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

I'd say considering the USSR were basically on their own, yet the USA had the British, and minimal French forces to help out, they were the better side. If Germany could focus all their efforts on one front, then either side probably would have been crushed. That's not to say that America wasn't key in the war, as Britain really didn't have the resources to push back through France on their own, and could barely defend themselves. But, the USSR just kept getting pushed back, until they finally gained the advantage deep into Russia, then the steamroller tactic started to excel, and without that, the rest of the Allies would have been crushed.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

The USSR pushed the Nazis all the way back to Berlin..............................
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

The Soviet Union allllllll the way! They were the ones that stormed the heart of Nazi Germany with ease. They made Hitler commit suicide. They were the ones FULLY responivle for the vicotry of WW2 in Europe.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

Let's think calmly and logically about this. First, WWII was on two main fronts, The Pacific and Europe. Europe was more important than the Pacific because of Hitler and his megalomania, and Japan was not too powerful compared to other major powers at the time. If you do not believe me remember the Allies had a ''Germany First'' strategy. Knowing this, we can now look at which of the two countries did more to fight Germany. The country who did more was the Soviet Union. This is because almost the entire German army was tied up on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front was just one big meat grinder for both sides and only the Soviets could afford to fight that kind of war of attrition. This is because the USSR has the population, the will, and the production necessary. So now we can say that on a Germany vs. USSR debate alone the USSR would win. Now you may say, ''The Western Allies Invaded Normandy drawing away German troops, and bombed German cities.'' I would respond to that comment in the following manner: Firstly, the West invaded Normandy in mid-1944. By then the war in the East was tipping strongly in the Soviets favor, and disastrously for Germany, Hitler was in direct command of the forces operating in the East. So we can assume that the Soviets would win regardless. Secondly, the Allied bombing of Germany was largely in-effective against war industry and just an attempt at destroying morale.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

Let's think calmly and logically about this. First, WWII was on two main fronts, The Pacific and EuropeDo not patronize me.Japan was not too powerful compared to other major powers at the timeThe Japanese navy was arguably the dominant naval power pre-battle of midway, aided by a fighter, the mitsubishi zero that dominated the skies until later on in the war. The army it possessed, was comprised of virile men, whom would not see the pain of defeat. If this nation did not demonstrate military prowess, then you do not revere military history.the Allies had a ''Germany First'' strategyThis evidences nothing, except perhaps the genuine plurality of European nations in the allied forces. Germany was the largest threat to the allies due to the nature of their global positioning; they were the threat for a majority of the allies. Japan being on the other side of the world, was to far away to be considered a threat to them ( the Europeans). The other allied powers, the U.S. and China, focused on Japan because of its strength and location relative to them. Yet despite this major threat, the U.S. still provided massive aid to fund the war against the Nazis, albeit indirectly. The lend lease act was certainly an integral part to the Nazis defeat. now we can say that on a Germany vs. USSR debate alone the USSR would win.This is so utterly false, the Germans (Hitler) were fighting on two fronts (Britain did not fall in large part to the lend lease act) and the French were not entirely defeated. Fighting on two fronts is difficult even for the most powerful militaries. Even so, the Russians were saved by the harsh condititions of their own winter; they were being pushed back quickly by the Germans, of which were supplied only for warm weather fighting (Hitler expected a decisive, quick victory). I think you can figure out the rest. Secondly, the Allied bombing of Germany was largely in-effective against war industry and just an attempt at destroying morale.I'm sorry but the entire argument you attempt to make is false.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

Do not act like you have a degree in history. It is apparent that you have obtained all your information from second-rate historical documentaries and your own personal hunches. You haven't the slightest clue about Armaments Minster Albert Speer and his relocation of German war industry, this is what made the Allied bombing highly un-effective against armaments facilities. You may now argue the issue of morale and German workers casualties; however, the Nazi propaganda machine led by Josef Goebbles saw to it that the majority of the civilian population was sufficiently indoctrinated to resist the propaganda value of Allied bombings in their entirety. http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55 Now you are also making an attempt at arguing that the Allied supreme leaders, including FDR and Churchill, knew nothing whatsoever about the strength of Nazi Germany in Relation to Imperial Japan. This is simply preposterous. May I remind you that Germany was very close to complete domination of Europe. This was the primary threat. Additionally, the German Whermarcht employed revolutionary tactics and strategy. This, along with very advanced weaponry made them a seemingly unstoppable force. The German military High Command was also very keen on developing ''wunderwaffe'' or wonder-weapons. Some of the more known ones are: The King Tiger, The ME-262, The V-1, V-2 and V-3 series of revenge weapons, Seran Gas, and the most dangerous of these weapons, a nuclear type device. There are some eye-witness accounts of an actual test of one of these nuclear devices near the Baltic coast. This is corroborated with tests from the alleged sight. This of course cannot be definitively proven, but it is a possibility. The leaders of the Western Allies knew the threat of German Super-weapons was great, this was spurred on by a letter from Albert Einstein to FDR warning about the Nazi nuclear programme. As for the Japanese, the facts you state are also preposterous. Yes, the A6M was a very good fighter, but by late 1942, the Allies deployed fighters capable of besting the Zero in a dogfight. Namely, these were the F6F Hellcat and the F4U Corsair. The Japanese navy was relatively large, but the Royal Navy was significantly larger, and the American and Canadian navy's were in a massive expansion programme. Japan could simply not compete with this. Japanese strategies and tactics were also out-dated, Banzai charges against .30 caliber machine guns are a big no-no in military thought. The Japanese tanks such as the Ha-Go, were inferior even to the Sherman, and production could not hold a candle to that of the US, or USSR. May I also remind you that the USSR and Germans were fighting almost exclusively on one front from 1941-1943. The battle of Kursk took place in the Summer of 1943 and was a decisive Soviet Victory. Your claims are completely false.Remember, the USSR and Japan fought it out in 1939. The Soviets were victorious.the-forgotten-soviet-japanese-war-of-1939 And would you like to back up your claims? It will be impossible because they are largely false.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

You haven't the slightest clue about Armaments Minster Albert Speer and his relocation of German war industryI would disagreeAllied bombing highly un-effective against armaments facilitiesThis is still debated in the most vehement of fashions among historians. To claim an absolute, without residing as an historian yourself, is simply preposterous.You may now argueWhy do you attempt to make an argument for me? Such action is excessively patronizing. May I remind you that Germany was very close to complete domination of Europe.Only until they attacked the SovietsFDR and Churchill, knew nothing whatsoever about the strength of Nazi Germany in Relation to Imperial Japan.FDR knew the power of the the Germans. He also knew the outcome of operation Barbarossa.the German Whermarcht employed revolutionary tactics and strategy. This, along with very advanced weaponry made them a seemingly unstoppable force. The most important lesson from WW2 was that quantity is quality on its ownhere are some eye-witness accounts of an actual test of one of these nuclear devices near the Baltic coast. This is corroborated with tests from the alleged sight. This of course cannot be definitively proven, but it is a possibility. The leaders of the Western Allies knew the threat of German Super-weapons was great, this was spurred on by a letter from Albert Einstein to FDR warning about the Nazi nuclear programme.I can actually guarantee that there was no German nuke after February 20th, 1944. American and Canadian navy's were in a massive expansion programme. Japan could simply not compete with this.Americans no, Canadians yes. Japanese strategies and tactics were also out-datedExcluding the bonsai charges, that is so utterly false. Just try to think of the tactical significance of pearl harbor, as one example.
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

You have seemed to change your tune relatively quickly.The simple fact is, the USSR contributed far more to final victory than the US did. It is simple statistics. The USSR accounted for almost 75% of Nazi casualties. Furthermore, the Soviets managed tie up approximately 200 Whermarcht divisions. This was the bulk of the German army.I also do not want to hear about any "lend-lease"This is because the USSR produced 95% of their armaments.On your second point, it is evident that Nazi Germany was a more dangerous foe than imperial Japan. Seriously, it's pretty evident. The USN absolutely destroyed the IJN without much of a fight at all."On the other hand, Germany was universally considered the stronger and more dangerous than Japan."-Morton, Louis. Strategy and Command: The First Two Years. The United States Army in World War II. Washington: GPO, 1962, p. 88
Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.A

Remember, the USSR and Japan fought it out in 1939. The Soviets were victorious.WHAT! Soviets lost twice the number the Japs did. They lost nearly half their territory in Korea. And the war ended because the RUSSIANS asked U.S.A. to settle a treaty. What are you reading for history books?
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: Just as bad as regular because

this was copy and pasted and not written by you this should get no points
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Investment into Clean EnergyAlternate-fuel vehicles are good for the economy in many ways. Primarily, you don’t have to give your hard-earned money to the oil-producing countries when you drive a car. Instead, you can invest this money in your local economy to produce the clean energy sources such as wind and solar power to run the EV charging stations.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

We should have electric cars because electric cars help reduce emmisions and can help save the enviorment also its cheeper and easier to re keep refueled.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

We should have electric cars because They require less maintenance and don't need oil changes.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Since electric cars have zero tailpipe emissions, we can look forward to cleaner air when there are more electric cars on the road. Cleaner air means less disease in the world, which means less stress on public health systems, hospitals, and so on. In addition, fewer greenhouse gas emissions will save the ozone layer and reduce our carbon footprint. If we can’t stop global warming, we can certainly slow down the onset, and EVs are nothing if not a good start.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

With gasoline-electric hybrid power and all-electric power, we can achieve significant cost and environmental savings. By adding more batteries and recharging capability to gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles, we can have plug-in hybrids that offer the range of hybrids (500 miles or more), plus the benefit of all-electric power for short trips, which dramatically reduces the amount of gasoline used. EVs require no gasoline whatsoever and, when recharged from renewable energy sources, produce zero total emissions.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: Just as bad as regular because

this was copy and pasted Considering nearly 80% of all EV charging occurs at home, the need to incentivize off-peak charging is becoming increasingly urgent. As EV technology continues to evolve and its inundation becomes inevitable, utilities will continue to join states and the federal government in supporting the rise of this technology. With special rate plans and rebates predominant amidst numerous options, these programs will become ever-more-widespread and will make entry into the EV market easier for the average consumer.EV drivers enjoy privileges other drivers do not.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Owners of an EV have the advantage of much lower running costs. The electricity to charge an EV works out around a third as much per kilometre as buying petrol for the same vehicle1.There are a number of handy calculators you can use to see the savings. Check out the Fuel Cost Savings Calculator on the My Electric Car website.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Electric cars cost less than gas fueled cars, and cost less to fuel as well.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Given the choice I would rather have an electric car, for many reason but for now I'll name two. With solar panels I can charge my car at home at a reduced price. And two it is much better for the environment. The main drawbacks still are the upfront costs and the lack of real power. To explain, a car that runs off electricity usually does not have the same power going up a mountain than a car that runs off diesel or gas.Still, I would prefer electric.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Electric drivers enjoy privileges other drivers do not, such as better parking, free public charging and the ability to pass everyone in a high occupancy lane.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER and oil is running out in the world. Electric cars are becoming more mainstream, and you’re likely not alone in wondering whether an electric car is right for you. As the technology supporting electric cars (EVs) and batteries continue to improve, drawbacks such as high cost, limited range, performance issues, long charge time, and a dearth of charging stations are fading away.Automotive giants such as Volvo are voicing their commitment to converting to electric car-only production in the very near future; and even luxury electric vehicles like Tesla are offering more affordable options to the consumer, altering public perception of electric cars as something only approachable by the elite.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Electric fuelling stations are still in the development stages. Not a lot of places you go to on a daily basis will have electric fuelling stations for your vehicle, meaning that if you’re on a long trip and run out of a charge, you may be stuck where you are. In addition electric cars can also be a hassle on your energy bill if you’re not considering the options carefully. If you haven’t done your research into the electric car you want to purchase, then you may be making an unwise investment.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

They can make a huge contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions — that’s the most important reason. There are advantages in terms of going into the carpool lane. Electric vehicles are becoming (price) competitive with internal combustion engines. In our report we looked at the life-cycle cost of … electric cars, hybrid electric cars, gas-powered cars and we found that, for example, the Nissan Leaf and the Smart car are competitive right now even without (government) incentives. What’s driving down the cost of EVs is the reduction in the cost of the battery. Another important point is that the maintenance is minimal.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Recent findings have shown that several EV features can improve safety. EVs tend to have a lower centre of gravity that makes them less likely to roll over. They can also have a lower risk for major fires or explosions and the body construction and durability of EVs may make them safer in a collision
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

We should have electric cars because You don't need to go to a gas station you just charge up at home.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

On a national level, EVs can help with Australia’s energy security. At present, Australia is highly dependent on other countries for petroleum imports. EVs are easy to power from local and renewable energy sources, reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There are also better employment benefits for Australians through the use of locally produced electricity
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Considering nearly 80% of all EV charging occurs at home, the need to incentivize off-peak charging is becoming increasingly urgent. As EV technology continues to evolve and its inundation becomes inevitable, utilities will continue to join states and the federal government in supporting the rise of this technology. With special rate plans and rebates predominant amidst numerous options, these programs will become ever-more-widespread and will make entry into the EV market easier for the average consumer.EV drivers enjoy privileges other drivers do not.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

With fewer moving parts, there are not many things to break or that need fixing on an electric car. This will save you a lot of time and money over the years: no more having to rent a car while yours is being serviced, no more oil changes, no more failed transmissions. Your mechanic might get a little lonely, but so it goes. You’ll still have brakes to maintain, though they will last much longer than they do on a gas-powered vehicle. Your biggest issue may be having to change out your battery, but most models today come with an 8-year/100K mile warranty. Batteries can last up to 15 years in a mild climate, and anyway you toss it, that’s pretty good value.Electric cars are quiet inside and outside.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

A battery electric vehicle (BEV) has a lot less moving parts than a conventional petrol/diesel car. There is relatively little servicing and no expensive exhaust systems, starter motors, fuel injection systems, radiators and many other parts that aren’t needed in an EV.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

We should have Electric cars because They are becoming affordable.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Reduced harmful exhaust emissions is good news for our health. Better air quality will lead to less health problems and costs caused by air pollution. EVs are also quieter than petrol/diesel vehicles, which means less noise pollution.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

The performance of electric vehicles extends well beyond torque. Recent electric car models are making huge gains in range performance. This is possible because of advancements in battery technology as well as electric regenerative systems in vehicle braking.A popular recent introduction, the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV is the first mass-produced electric car anywhere near affordable with an all-electric range of more than 200 miles. Another up and comer, the VW e-Golf sports a 124 mile (201 km) range. Considering the average commute is around 12 miles (20 km), this gives drivers a lot of wiggle room.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

We should get electric cars because you can get tax credits for purchasing one.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

In almost every way that counts, an electric car costs significantly less to run and maintain than a gas-powered car. There is no gas to buy, no oil changes, no smog tests, and fewer moving parts to break or wear out. In fact, many electric car owners go years without any repair or service bills at all.Electric cars are better for the air we breathe.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

As the downside inherent in any new technology fade away, to go EV or not to go EV will emerge as the easiest decision this generation has to face. Soon the technology skeptics criticisms over high cost, limited range, performance issues, long charge time, and a dearth of charging stations will fall upon deaf ears.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

EVs have to pass the same safety tests as gas-powered vehicles, so you can be assured that they are completely safe to operate. In fact many EVs score higher in crash test safety ratings, Tesla Model X for example has a perfect score. A widely-circulating concern about EV safety revolves around the potential for fire, but in reality, EVs are far less likely to catch fire than gas cars. On average, gas cars will catch fire at the approximate rate of 1 fire every 20 million miles driven. For EVs, the rate is 1 fire per 120 million miles driven. That’s 80% less if you’re taking notes.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

In almost every way that counts, an electric car costs significantly less to run and maintain than a gas-powered car. There is no gas to buy, no oil changes, no smog tests, and fewer moving parts to break or wear out. In fact, many electric car owners go years without any repair or service bills at all.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

With no gas to buy, or oil to change. To refuel, you simply plug in at home, at work or opportunity charge on the road. As an added bonus to EV charging, the power going into your batteries is increasingly produced by renewable sources. Non-renewable electricity charging your electric car is generated domestically. Add a solar array to your home or work and your commute could pay for itself.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

As an added bonus to EV charging, the power going into your batteries is increasingly produced by renewable sources. Non-renewable electricity charging your electric car is generated domestically. Add a solar array to your home or work and your commute could pay for itself.
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

we r wrong the other team wins cuz w suck and now i have to type random stuff so that it lets me post oitt but honestly just giv it to the other team
Debate: Why don't we all have electric cars?
Side: We should because...

Electric cars will benefit the environment.for animals and for people and for all living things. There will be no car pollution when there will be all electric cars electric cars vs gas cars electric cars win TESLASSSSS ALLL THE WAYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!