BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a zombie outbreak would be able to conquer the world

I thank my opponent for his kindness and wish them a good debate I would like to start by restating no human war tactics or weapons would defeat the massive zombie onslaught guns and mealy could only take out a few at a time armored cavalry needs fuel and wouldn't last long enough helicopter's would not do well in a city planes are for for hitting large stationary targets and chasing enemy's off but zombies are not stationary and have no fear element and nukes could only defeat a large pack other infected people would have already escaped and would die and reanimate later starting the problem all over again also many humans would be scared off and would leave military forces to defend their family's the government would have little power and the world would sink into madness. Also zombies don't think they just go and over run the area in battle strategy your told if facing a massive enemy entrench your position fortify it do whatever you can to even the odds long enough to DRIVE THE ENEMY BACK but zombies wont be chased they are incapable of fear so eventually the defence's will fall sure you could kill a few but not them all and plus the bigger the weapon the more noise it makes and attracts more zombies. Also no time in human history have we created a unit capable of fighting and enemy that if it bites you you don't just die you die comeback to life and attack your own team Hoplites spears would do little for brain destruction causing them to use their small swords with uncovered arms Legions have the same issue later on Knights and Samurai the Knight is to slow to fight a zombie a Samurai's Katana is a slashing weapon not a stabbing making it hard to get to the brain an early gunpowder unit would take to long of a reload and I already explained modern weapons how would we fight them?
a zombie outbreak would be able to conquer the world

I believe a zombie infection could take down humanity. I think this because no human war tactics or weapons would defeat the massive zombie onslaught guns and mealy could only take out a few at a time armored cavalry needs fuel and wouldn't last long enough helicopter's would not do well in a city planes are for for hitting large stationary targets and chasing enemy's off but zombies are not stationary and have no fear element and nukes could only defeat a large pack other infected people would have already escaped and would die and reanimate later starting the problem all over again also many humans would be scared off and would leave military forces to defend their family's the government would have little power and the world would sink into madness.
Hiroshima Was/Was not justified.

Once again, my opponent ignores the fact that the US was unwilling to accept anything but an unconditional surrender from the Japanese. In fact, the Potsdam declaration on July 26 1945, said that Japan needed to surrender unconditionally or face continued bombardment. The US did not "budge" once from this position, and Japan feared another treaty of Versailles type treaty that would destroy the country (1). In addition, the Japanese had to prepare a counter-invasion plan because they did not want the Americans to destroy their country under an unconditional surrender. The US had the option to call a cease-fire to negotiate terms of surrender, but they decided to "flex their muscles" and show off to the USSR and the world by forcing Japan into unconditional surrender. If the US had been willing top negotiate terms of surrender, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives would have been saved, as the Japanese had shown attempts to surrender. My opponent argues that the Atomic Bombs kept Japan democratic. But they did not prove that this is superior to any other form of government. Also, how do we know this is true, that Japan would not have stayed democratic without the atom bombs? My opponent does not elaborate on this, and therefore their point is moot. My opponent has provided no real case as to why the Atomic Bombings were justified. They conceded that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate acts of terror against civilians, later they also conceded that the bombings mere not morally correct. I have however provided a logical, factual case as for why the bombings were not justified. My opponent had the Burden of proof, and they did not satisfy it. I went above and beyond what I had to prove, and therefore you should vote con.Suggestions for my opponent: Please use paragraphs! I know the DDO text entry system can mess up what you write, but paragraphs make reading easier, and the voters will be less likely just to skim your case if you use them to break up monotonous text. Please use web sources for some of your arguments. You used many book sources, but no opponent could access book sources within the short confines of these debates. I was unable to check if your sources were valid, and they supported your claims (I will assume they did), but adding a few web sources will add to your credibility. Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hiroshima Was/Was not justified.

My opponent continues to state that the Japanese were willing to surrender, though in many cases they were but on much different terms. The United States changed the surrender terms before dropping the bomb to see if the Japanese would surrender to that, however the Japanese refused and did not surrender and even further readying themselves for the invasion plan. Without the surrender of Japan, invasion was the only other option open to United States. With this invasion there would have been many more lives lost. This would have become a worse outcome for the war. Without the atomic bomb and the outcome of what happened, people today might be still using this weapon of mass destruction. The atomic bomb also helped lead research in nuclear power. We kept the USSR out of Japan keeping Japan a democratic country. If we had not dropped the bomb, we would have invaded and all of the good outcomes would be changed. Hiroshima, though through the eyes of many is not justified, will always be the best decision. Harry S. Truman made the decision to drop this bomb because he could see that this would be the best for the Allied Forces and the Japanese. Without this the people of the world would have probably not learned this power, and would have abused this bomb. That is why, Harry S. Truman made the correct decision in dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, a decision that was and always will be justified. I had a great time with this debate and I hope that my opponent did too. His arguments were very well written and were very germane. Everyone who reads this hopefully will get something out of it, because I know I did. Thank you, to everyone. Vote Pro ;D, ツ ( If you didn't know this is a japanese character) In the mood of Japanese, ありがとがざいます (Thank you (Formally)) Kristof, Nicholas D. "HIROSHIMA; Justified Bombings? A Survivor's Reply." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Aug. 1995. Web. 15 Jan. 2013. Miscamble, Father Wilson. "Prager University: Hiroshima -- Why America Dropped the Bomb." YouTube. Prager University, 22 July 2012. Web. 08 Jan. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com...;. "Politics Opinions." Was the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified? "ï¿½ï¿½ Debate.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Jan. 2013. Aplerovitz, Gar. "The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima." The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima. CounterPunch, 08 Aug. 2011. Web. 08 Jan. 2013. "World War II:" Why Did the United States Decide to Drop Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Instead of Berlin?" Quora. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Jan. 2013. "Nagasaki Today." 長崎. N.p., n.d. Web. ７ Jan. 2013. .
Hiroshima Was/Was not justified.

My opponent begins by making the false assumption that we cannot control weapons of mass destruction, this is wrong because we can control them by choosing not to use them, or by mutually agreeing to non-proliferation treaties (1). My opponent then concedes that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate acts of terror against civilians, later they also concede that the bombings mere not morally correct. My opponent then argues that anything is justified in war because it is all about winning and losing. If this is true, then why do we agree upon rules of war, such as the Geneva convention, the Hague conventions or the hundreds of other conventions on the rules of war (2,3,4,5). My opponent then argues that military lives are more important than civilian lives in war, but they provide no reason for this, so this argument is null. Then my opponent continues to propagate the fallacy that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender without being shocked into it. However, I have already shown that the Japanese had offered to surrender, but the US was to narcissistic to accept anything but an unconditional surrender. In the end, my opponent then states that the UN does not recognize the use of the Atomic Bombs as a war crime. This is true, but unless the United States consented to considering the Atomic bombings war crimes, then they could not be considered war crimes. The US is part of the security council (6), meaning no motion can pass without their approval. So even though the Atomic bombings violate the various conventions on war (2), they are not considered war crimes by the UN.So I have shown that the atomic bombs were war crimes, unnecessary, defiant of Japanese plea’s for surrender, and a simple show of force towards the soviet union. I have proven that their use was not justified. Vote Con!!!Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1899)5. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1907)#Hague_Convention_of_19076. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should kids have more rights at school

Again, it might be alright for some (maybe even help in their education), but it would only be taking away time from the more difficult programs. Some learning programs (like Math for example) need a tiered structure that is followed in a manner that opens students to the ideas of the next tier progressively. Your capability to reach a higher level math is greatly hindered if you were to have the right to make your own schedule and decide to skip math for a semester. Im not saying this applies to everyone ... but the vast majority. (to clarify in fact, im using public schooling as the standard for all of this discussion. If you think your private schooled kids have the discipline already to give them control ... this idea of yours may work out just fine) To best satisfy the education requirements for public schooled children, in an attempt to keep them on par with businesses demands, tech demands, and give them the basic tools they'd need to live happy productive lives, we must run the education system as efficiently as time and funds dictates. Every child cannot run their life as a social experiment and hope to stay on par with ones who took clean advantage of a system set up for their success. I guess my parting thought to those who didn't want to read the whole of this argument is: Our society is able to stretch farther beyond the normal capabilities of a human armed with nothing but common sense because we are able to at least partially skip past the mistakes and lessons of our predecessors and focus our attention on the next iteration of those lessons. Were there no structure like this ... you would be very limited in what you would be able to choose to do with the rest of your life. Higher level jobs and education would not exist in your reach. You would have traded a few extra minutes a day with friends for the toil of doing something you don't enjoy, stuck in a career you don't love, for the rest of your days.
Should kids have more rights at school

There are still only so many gym classes there. Some will get what they want and be with the people they want ... others will be assed out. Its more fair this way. It forces them to cooperate in a group of strangers ... which is real world skills at its finest. Another thing I'd say is if you ever did afford that opportunity to students, it should be a privilege not a right. Yet another point ill bring up is the present day movement towards ridding schools of recess or gym classes period. While ill say I don't necessarily support that movement, it seems to support what I stated earlier about investing in the subjects that would otherwise not be able to be taught in that timeframe (high level math, science, and literature). Kids will always find time for physical ed or whatever friend time outside of school. Again I don't fully support doing away with it. But I have to admit phys ed classes were always the biggest waste of time of the bunch and led by a particular caliber of staff (if you catch my drift). It is the weakest link in a process that is set in an increasingly dwindling timeframe. You know some of the flaws behind college (and even needing it in the first place) derive in part from this very topic. College students are often able to research and choose a teacher for a class. The fact that higher level learning is required also shows we aren't fitting enough into the public schooling as is needed. The working worlds needs are surpassing the product of our education system ... hence people being stuck in their social class ... lower growth. An ineffective education system is going to harm you, your children, and their children for years to come. A few more minutes with friends in gym or lunch seems hardly worth it.
Should kids have more rights at school

I think kids should not have rights that put them too in control of their own lives before they become adults (that age is a different debate). I feel it important that people learn to be good followers before they can even remotely be good leaders. Children also will lose focus on the things they are being taught if in charge of their own schedules. Ive never once heard a child propose to the student council that a social studied and proven timeline for class structure be implemented because it's the best and most efficient way for the largest majority of students to learn. (yes 4x4 block scheduling has been studied before adoption ... as an example) They instead ask for things like you mentioned. Also, it is not in the best interest of a publicly funded institution to be run by non tax payers. Children are benefitting from the time and effort (years of labor exceeding even the Childs age). There are improvements in place that took years to develop. There is a curriculum and level of education standard that cannot be obtained in the timeframe set if every student was afforded the ability to run their lives as a social experiment to learn those lessons the longer harder way. Plain and simple ... kids are standing on the shoulders of giants. They attain better lives and we a better society by affording this opportunity to them at a higher efficiency than a kid could conceive.
Islamic Hijab - The Veil of Modesty [as per Personal & Social Issues]

I think the veil should not be forced on women if mean dont have to because it goes against human rights make a law that only apply to women . But I still think that the veil version full that covers the entire face should be forbiden because it makes indification dificult and people using that piece could rob shops an not be indificated. The version of the veil that doesnt cover your entire face should be allowed in any country.
Islamic Hijab - The Veil of Modesty [as per Personal & Social Issues]

In the name of ALLAH Most Gracious Most Merciful. There are Feminist Out There... There are Movement Against Woman Oppression... There are Movements Against Veiling of Women... Who... Consider Hijab- Islamic Veil for a Modest Pious Women as Oppression and refer to them as oppressed ones... They claim its dissolves a female's identity behind black curtain's and results in Male Dominant Society. They say that it makes other women more vulnerable. They say It degrades and Insults a women But I 100% Support Hijab for All the Sisters Out There Even Muslim or Non-Muslim. so Topic Under debate here is regarding the following points: Should there be any restriction for Observing Hijab? Like Canada [My Stance:NO] Does Black Cloth Dissolves a Women's Identity or Protects Her? [I advocate protects are] Is Hijab Oppressing Women? [My Stance:NO] Does Islam Promotes Men Dominant Society by "Enforcing Hijab" [My Stance:NO] Does Hijab makes those who do not veil Vulnerable? [My Stance: NO] Rules: Please do not go out of context. For what ever you speak Evidence is Compulsory If you have no knowledge please do not accept the debate. If you agree with me you can fortify. No vulgarity please. No "New Argument" in last round though you can refute. R1 for Acceptance & If Con wants He can bring up BOP R2 to Build cases R3 for rebuttals & arguments R4 Rebuttals only No New Arguments Purpose: Well the purpose of my previous, this and up coming debates is never to hurt any personal or private feelings of anyone I believe the purpose always be to learn and seek knowledge and establish True & the right facts for the people out there and to make people understand the difference between Rational & Irrational Thoughts. And Truth and Falsehood.MAY PEACE BE ONTO YOU.
Smoking Should be Banned

Round 1. Smoking: a choice someone makes to inhale tobacco point 1... If smoking where to be banned it would result in problems in the economy. A) tobacco makes a significant contribution to the balance of trade for the United States. In 2002, tobacco leaf and products contributed $1.7 billion to the trade balance. In the past decade, its contribution has reached as high as $5.9 billion dollars. B) tobacco is grown in North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Virginia, and West Virginia. With about 80,000 Tobacco Farms and roughly 300,000 jobs. that would be lost if tobacco was banned. C) The United states took in approximately $25,000,000 Federal tax dollars and $9,000,000 State tax dollars in 2010. in 1980 it was at an historical high taking in approximately $600,000,000 dollars. Now Immigrate if you will if smoking was banned and America lost all that revue. There would be disastrous problems. point 2.... It would also have serious complications for other countries economy's. A) The United States is the leading importer of tobacco. If other country's lost that revue it would result in serious complications in their economy as well as ours. point 3... Not all tobacco is bad tobacco. A) Tobacco by itself is not as harmful as you may think. It is all the other stuff they put in it that is most harmful to your body and the others around you. But why put a ban on something that by itself is not actually that harmful. Its the manufactures doing that all the negative stuff is in tobacco. point 4... The lighter side of smoking A) Smoking while harmful does have some benefits as well. It is a great stress reliever, smokers tend to be thinner, and could even introduce you to new people. which would be good for your social life as well. It can help with anger, depression, and much other stuff. While it does come at a cost. which could be your health. and finally point 5... It comes down to a choice. A) Sure smoking is harmful, sure it might even be harmful to someone standing next to you. However it is still a personal choice. Why should smoking be banned for everyone? What if an elderly lady decided she wants to smoke? She lives alone and has no children and never leaves her house? she shouldn't make a personal choice on weather to smoke or not? That should be a decision left to her not the government to decide if its not the right thing for her to do.
From and Entertainment Perspective, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a Good Animated Show

"Unfortunately, something came up at home, and I won't be able to submit in argument until next round. I ask that my opponent provide no further argument this round, and that this won't affect the voting process." Well I am a very reasonable and I guess to some extent honorable person, so I will agree to these terms. No arguments will be posted until next round.
From and Entertainment Perspective, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is a Good Animated Show

I accept. Although you seem to be a bit misguided. While I am totally against the MLP:FiM fan base aka bronies; I am not (at least totally) against those outside the target audience who also watch the show. I am mostly against those outside the target audience that don't realize that the show they are watching isn't anything special. If you are a 10 year old little boy or a 40 year old man I am fine with you watching the show for whatever reason you have (bordem, entertainment,whatever). If you are one of those and you watch the show thinking "OMG THIS IS THE BEST THING EVER BECAUSE IT HAS EVERYTHING A GOOD SHOW NEEDS TO HAVE TO BE A GOOD SHOW etc,etc,etc..." then those are the type of "outside target audience" I am against. The ones that delude themselves into thinking the show is something more than it actually is.
Resolved: The question "can god create a stone he cant lift" does not disprove the existence of god.

The approach I will use is that of professor gotlieb PhD. The question is not a question since it contradicts itself. Since god is all powerful, the words, "A stone he can't lift", have no meaning. There can be no such thing; it is like a "square circle" there is no such thing. God cannot create square circles, nor create a stone he can't lift, nor can he check mate with only his king. Bec. Such things are logical impossibilities, and thus make no sense and thus no question has even been proposed. An alternate approach is even if you say that god cannot create a stone he can't lift. This is not a limitation since it comes from his all powerfulness. There are many things god cannot do such as make a mistake, or improve. This does not show god is not all powerful it's just that there are certain things that only imperfect people can do. And so too is it with the stone. The rest of what my opponent wrote is not relevant to this debate, but we can debate it another time.
Resolved: The question "can god create a stone he cant lift" does not disprove the existence of god.

It disproves the trait of omnipotence, and thus disproves the God described in the bible. You can still substitute him for a lesser version, but the biblical God you would say you believe in still would not be the one described in the Bible. Omnipotent: Having unlimited power; able to do anything. . http://www.google.com...'Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You. - Jeremiah 32:17 (NKJV) "For with God nothing will be impossible. " - Luke 1:37 (NKJV)But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. - Psalms 115:3 (NKJV) 1. If God defines himself as omnipotent, then he is able to do anything and everything.2. God defines himself as omnipotent.3. Therefore, God is able to do anything and everything. So, my opponent states that God either can lift the rock, or provides a reason why he cannot lift the rock but still maintains his omnipotence.1. If God can create something he cannot destroy, he has limited his own power, removing his trait of omnipotence.2. God can create something he cannot destroy.3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.1. If God cannot do something, then he cannot do anything and everything.2. God cannot create (something) that he cannot appease himself.3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent. I may be drifting a little off course here, but here are more arguments disproving the omnipotence of God:1. If God has always been omniscient, he knows and has known forever what he is going to do.2. God is omniscient. [3]. Therefore, God is defined, and cannot chose what he wants to do.1. If God cannot chose what he wants to do, then he has limited his omnipotence. [2]. God cannot chose what to do. 3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.