azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"Are you well aware of when the Lend-Lease Act was initiated?"How can I spell it out any clearer, let me try this approach: I said: "the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid."You said: "This is actually impossible,"I said: "It's actually not impossible at all.....the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of MoscowNow, the Soviets pushed the Nazis back in the Battle of Moscow, the Battle of Moscow occured before the Soviets had recieved any aid from the Allies, therefore, when I made the statement: "the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid", I was right, and you were wrong to dispute me, it doesn't matter when Lend-Lease was signed, my statement was correct, your dispute was 100% wrong, now do you follow, or do I have to spell it out in greater depth?"I merely said that as to emphasize the Non-American perspective to contradict any argument that says it is un-fairly biased towards the U.S."No, the article is reasonably objective, but you can be sure it is biased towards the allies, not in what it says, but in it what is doesn't say."You could also say the Russian Winter halted the German advance"Can you read? Weather doesn't force an army into retreat, people with guns do.P.S. I find it hilarious that you would dispute when what I asserted is contained within the source you provided for your defense, i.e. "T-34 tanks and Katyusha rocket launchers led the way for the fresh Russian soldiers, some of whom donned the white winter camouflage that became the subject of nightmares to the freezing retreating German troops. By 7 Jan 1942, the front lines were driven back anywhere between 100km to 250km. German forces would never again threaten Moscow directly for the rest of the war."
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

""It's actually not impossible at all.....the Red Army had halted the German advance and begun to counterattack by the end of 1941 in the Battle of Moscow"I scanned over this and carried on talking about Stalingrad, ergo, why i reiterated lend lease."No, the article is reasonably objective, but you can be sure it is biased towards the allies, not in what it says, but in it what is doesn't say."You just proved my point, it is not subjectivley biased towards America, which is what I was hoping you would figure out."Can you read? Weather doesn't force an army into retreat""After a few days of preparations in Moscow's suburbs, on 2 Oct 1941, Fedor von Bock led German troops to assault directly against Moscow. German advances were slower than they had hoped with a rainy fall season and later a cold early winter. As German vehicles become immobilized, the German army continued to advance, however the cold weather was affecting the morale and fighting ability of the troops to a high degree."http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=37 This shore sounds like the Russian weather hinders the German war machine, and benefits a defender, which is what i meant by "You could also say that Russian Winter halted German advance". Please look for the deeper meaning in things, rather than take everything literally.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"I scanned over this and carried on talking about Stalingrad, ergo, why i reiterated lend lease."Look, whether Lend Lease was or wasn't signed by the time the battle of Mozcow took place, the point is that when it took place, the Soviets had received no aid, they were pushing the Germans back before the received any aid, therefore you were wrong to dispute my statement, and you're clearlyn not willing to admit it.""After a few days of preparations in Moscow's suburbs, on 2 Oct 1941, Fedor von Bock led German troops to assault directly against Moscow. German advances were slower than they had hoped with a rainy fall season and later a cold early winter. As German vehicles become immobilized, the German army continued to advance, however the cold weather was affecting the morale and fighting ability of the troops to a high degree."What exactly do you think you are proving? Yes, the weather was bad, but the Soviets still had to capitalise on the cold weather, environmental conditions, and fortuitious circumstances are often decisive in determining the outcome of battles, the way you're talking you'd swear the cold weather fought the Germans."This shore sounds like the Russian weather hinders the German war machine,"Why not re-reading what I wrote, where in my previous posts did I claim that the cold weather didn't hinder the German advance? You seem to think you've caught me out for claiming I claimed something I never claimed (phew!!!). Was the weather a factor in halting the Germans, yes, if course, but from the beginning I have been talking about the Germans being pushed back i.e. losing the ground they had gainedAre you beginning to get it now? And we both know the weather didn't force the German army into retreat."Please look for the deeper meaning in things, rather than take everything literally."What deeper meaning would that be? And what exactly is wrong with taking things literally, how are people supposed to nail anything down in a debate if they only talked figuratively? That would be one messy debate.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"Look, whether Lend Lease was or wasn't signed by the time the battle of Mozcow took place, the point is that when it took place, the Soviets had received no aid, they were pushing the Germans back before the received any aid, therefore you were wrong to dispute my statement, and you're clearlyn not willing to admit it."Your ignorance here is amazing, i highlighted a statement of you talking about the battle of Moscow, and stated the reason for the reitteration of Lend Lease, and that was me, skipping over the moscow statement and thinking i was agrueing Stalingrad, not the battle of Moscow. Can i be anymore clear here?"What exactly do you think you are proving?"I have been trying to make the point that the Russian winter played a pivotol role in the defeat of the Nazis, which you seemed to be more than ignorant to."Why not re-reading what I wrote, where in my previous posts did I claim that the cold weather didn't hinder the German advance"Where in your previous posts did you claim the could weather hindered the German advance? By making sarcastic statements like the one below, your not really helping your point."Yes the weather killed them, and drove them back, then single handedly defeated them, and marched on Berlin and became a global superpower."
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"Can i be anymore clear here?"Again, I shall reiterate my original statement: "the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid"Notice what this statement means, it means the USSR were pushing the Nazis back without US aid prior to the arrival of US aid.You responded with: "This is actually impossible"When in fact, it isn't impossible, because we have already established the accuracy of my original statement, now regardless of whether you mistook my statement, you have been unable to admit your original error, and I'm not going to stop until you do."and that was me, skipping over the moscow statement and thinking i was agrueing Stalingrad"It really doesn't matter what you thought, you asserted that the USSR could only push the Nazis back with US aid by telling me what I stated was impossible, I called you up on it, I have proved you wrong, but you are still unable to admit your error."Can i be anymore clear here?"Yes, you could be a lot clearer, your actually incredibly frustrating to debate against, although I admit this hasn't been as much of struggle as the Iran debate."I have been trying to make the point that the Russian winter played a pivotol role in the defeat of the Nazis"Do you not think I know that, I know all the obvious arguments, I know Hitler made a tactical error, but the although the weather contributed to the Nazi defeat the West always want to give the weather all the credit, because if they didn't they'd have to acknowledge an incredble Soviet victory (oh my!!!). People say Hitler made a tactical blunder, it's not really that true, he simply underestimated the Soviets, but at the time he wasn't wrong to do so, the Soviets surprised every military tactician in world war 2."Where in your previous posts did you claim the could weather hindered the German advance?"Wow, reverse the logic of my statement, stellar debating tactic. Why exactly would I make that statement? Why is it so badly required in my previous post's? "By making sarcastic statements like the one below, your not really helping your point."Actually I am, it's called reductio ad absurdum, he tried to assert that a significant percentage (which he choose wisely not to quantify) of the German army simply keeled over and died from the cold weather, and didn't have to be defeated by the Soviet troops, frankly I find that pathetic attempt to discredit one of the greatest military victories in human history, so I used reductio ad absurdum (or proof by contradiction) to show how ridiculous the argument is. Weather doesn't win battles, people do.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"where is your source for that?"It is the original website i posted, but i shall post it again:http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml "Don't try to dodge this question"Why would i try doding a question when I have a in-depth knowledge of the topic? This debate is not for learning purposes. (hint)."it would probably have taken another 5-10 years"The Soviet death total of World War 2 is anywhere in between 20-25 million, with the population at about 180 million in 1939. Lets jusst say the USSR joined the war in 1940 to make the numbers a little bit easier. So, lets say you tack on another 5 years on-to the wars length, they have lost 40-50 million people which is about 22-28% of their population. If you add ten years to the wars length, they will have 60-75 million losses, which is about 33 to 42% of their population.Now i know those numbers include civilians, but it also includes deaths with American aid, so you could argue the numbers are to large or small, but it is a very rough estimate (not meant to be legitimate, just to prove a point).Anyway, Stalin didn't care about his casulities, but even for him, there has to be some sort of breaking point.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"It is the original website i posted, but i shall post it again:"Thanks, you're very thoughtful.Now, to the matter at hand, your quote that supposedly came from Stalin: "we would not have been able to cope", there is no official record of Stalin ever making this statement, it cannot be directly attributed to him, seriously, try and find the record, it doesn't exist, you think I didn't search for it when you made that statement.I tracked down the origin of the statement, it was apparently made by Krushchev in a series of taped memoirs, therefore Stalin himself never made the statement (at least in public), and we are in effect relying the word of another (see source).The source also makes another interesting observation:"It would seem that Hitlers attack was not as badly calculated as most people have assumed. By the end of 41 the Germans while not defeating the Soviets probably caused enough damage to at least ensure a draw."This is what I have asserted all along, the thing is though, the Soviets had many more backers than just the US, so if the US kept out of the war, the Soviets wouldn't have been alone, this is why I beleive there is a chance (albeit a slim one) that the USSR could have taken on the Nazis with no help from the US.Source: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61570 "Why would i try doding a question"Oh, I dunno, maybe because in the "American Intervention in Iran" debate, when you responded, you completely discarded nearly everything I said, every question I put to you, and every point I made."The Soviet death total of World War 2 is anywhere in between 20-25 million, with the population at about 180 million in 1939. Lets jusst say the USSR joined the war in 1940 to make the numbers a little bit easier. So, lets say you tack on another 5 years on-to the wars length, they have lost 40-50 million people which is about 22-28% of their population."This is based solely on a completely fallacious assumption i.e. you've assumed a linear relationship between no of deaths and time, which is quite obviously wrong.The fact is that the USSR lost the significantly more of their men during Operation Barbarossa than at any other period of the war, and the casuality rate had significantly reduced when the Germans were being pushed back.Also, the population was 200 million, not 180 million."so you could argue the numbers are to large or small, but it is a very rough estimate (not meant to be legitimate, just to prove a point"It would be almost impossible to estimate the error bands for this, that is why the excercise proves very little."Anyway, Stalin didn't care about his casulities, but even for him, there has to be some sort of breaking point"This is easily countered by simply assuming the inverse i.e. but even for Hitler, there has to be some sort of breaking point
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"it cannot be directly attributed to him, seriously, try and find the record, it doesn't exist, you think I didn't search for it when you made that statement."Yes, in the span of five minutes you can find every quote Stalin ever said, you don't need all that time real historians need to find something such as this, because your search was so thorough that your assumption must be correct."Soviets had many more backers than just the US"O yes, because the other two main backers (France and Britain), put up such a strong resistance. France was engulfed be Germany in a few weeks, Britain was being bombed to bits, they were being dominated completely in the air. They were soon to fall, but the U.S. intervened and gave Britain the supplies. Churchill knew this, which is why he said "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job.""The fact is that the USSR lost the significantly more of their men during Operation Barbarossa than at any other period of the war"Yes, but also, the fact is that they received significant amounts of supplies from the U.S. during this time, in which they could of very well lost Stalingrad.As i said, i knew this was un-accurate, it was just a wild estimate for how many deaths they would suffer in a 10-15 year war. Also, if you expect anyone to guess accurately the amount of Soviet deaths without American aid, then you are wrong to criticize anyone.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"I can assure if Stalin had ever made an official statement like that in public it would not be very hard to find."Yes because even to this day Russia is still very fond of the U.S. and would want to give credit to its effort, despite down-playing its role ever since the conclusion of WW2."If you think Stalin made that statement then the burden" All i need you to do is read, "He heard Stalin SAY""Krushchev when writing his memoirs recorded a series of taped interviews some of which were never included in the memoirs. On these tapes in reference to LL he says that several times he heard Stalin say "if we had to cope with Germany one to one we would not have been able to cope because we lost so much of our industry". "This whole argument really doesn't dispute anything I said"Did you forget about this statement?"the Soviets had many more backers than just the US, so if the US kept out of the war, the Soviets wouldn't have been alone, this is why I beleive there is a chance" That argument i posted was in response to that statement, which implied that the soviets had signifigant help from other countries.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"Yes because even to this day Russia is still very fond of the U.S. and would want to give credit to its effort, despite down-playing its role ever since the conclusion of WW2."Can you not see the problem with this defense, because I can guarantee it's patently obvious to anyone that reads it.Regardless of the subsequent relationship between the West and the USSR, if Stalin had officially made the statement, it would be freely available, and definitely not hard to find."All i need you to do is read, "He heard Stalin SAY""There is a qualitative difference between what some guy heard another guy say in private, and an official pronouncement of the leader of a superpower."Did you forget about this statement?"No, of course not, I provided the source. All the statment proves is that US aid was required in defeating the Nazis. The problem is you want to think that it means without US aid, the USSR would have lost. No historian would agree with this assessement, they would agree that the Nazis had done enough to secure a stalemate, and some would argue the USSR would have eventually defeated them, but I have never seen a historian claim that without US aid the USSR would have been defeated by the Nazis, seriously, I will be amazed if you can show me a credible historian who beleives the USSR would have been soundly defeated by the Nazis and all their territory taken over, without US aid."That argument i posted was in response to that statement, which implied that the soviets had signifigant help from other countries."You're are very hard to understand, what statement?Yes the Soviets also received aid from Canada and Britain, but they fought alone.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"No historian would agree with this assessement, they would agree that the Nazis had done enough to secure a stalemate, and some would argue the USSR would have eventually defeated them, but I have never seen a historian claim that without US aid the USSR would have been defeated by the Nazis, ”Other than the support of the Allies, one of Americas biggest points in the war was its immanence of joining the war. You and i know that one reason Hitler attacked Russia so early was because of how Blatantly clear it was that America would join the war. He expected to quickly defeat the Soviets and then be prepared to fight the Americans, this obviously did not work out as planned. This misconception caused the German army to spread to thin and really weaken itself. Now i promise you that most Historians would agree with me on this.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"No, this actually isn't the reason at all, Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, it was 1944 before a single US soldier ever saw a Nazi, what are you basing this opinion on?”I may have exaggerated the U.S. influence a bit, but it was indeed an influence, as the paragraph below shows."Hubert Menzel was a major in the General Operations Department of the OKH (the Oberkommando des Heers, the German Army headquarters), and for him the idea of invading the Soviet Union in 1941 had the smack of cold, clear logic to it: 'We knew that in two years' time, that is by the end of 1942, beginning of 1943, the English would be ready, the Americans would be ready, the Russians would be ready too, and then we would have to deal with all three of them at the same time”http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/hitler_russia_invasion_01.shtml "He also expected the Japanese to simultaneoulsy attack the USSR, the USSR had placed significant forces in the East in anticipation of this, but they never attacked, and these forces were used to further repel the Germans.”This was another reason why Hitler was an awful general, he failed to inform the Japanese of his plan, so they were not expecting this, and were not able to support him. The reason for the withdrawal of troops was because the Japanese had just son a non-aggression pact with the soviets, so had Hitler at least informed them, that pact would never of been signed, and forced the Soviets to maintain the border security."if they had defeated the USSR they would have won the war.”What are you basing this on? Your disdain for the Americans? You really underestimate the U.S. and it’s capability. You must forget that during this time, was one of the all-time great scientists, Albert Einstein, and he was one reason for the U.S. invention of the Nuclear bomb. I will debate this on another post.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

Not to mention they would have been fighting an additional 8 million Japanese, including aircraft and sea-vessels.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

You simnply couldn't be more wrong if you tried.I didn't know it was possible for an opinion to be "wrong."the USSR were pushing the Nazi's back even before they received US aid.'I'll let raptor argue that. Either way, it is all but irrelevant. Even assuming you are correct (which you are not especially in regards to the UK and France), battling less than half of the german army with tens of millions of soldiers isn't nearly as formidable of an enemy as all of the Japanese armed forces.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

"He isn't doing too well in my humble opinion"In my "humble" opinion, i feel you aren't doin to well yourself. But, in your grandiose manner, you wouldn't be able to notice."remember that the US had far more support on the Pacific then the USSR did on the Eastern front"Please try and prove this, name another significant power that added significant support to U.S. war effort against Japan.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"In my "humble" opinion, i feel you aren't doin to well yourself."Shocking!!!!!!!!!!"But, in your grandiose manner, you wouldn't be able to notice"Of course not, my grandiose manner is far too grandiose."name another significant power that added significant support to U.S. war effort against Japanname"Well, let's see if you can successfully compare and contrast the following two statements:The Eastern front:"The war was fought between Nazi Germany, its allies and Finland, against the Soviet Union. The conflict began on 22 June 1941 with the Operation Barbarossa Offensive, when Axis forces crossed the borders described in the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, thereby invading the Soviet Union. The war ended on 9 May 1945, when Germany's armed forces surrendered unconditionally following the Berlin Offensive, a strategic operation executed by the Red Army, also known as the Battle of Berlin."Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Forces#Forces)The Pacific:"The major Allied participants were the United States, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom (including the armed forces of British India, the Fiji Islands, Samoa, etc.), Australia, the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the Netherlands (as the possessor of the Dutch East Indies and the western part of New Guinea), New Zealand, and Canada, all of whom were members of the Pacific War Council.[23] Mexico, Free France and many other countries also took part, especially forces from other British colonies and also Latin America. The Soviet Union fought two short, undeclared border conflicts with Japan in 1938 and 1939, then remained neutral until August 1945, when it joined the Allies and invaded the territory of Manchukuo, Republic of China, Inner Mongolia,"Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War