the defeat at Stalingrad. Men win wars, not tanks. And although the Battle of Stalingrad was a major defeat for Germany, it had no effect on the outcome of the war. By 1943 the German Wehrmacht was too depleted and the Kursk salient was only a small fraction of the eastern front. If Germany had won this battle then the war would still have been won especially since the western allies were advancing in Italy. Even if the Soviets had lost at Kursk, they would still hugely outnumber the German army. As for the western allied bombings, they had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the war. These bombings demolished many German cities and terrorized the population however even without them, the war would still have been won. The German army was destroyed not by bombs, but by the Soviets and the western allies. And the only reason these bombings were so successful was because of the fact that Germany had to build tanks instead of AA guns and send a huge portion of its air force to fight in the east. The Battle of Britain was more important than the Battle of Kursk or the western allied bombings since that battle saved Britain. The Battle of Moscow was more important than the Battle of Kursk or the western allied bombings since that battle saved the USSR. Neither the battle of Kursk or the western allied bombings did as much as the Battle of Stalingrad. Even if these two events had never happened, Germany would still have lost the war. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII.

Moscow and Leningrad were not at populated as you stated, but either way, had more people than Stalingrad. However the population of a city that is being fought over isn't the important thing. What is important in deciding which battles were important is the effect of a certain battle on the outcome of the war. All of those battles that you stated were not as important because: Kursk: destroyed fewer German divisions than were destroyed at Stalingrad. Leningrad: axis soldiers did not die in the hundreds of thousands the way they did at Stalingrad. Also, Leningrad was not as important of a city for the Soviets as Stalingrad was. Moscow: out of all the battles you listed, this is probably the only battle which is anywhere near as important as the battle of Stalingrad. It saved Moscow and 300,000 died during this battle. However, the Soviets failed to encircle any significant amount of German divisions. Balkan Campaign: the conquest German of Yugoslavia and Greece delayed Operation Barbarossa by two months. However this is not why operation Barbarossa failed. It failed due to Hitlers mistakes in the east and unexpectedly stiff resistance from the Russians. Imphal: Imphal had no effect on the outcome of the war. Coral Sea- If Japan had invaded Australia, then the allies would still have won the war either way. Australia was not one of the big three and did relatively little during WWII. Importance of the Battle of Stalingrad: -Saved Stalingrad(the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the USSR -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses(Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east from where they could reach India and Egypt) -A staggering 850,000 German soldiers died -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad
The Battle of Stalingrad was the most important battle of WWII.

I am going to argue that although Stalingrad was a key battle, it was not the most important for the following reasons.Strategic Value of Stalingrad Crossing on the River Volga, though there were many others. The city had minor industry, mostly tasked with producing agricultural machinery for the surrounding farmland, and a population of 400,000, relatively small for the USSR at that time. Moscow had about 4,250,000 people, Leningrad 3,000,000, Rostov 500,000, Kiev 1,000,000, Baku 800,000, Tblisi 600,000 and Odessa 750,000, so Stalingrad was relatively insignificant. It did not block access to the Caucasus Mountains and their oil deposits; the mountains themselves did a good enough job of that. Behind it lay acces to Kazakhstan and Siberia, which were relatively insignifignant in terms of strategic and resource value. Stalingrad was 400km deeper into the USSR than Moscow. Aftermath Germany's Sixth Army was annihilated, but Army Group South was still largely intact. The German Public did not find out about the defeat until the summer, after the Battle of Kursk. A lot of materiel had made it out of the city, and the manpower losses were compensated for with reserves. Alternative Battles Kursk - Completely destroyed Army Group South. From then on, the Axis forces had a chronic shortage of armour and artillery. Also gave the Red Army experience in fighting in non-urban battles. Leningrad - Sucked in a huge amount of German and Finnish materiel and manpower, and the loss caused Finland to leave the Axis, leaving Army Group Courland isolated after having left all their vehicles in Ingria. Moscow - Stopped the Axis in their tracks, and subjected them to the first winter of their long and bitter campaign in the East. Balkan Campaign - Delayed Operation Barbarossa by a crucial two months, meaning that they did not arrive in Moscow and Leningrad before the winter set in. Imphal - Stopped the Japanese advance into India, stopping Japanese supremacy over Asia. Coral Sea - Banished any hopes of a Japanese invasion of Australia, preserving control of the Pacific in the hands of the Allies.
Phone on the wall, it was better for us all!

I don't actually own a cell phone, by the way, so I'm not biased here. Cell phone's batteries last for quite awhile. I doubt most power outages last for over 24 hours. Plus, most phones come with car chargers. Power outages don't really affect phone usage at all. I doubt anyone's afraid to sit in their own house without a phone, but if I were walking down to the corner store after dark to pick up a snack, I'd certainly feel safer with a phone in my hand to dial 911 just in case anything happened. Taking advantage of the systems we have set up for safety and convenience isn't codependence. One could argue that computers are just as bad as cell phones, but here you are online.
Phone on the wall, it was better for us all!

I hope I'm not expected to respond in poetry style... Cell phones are absolutely an improvement to our lives. The phone's themselves don't control people. All the phone does is connect you to other people. Talking on a cell phone, or texting, isn't any worse than talking on a land line or writing letters. Never being alone isn't a bad thing, either. With a cell phone, you can call someone if your car breaks down or dial 911 if there's an emergency. If you get lost, you can bring up a map on your phone, or call someone for directions. If you're at the grocery store, your sister can call you to ask you to pick up milk because she forgot to put it on the list, or if you're out somewhere you can call a friend and invite them to come join you. It's convenient and safe to never be completely out of touch with people. No one is forced to answer their phones, though. If you don't want to talk to a certain person, your phone has caller ID. You can also turn the phone off whenever you want, or put it on silent. No matter how advanced phones might be, they only do what the user tells them to do.
Students should not have swimming lessons.

1) Unconfident swimmers should not be out of their depth. That is to say that their feet should always be able to comfortably make contact with the floor of the pool. 2) Non- swimmers should never be unsupervised and have continual access to flotation aids. 3) Pools should always have a vigilant lifeguard separate to the swimming instructor. Basic risk management ensures safety. I have done a brief check of British statistics and can find no recent incidences of fatal drownings during school swimming lessons. Notwithstanding suicide drownings. There were approximately 350 other deaths by drowning in the U. K. In 2018. None during supervised school swimming lessons. I therefore would suggest that school swimming lessons although never risk free, Are nonetheless safe and worthwhile. Learning to swim at an early age not only increases future water safety, But also boosts water confidence. And as BiggsBoonj commented: "Drowning while learning how to swim is much more rare than drowning because of not learning how to swim". I would once again suggest that Pro's own aversion to school swimming lesson is probably not altogether directly related to the issue at hand.
Students should not have swimming lessons.

The Con said that the girl died because she was poorly supervised. Well, How can you be sure that other students are supervised carefully and the coaches are able to see all of the students at once to make sure they are safe? I mean, Most of the times students learn to swim in school, So there are more than 20 students together in the swimming pool. Sometimes, There are 2 coaches, But sometimes there's only one supervisor. In that case, Even if the coach is professional, They cannot prevent accidents from happening. Yes, I agree with what the Con said that swimming might be a very important lesson in your life. But it's not worth it to risk your life to save your life in the future. Learning how to swim will not help when there's an emergency if you are already experiencing life and death while learning how to swim.
Students should not have swimming lessons.

There had been a lot of accidents happening to students around the world when they are swimming. For example, On December 20, 2017, A 6-year-old girl in Singapore had been having a 1-to-5 swimming lesson, And she was waiting for her turn to be taught because the coach is having 1-1 guidance. Later, She is found floating on the water, And she, Unfortunately, Died in hospital after lying unconscious for 20 days. This proves the unsafety of having swimming lessons, Even if there are swimming teachers and other adults looking out to help. Another reason is that having swimming lessons wastes a lot of time. You have to change your clothes, Take a shower, Put your clothes back on, And dry your hair. The whole procedure will waste a lot of school time that should be used for more important lessons. Sources: https://sg. Theasianparent. Com/swimming-lesson-accident-in-singapore
Trans-Pacific Partnership.

This debate is impossible to accept, if you wish to accept, then please apply in the comments section or feel free to PM me. If you accept without my permission then you shall automatically forfeit the entire debate. Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Follow the structure of the debate properly11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's terms and definition; Con acceptsR2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
From a writers perspective, the ending to death note was poorly handled.

Before starting, I will clarify that arguing that bad is "opinion." Nevertheless, I have a means of dealing with such an argument, but the true intent of this debate will be long gone if that is what this debate ends up pulling towards. Also note that this debate will contain massive spoilers for those who haven't read/seen Death Note, so don't read this debate if you don't wish to be spoiled. Now, let us begin: Contention #1:The main protagonists (Light Yagami) was out of character during the conclusion to the series: 1) I say this because he made some highly unintelligent mistakes: a) Having Light attempt to write everyone's name on his spare death note paper out in the open was very much out of character for him. Rather than doing this, he could have found a means of writing the names covertly. He could have asked Near to let him write on the fake death note so that he could ascertain whether or not it was the real deal. At this point, he would have been able to covertly grab a piece of death note paper from his watch and write all the names he wanted to write. b) Light didn't anticipate that Mikami would try to kill Takada with the Death Note. Light himself KNEW Mikami would do everything he would do as well as the fact that he was fanatical in his love of Kira, so how could he not figure out that Mikami would attempt to kill Takada? c) Light didn't consider every possibility when it came to his "fake deathnote plan." We know this because he dictates that L could have gotten out of situation simply by checking. Regardless of how sure he knew Near's thought process, he should have developed a back up plan. 2) We must keep in mind that the story was centralized mostly around Light Yagami and his genius level intellect, thus, for their to be a change of pace in his personality without any character development is a negative effect on the story. This is why I claim that him making those 3 unintelligent mistakes negatively impacted the ending. Rather than immediately change Light's character, the author could have either devised a scenario where Light is actually outsmarted even with his intelligence at its peak. The film managed to do this quite well as rather than have Light make some bone head mistakes, it head "L" sacrifice himself in a way where it was impossible for Light to win. And that's all I shall be providing for my side for now. Some of these points may need elaboration in the next round. Later. :D
From a writers perspective, the ending to death note was poorly handled.

Yes, indeed. Boo Ohba. Had he tried, we could have had a good ending to what had the potential to be a great series. Nonetheless though, he makes the most foolish mistake in ending the series. Light becomes a complete imbecile and loses against a wannabe version of "L." There is no way the L from the first half of the series would have ever lost to this Light. In addition, Ohba had onced commented that the only character with a true sense of justice was Light's father. As we are shown throughout the series, Light, L, Mello and Near all haved use unjust methods to reach their goals Thus, at the very least, neither side should have won in the end. At any rate, you heard CON. She concedes to my case, thus, you vote PRO. I hope I get the chance to have another anime debate with her in the future. Till then, thanks for the debate. Later. :D