BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
2nd atomic bomb on Nagasaki was necessary in achieving surrender

Professor of history Robert James Maddox. - "Some historians have argued that while the first bomb might have been required to achieve Japanese surrender, dropping the second constituted a needless barbarism. The record shows otherwise. American officials believed more than one bomb would be necessary because they assumed Japanese hard-liners would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe, precisely what they did. The Japanese minister of war, for instance, at first refused even to admit that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic. A few hours after Nagasaki he told the cabinet that 'the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs . . . they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo.'"
Bombing Japan was barbaric and immoral

On August 8, 1955, Albert Camus addressed the bombing of Hiroshima in an editorial in the French newspaper Combat: "Mechanized civilization has just reached the ultimate stage of barbarism. In a near future, we will have to choose between mass suicide and intelligent use of scientific conquests[...] This can no longer be simply a god; it must become an order which goes upward from the peoples to the governments, an order to make a definitive choice between hell and reason."
Japanese needed pretext of bombings in order to surrender

The "one condition" faction, led by Togo, seized on the bombing as decisive justification of surrender. Kōichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisers, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."
Bombing Japan initiated the Cold War arms race

A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying: "If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons."
No Truman advisers said atomic bombs were unnecessary for surrender

Professor of history Robert James Maddox. - "Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.'"[4]
US was mercilessly impatient in dropping bombs so quickly.

The Americans wanted to end the war quickly - they could not even wait for two months. If they waited, the casualties would not be so much. The US killed 215,000 in the bombings. The most they can kill in two months without using the atomic bombs would definitely not exceed 200,000! - This shows they were not only impatient but biased. Just because the Japanese military caused lots of trouble, they exceeded their mercilessness to the civillians. Humanitarians like Mamoru Shinozaki could have been killed.
The US electoral college is an appropriate federal-state-people power-sharing deal

- The United States is not a pure, popular democracy. The US constitution limits power between various entities, including the people, the federal government, and state governments. The electoral college must be understood in the historical, constitutional context. While the United States is a democracy, a popular vote would only satisfy the interests of the federal government and the people; state-interests would be left out. The electoral college sufficiently incorporates the interests of states, while satisfactorily meeting the interests of the people and the federal government.
The electoral college creates a crisis of legitimacy.

The electoral college inherently creates a crisis of legitimacy in instances in which an elected president does not win the popular vote. Therefore, while there is the potential that a popular vote recount could delay an election or engender a crisis of legitimacy, this denies the fact that the Electoral College also holds the significant risk of a crisis of legitimacy when it does not reflect the popular will. It is also clear that the election results within any given state can be contested in the Electoral College, as was the case in 2000, which can create a crisis of legitimacy on par with the the fears surrounding a popular vote.
The electoral college helps protect the interests of smaller states in the union

The current system provides for the protection of the rights of all 50 states, because it forces candidates to appeal to the voters in all parts of America. It is important to remember that America is not a centralized state but a federation of states. A nationwide vote tally could provide an incentive for a candidate to focus only on the most populous areas of the country, such as California, New York, or Texas, and ignore other areas such as Alaska, Rhode Island, or Maine. The electoral college is a natural consequence of the devolved, state-based government that Americans have always supported.
Rarely has the loser of the US popular vote won the electoral college

- The fears of the electoral college surround instances in which the popular vote does not coincide with the electoral college results. But, these fears are exaggerated, principally because of the rarity of this occurring. This result has really only happened twice in American history, first in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison's victory of Grover Cleveland, and then with the election of President Bush in 2000. The 1824 and 1876 election results in which this occurred cannot fairly be counted against the Electoral College mainly because the results were directed by voter fraud and partisan factionalism. Because it is so rare that the electoral college does not reflect the popular vote, it is hard to say that the electoral college is generally unrepresentative.
The electoral college's "winner-takes-all" system causes campaigning only to swing states:

Parties know that certain states will always vote one way eg Alaska always votes Republican, Massachusetts usually votes Democrat. Both parties generally spend less resources on campaigning in these ‘safe’ states, and pay more attention to the needs of electors in ‘swing’ states, such as Michigan and Florida, which determine the outcome of elections. This can mean that elections become less competitive as resources are concentrated on a smaller geographical area and smaller section of society.
The electoral college disenfranchises third parties

As a candidate only becomes important if he can amass enough votes in a particular state to threaten to win it, attention is only focused on those parties which have a big enough organization to become truly competitive in a given state. This punishes parties like the Green Party, who have a less well-funded party organisation, and whose support is thinly spread across the whole country. For this reason, there is no third party in America comparable to the Liberal Democrats in Britain.
There is always a focus in politics on campaigning in the undecided portion of the electorate, irrespective of there being an electoral college system or not:

As America is a large, diverse country, any system which encourages and rewards parties who appeal to a broad geographical range of areas is more likely to lead to a government which is in tune with the needs and values of most of society, as opposed to the UK, where very often the concerns of London and South-east England dominate parliament. The current system has encouraged administrations to ensure that representatives from many different states are included in the government. In any case, the shift of southern voters from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the past thirty years, and the movement of Californians in the opposite direction, shows that the system is not static and that states cannot be taken for granted.
Open primaries allow tactical manipulation

James Frye. "Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Liberaland. June 9th, 2010: "The open primary is also an invitation for one party to see to it that the weakest possible candidate of the other party wins to ensure that their real candidate has a better chance in the general election. This appears to have been what happened in the case of Mr. Greene’s Democratic nomination ‘victory’ in South Carolina. Sneaky? Yes, but totally legal and the SC Democrats would have done the same to the Republicans if they could."
Open primaries push third parties out of general (reduce choice)

George Will. "Proposition California ensures electoral blandness." Washington Post. June 13th, 2010: "Voters who prefer their political menu seasoned with the spices provided by minor parties are pretty much out of luck. Under Proposition 14, such parties -- Green, Libertarian, etc. -- which previously could place candidates on November ballots, will almost always be excluded from those by failing to run first or second in primaries."
Open primaries end "us vs them" partisanship voting

"California should switch to open primary elections." Stanford Daily Editorial. May 12th, 2010: "The 'opening' of the system by allowing voters to cast their ballot independent of party affiliation is a crucial change. In a political climate that is increasingly polarized by party, opening up the vote would allow voters to see the candidates on a spectrum and break down the “us vs. them” mentality that pervades the current closed system. Candidates must be evaluated on more than just their party identification in an open system, promoting greater voter involvement. The open system also empowers voters to make more of a choice than simply picking their party’s best candidate, allowing for the voter to better evaluate the race overall."
Parties like closed primaries because extremes help fundraising

Jim Boren. "Why open primary is good." Merced Sun Star. June 15th, 2010: "Here's the real reason the major parties in California don't like open primaries: They will lose power if politics become more moderate in the Golden State. They fear that lawmakers in the political middle will find compromises to our most difficult problems. That would mean that the political extremists on the left and the right will not be able to control the debate. Party opposition to open primaries goes back to money. The Republicans raise money by telling people on their mailing list that they need to send $100 to the party or the Democrats will push through tax increases. The Democrats raise money by telling its members to send money or the Republicans will close the public schools. How are they going to raise money if all they have to report to party members is the budget crisis has been solved with a bipartisan agreement to make cuts and raise revenue?"
Open primaries favor best candidate over party affiliation

"Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections." Stanford Daily Editorial. May 12th, 2010: "The open system also empowers voters to make more of a choice than simply picking their party’s best candidate, allowing for the voter to better evaluate the race overall. [...] An open primary system will open dialogue across party lines and, hopefully, lead to candidates being elected based on qualifications rather than just party affiliations."
Open primaries increase Independents' participation in general election.

The open primary could be seen as good for voter participation. First, the open primary allows nonpartisan or independent voters to participate in the nominating process. If these voters are allowed to help select the nominees then they may be more likely to vote in the general election, since one of the candidates could be someone the non-partisan voter voted for. Also, a moderate member of one party may agree more with a candidate for the nomination of another party. This voter will have more of an incentive to participate in the general election if there is a nominee whom he or she agrees with.
Closed primaries check centrism in general election

"Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Next Left. May 26th, 2009: "any competitive electoral system generates pressure on parties to move to the centre to maximize votes (or, in the case of the our present, dysfunctional electoral system, to move to the centre in a small number of swing constituencies). But one check on this is that candidates and party platforms do have to address the views of party members as well the median voter. Under an open primary system that check on across-the-board centrism would be removed."
Open primaries will make politics more bland

George Will. "Proposition California ensures electoral blandness." Washington Post. June 13th, 2010: "But, then, blandness is the point of this reform. It seeks to generate a homogenized political class, one not lumpy with liberals and conservatives who, being conviction politicians, do not always play well with others. [...] Does America need a cure for 'partisanship,' the supposed disease of leaders such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson at the birth of America's party system? Does America need a nominating process that narrows choices by stacking the deck against minor parties? Does it need a process that produces 'pragmatic' candidates who, because they have no ballast of 'ideology,' a.k.a ideas, and are not rendered 'rigid' by convictions, can 'reach across the aisle' to achieve compromises congenial to the entire political class? Does America need a nominating process that, suppressing candid partisanship, will tempt stealthy partisans to game the system by voting a weak candidate into the top two?"
Open primaries allow nominations inconsistent with party views

James Paterson. "Open Primaries threaten Liberal values." Menzies House. April 20th, 2010: "widening the group of people who have preselection voting rights will undoubtedly result in less ideological candidates being preselected to represent the Liberal Party. Liberal Party members, as active committed Liberals, are likely to be signifcantly more ideological than an average Liberal voter who may register to vote in a preselection. They are more likely to place weight on philosophical sophistication and on the importance to adhering to Liberal values than general Liberal voters. Indeed, the major reason the Liberal Party Federally reversed its position on the Emissions Trading Scheme was that Liberal Party members bombarded their MPs about their strong views on the scheme. If those Party members did not have the threat of recrimination at a future preselection, they would lose all ability to influence their MPs."
Primaries too important in democracy to be internal to parties.

While there is a right to association, this has to be balanced against the role that primaries play, fundamentally, in the electoral process and in democracy. Parties do not own this process. They are a part of it. And, in a system dominated by two parties - the Democrats and Republicans - closed primaries give parties a monopoly on power. This is inappropriate. And, open primaries help bring the system back into an appropriate balance.
Open primaries undermine party affiliation and voter participation.

The open primary could also be viewed as bad for voter participation. Statistics show that voter participation in the United States was higher when people could only vote in the primary for their own party. In Hawaii, primary voter turnout fell from 74.6% in 1978 to 42.2% in 2006 after changing to open primaries. The closed primary system had more of an incentive for people to join one of the major parties. This led to people being more involved in the voting process. With the open primary, some argue, more voters become independent and are less likely to participate in the nominating or election processes.
Open primaries diminish value of party influence

James Paterson. "Open Primaries threaten Liberal values." Menzies House. April 20th, 2010: "the major reason the Liberal Party Federally reversed its position on the Emissions Trading Scheme was that Liberal Party members bombarded their MPs about their strong views on the scheme. If those Party members did not have the threat of recrimination at a future preselection, they would lose all ability to influence their MPs."
Open primaries preserve right of parties to endorse nominees

Susan Nielsen. "Open Oregon's primaries." Oregonian. October 13, 2008: Open primaries "would preserve parties' constitutional right to designate their own nominees. Ballots would list each candidate's party affiliation, as well as any official party endorsements. Parties would retain quite a bit of flexibility: For example, they could endorse multiple candidates (or none) in a primary race, then pick one (or both) in the general."
Open primaries disincentivize engagement by core party activists

"Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Next Left. May 26th, 2009: "granting Liberal voters who have no record of activism on behalf of the Liberal Party preselection rights will discourage the loyal, hardworking members of the Liberal Party who keep it running between elections. Preselection rights in the Liberal Party are often hard-won and the result of years of work on behalf of the Party. This is an appropriate reward for long serving and dedicated work on behalf of the Party. Liberal Party members who attend State Councils, participate in policy forums and hold fundraisers throughout the electoral cycle deserve recognition for the work that they do. Granting preselection rights to anyone who is willing to fill in a form devalues the contribution of Party members and removes much of the incentive for their work."
Open primary cost barrier diminishes prospects for outsider candidates

"'Open' Primaries and the Illusion of Choice." Open Salon, Front Porch Republic. June 9th, 2010: "And, as a report from the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies predicts, it is going to 'significantly' increase the cost of running for office in California, since candidates will have to make appeals to a wider swath of voters. That means, of course, that it will be that much more difficult for non-moneyed candidates to have a shot at elected office." This will have the effect of increasing the power of political parties and their fundraising machines. Without these machines, candidates will have close to no chance at winning in the primaries.
Closed primaries can also violate free assoc

While opponents of open primaries try to raise constitutional issues with Open Primaries, they fail to realize that this argument cuts both ways. The most popular alternative to the open primary is the closed primary. And, the closed primary can also be construed as unconstitutional. In Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court determined that Connecticut’s closed primary law was unconstitutional. The Connecticut closed primary law “[required] voters in any political party primary to be registered members of that party.”[4]
Open primaries lower turnout by eliminating clear choices

"Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Next Left. May 26th, 2009: "here is good evidence that one of the reasons for things like falling electoral turnout in contemporary democracies is precisely that parties do not offer voters sufficient choice. The open primary, ostensibly a way of putting the political system more in touch with the voter, would be likely to accentuate this in the long-term and so actually risks worsening lack of interest and engagement in the political system."
Open primaries favor voter wishes over party establishment's

Daniel Hannan. "Conservative Democrats prove the case for open primaries." Telegraph.co.uk. July 18th, 2009: "Of all the political changes I’d like us to adopt – citizens’ initiatives and referendums, recall votes, a separation of powers, the end of Crown Prerogative, Lords reform, localism – open primaries are the most important. They force politicians to answer downwards to their constituents, not upwards to their Whips. They encourage the parties to reflect local opinion."
Open primaries would rarely lead to two nominees of same party.

"California open primaries? Give them a chance." Los Angeles Times Editorial. February 11th, 2010: "In a heavily Democratic legislative district, it's possible that the runoff could pit two Democrats against each other -- one a liberal, the other more moderate. Ditto a district dominated by GOP voters -- a conservative against a centrist. [...] But the vast majority of runoffs would involve a traditional matchup between a Democrat and a Republican."
Open primaries often results in two candidates from same party

Adam Summers. "California Open Primary Measure Would Reduce Voter Choice, Violate Freedom of Association." Reason Foundation. June 7, 2010: "under the open primary system the top two vote winners in many districts will be from the same party. According to a Center for Governmental Studies report, more than one-third of districts would likely see two candidates from the same party square off against each other during the general election in this system. This hardly encourages more moderate candidates in such districts, and will give voters that don't belong to that party no real choice or incentive to show up at the polls for the general election. It would also effectively destroy all third parties in the state, as their candidates would rarely, if ever, make the top two. This would make it practically impossible for them to even qualify to field candidates in future elections."
Primaries are internal matters for party to choose best candidate

James Frye. "Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Liberaland. June 9th, 2010: "The arguments for open primaries tend to go for the “it allows more voters to participate” line. That’s fine for November when everybody can vote for anybody. Primaries are (or should be) an internal function of the political parties. No one outside of nonpartisan offices are elected to anything on primary day: this is the chance for party members to decide who they think would be the best candidate for their party for the general election. If you want to participate, register to vote with a party affiliation. Doing that doesn’t mean that you have to vote for the candidates of the party exclusively and forever, it just allows you to help pick their candidates
Open primaries lend cred to third-party candidates

Susan Nielsen. "Open Oregon's primaries." Oregonian. October 13, 2008: "Opponents also say the top-two system will hurt minor parties. It is true that minor parties will lose their easy route to the general election. However, they may also gain a better chance to compete. For example, a liberal district might find itself with a Democrat and a Green Party member as the top two. The Green candidate would be elevated as a serious contender, rather than a token name, in the general."
Costs less important than appealing to all voters in open primaries

Susan Nielsen. "Open Oregon's primaries." Oregonian. October 13, 2008: "Party leaders tend to love closed primaries. It's cheaper and easier for them, because they don't have to appeal to as many voters. They've forgotten one risk of clinging to a closed primary. Eventually, a critical mass of voters will either feel frozen out of the system or weary of partisan politics. That time may be now. Voters ready for a more open primary should support Measure 65."