BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THBT Japan should remove Article 9 of its constitution.

(I would like to note to con that round 2 was for opening arguments, as Con was not yet supposed to do his rebuttals. I will proceed with my rebuttals in this round) " This simply doesn't make sense. This damages Japan's sovereignty? Well, if Japan was to reorganise a military, it would not only be country's sovereignty at risk. " It negatively effects Japan's sovereignty because they, as an independent country, are unable to mobilize their military. Due to a law that was forcefully asserted on Japan by a foreign power during WW2. Given that Japan is no longer a threat to countries in the Far East, and given that Japan shows little signs of returning to Expansionist policies. This therefore shows that Article 9 does actually damage Japan's sovereignty as an independent nation. " I think Japan, legal stuff aside, does not deserve right of military and IS NOT AFFECTED if a military reorganisation is not done." A country's right to mobilize it's military in self-defence or otherwise is usually a sovereign right of the country. Note that it explictly states on the second sentence of Article 9 that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." Even in the constitution, the government still acknowledged war to have been a soverreign right ( despite it's relinquishment) "They do not have enough self defence power. Japan could totally join ISIS coalitions, but their military is not strong enough for that" "But what did they do when they HAD the power? Kill 9 million people in China alone and 3 million people in one incident?" That however, was in World War 2 when Japan was operating under a far more different cultural mindset then it is today. That is like saying that Germany should not operate a military because of WW2, or that Britain should not get involved against ISIS because of their imperialist past. Brining up a time when Japan was under a different government and cultural mindset is just as irrelevant as stated in my previous analogy. "This law, if lifted, will put us all at risk of war crimes." You had previously stated that: " Japan could, by law, mobilise the self defence army and do something about ISIS. However, they chose not to, 1, because they do not have a stable enough ECONOMY inside of their country, and 2, they do not have enough self defence power" However, this contradicts your final claim. How could Japan be capable of committing war crimes if their economy is unstable or if their military is not powerful enough? Secondly, this argument incorporates the Slippery Slope fallacy. You have not shown sufficient information to claim that such a series of events would occur if Article 9 were to be removed. Japan shows no signs of imperialist ambitions and no signs of returning to expansionist policies. Sources: 1. http://japan.kantei.go.jp... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
THBT Japan should remove Article 9 of its constitution.

1, sovereignty. This simply doesn't make sense. This damages Japan's sovereignty? Well, if Japan was to reorganise a military, it would not only be country's sovereignty at risk. I think Japan, legal stuff aside, does not deserve right of military and IS NOT AFFECTED if a military reorganisation is not done. The international law was put down globally, not only by Japan, therefore has nothing to do with Japan's prime minister, meaning they either always have the right of a self defence army or Abe is breaking international law. The former seems more plausible. 2, self-defence. Japan could, by law, mobilise the self defence army and do something about ISIS. However, they chose not to, 1, because they do not have a stable enough ECONOMY inside of their country, and 2, they do not have enough self defence power. Japan could totally join ISIS coalitions, but their military is not strong enough for that. But what did they do when they HAD the power? Kill 9 million people in China alone and 3 million people in one incident? Also, the very fact that their national official television channel, NHK, LIED, DECEIVED, AND DIDN'T ADMIT their war crimes in China, proves that they are not mature enough for this article nine to be lifted. This law, if lifted, will put us all at risk of war crimes.
THBT Japan should remove Article 9 of its constitution.

I will now begin with my opening arguments. 1. Sovereignty Sovereignty is defiened by a nations right to autonomy, or "the right to rule". If an outside force interferes with the decisions of a country"s government, it therefore infringes on the nations right to rule. Article 9 of the Japanese constitution was not established by the Japanese government willingly. This occurred during the short Allied Occupation of Japan in the late 1940"s. The article was established to prevent the remobilization of Japan"s military (did the even that Japan would be able to re-militarize occur). As a result, Article 9 was forced upon Japan after WW2 and the Japanese were given little choice in the way of re-interpreting the law (during the occupation that is). Therefore, Article 9 was an infringement of Japan"s sovereignty as it denied the country the right to re-militarize even if under the event of national defense being required ( this was only recently allowed under Prime Shinzo Abe). 2. Self-Defense Several months ago, the terrorist ISIS had caught and beheaded two Japanese hostages (Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa). The killings of two nationals by a foreign organization such as ISIS is a justifiable reason to mobilize a military on foreign soil. However, due to Article 9, the Japanese are unable to respond militarily. Contrast that with the United States, which formed a coalition against ISIS for future military campaigns. Japan may be able to join, but would be left unable to act much upon that affiliation. Therefore, Article 9 infringes on Japanese sovereignty and the country's right to self-defense. Removal of this law may allow further establishment of Japanese sovereignty. Sources: 1. . http://iucn.org... 2. . http://afe.easia.columbia.edu... 3. . http://www.cnn.com... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://japan.kantei.go.jp...
THBT Japan should remove Article 9 of its constitution.

Burden of Proof is on me. Failure to abide by the terms,format, or rules of the debate will result in a loss of conduct during the voting period. If Con finds the terms to be inaccurate or unreasonable, then he or she may alter the terms (but only with an argument as to why) Format of Debate: Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: Closing Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments,Counter-Rebuttals Terms: Article 9: The Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (日本国憲法第九条, Nihon koku kenpou dai ku-jou) is a clause in the National Constitution of Japan outlawing war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state. The Constitution came into effect on May 3, 1947, following World War II. Remove: Eliminate or take away Constitution: A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed. Once more to clarify, I will be arguing that Japan should remove article 9 of it's constitution and my opponent is to argue otherwise.
Stop drinking soda

People should stop drinking soda for many reasons. Did you know that people are more likely to get diabetes, by just drinking one soda a day? Well over the years there hasn't been solid proof but it is possible that it could maybe be raising the chances. Also did you know 20oz bottle of soda has more sugar (65 grams of sugar), than a 20oz hot chocolate (59 grams of sugar)? Though you can buy soda almost anywhere and it is convenient to travel with, water is too. But studies proved that the average american drinks 44.7 gallons of soda in only one year and the average american drinks 28.3 gallons of water over the course of a year. Which isn't healthy. Soda also isn't good for your teeth, it rots and decays your teeth. In conclusion i just wanted to add that there are many reasons of why you should stop drinking soda, but the choice is yours no one can force you to not drink soda. So just know i am just trying to help you try to be healthy and i am not saying to never drink soda, just not every day.
The rich have paid enough already

First, as my opponent has declined his right to speak in the third round, and because there are no more further rounds to come, I will summarize my main points. 1) You classified the rich as in the top 10%. To be in the top 10% you must be making more than 155,000 $'s a year. 2) You incorrectly used a figure about the top 10% paying 75% of American taxes. 3) In fact the top 10% only pay 35% of all U.S. taxes, while they hold more than 40% of America's wealth. 4) You say that we shouldn't be taking more money from entrepreneurs. And were not. On average entrepreneurs make 87,500 annually well below the top 10% what you consider the "rich". Thank you for this debate, and I hope to debate you more odten in the future. I rest my case. Good luck!
The rich have paid enough already

I would first like to start off by thanking my opponent for his argument. It was truly of value to hear your "opinion". But these are the facts. If as you say you're classifying the rich 10% they still have to be making more than 155,000. When you say that the top 10% pays 75% of all income tax you are actually referring to a stat documenting what percentage of the tax bracket pays their income tax. The official statistic I on this by BankRate is that those making 188,000 or higher are only paying 35 % percent of all American taxes. Next I will address your point that we shouldn't be taking away money that could be used to boost the economy. I agree that money shouldn't be taken away from entrepreneurs... and it's not. On average entrepreneurs make 87,500 well below the top 10%. So these small business creators, are not being hurt by tax increases on the rich. Finally, I would like to talk of the question you asked me last time. "How much do you think that they should be taxed and how are we going to motivate future businessmen to start in the US with such an anti business climate?" Well I'll tell you. We are going to motivate a thriving economic America through a strong middle class which is supported by tax breaks that can be gotten if we can INCREASE spending on the rich. Thank you for reading my argument. I conclude my piece.
The rich have paid enough already

Thank you for participating in this debate. This is an issue of simple economic logic. What my opponent fails to understand is that the money the rich have isn't sitting in some big cloud somewhere. They may have alot of money, but that means that they spend more. That means that the economy prospers because when companies have business, they tend to hire more people. I apologize for not clarifying my statement before. When I say the "rich" I mean the top 10% of earners. They pay 75% of the income taxes. This, in my opinion, is crippling the economy. When people have less to spend, they don't spend the money. There are some rich out there who I believe don't deserve so much pay. I'm talking about people in Hollywood. The people who do deserve it are the people who paved the way for business in america: The entrepreneurs. These people deserve every sent they have earned. They had the nerve to work hard and take the risk. The beautiful thing about this country is that people all have the opportunity to be successful. Why should we discourage this by taking their hard earned money away from them, and on the whole, taking it from the economy. I ask my opponent to consider what I have said and also respond to this question: How much do you think that they should be taxed and how are we going to motivate future businessmen to start in the US with such an anti business climate?
The rich have paid enough already

I would first like to start off my stating my point. No! The rich have not paid their due yet. First when you say "rich" I will assume you are referring to the top 1 percent. In 2009 the latest data we have on this subject said that to be in the 1 percent you needed to have an adjusted gross income (AGI) of 344,000 dollars. That very same year according to ThinkProgress.org The top 1 percent held roughly 40% of the United State's wealth. Also in that year according to a government poll found by Jason Fichtner senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center the top 1 percent only pay 37 % of all federal income taxes. The rich make more, but STILL pay less. Next I would like to discuss the reason you say The rich have paid "enough" already. You might say that this was Obama's plan and he is putting it into place. This is not true. Every time a new bill is introduced that will tax the rich more it is struck down by a Republican Congress. An example of this is recently during the Sequester debates. Every argument had been resolved over a plan for budget cuts except the issue of how much more the rich should be taxed. That's right! There has been an inching pace over the last 4 and a half years to make the top percentile pay their due. This was to be the first major increase in taxation on the rich in a decade. Back to the Sequester though. It was the only thing left standing, AND it wasn't aloud to pass because of an unyielding House of Representatives. You can not say the rich have paid "enough" already when there hasn't been a true increase at all. Thank you for reading my argument. I conclude my piece.
The drop out age is to young.

okay, first of all I think that the drop out age is perfect. And I'm not contradicting myself. I think that if you don't want to be in school then you're wasting everyone elses time. some ppl drop out and decide to get their GED. so for you to say that your brother made a mistake, there are still ways to fix his mistake. I don't understand you're thinking. 16 is a very young age yes, but dont kids already look forward to their 16th birthday. they get their lisence. I'm looking forward to my 16th b-day for that reason. what i'm getting at is just that if a kid doesnt want to be there they sure as heck aren't going to work hard. so what's the point of them being there if they arent going to work hard. seriously if they are FORCED to go they are going to go and either get into fights because they're mad or they arent going to work hard. you havnt really givin a reason why it's too young, just that YOU think that it's bad.
The drop out age is to young.

Ok to begin, your topic is that the drop out age is too young then you contradict your own opinion by saying that it is better to drop out then to stay in school and get bad grades. My question to you is what age if not 16 do you believe that children should be able to drop out. My little brother dropped out of school when he was 16 now he has a very weak high school education and can barely find a job. Whether or not you get bad grades if you are not in school then there is no way for you to get a tudor or any type of help to get through so there will be a possibility for success. I believe that the drop out age is to young. I believe that you should not be aloud to drop out at all for the simple fact that when a child is told that they don't have to go to school once they turn 16 then they are going to look forward to their 16th birthday like a graduation. Kids should have to be forced to be in school. There are different types of schools. If your child cannot function in a regular public school then there are the options of the alternative schools that offer special help for the kids that need more specific attention.
The drop out age is to young.

I have many friends who are sixteen and are going to drop out. Now I live in Michigan so the drop out age is probaly different for whoever debates this. I hate when teachers yell at those friends because they don't want to be in school anymore. I think that if you dont want to be in school you shouldnt be forced. They say that kids HAVE to go to school because they need to be able to go to college and get a career going. But think about it if they dont want to be in school they arent going to try. If they are forced to be there of course their going to go, if their parents make them. But they arent going to work hard. And if their grades arent good what college is going to execpt them? Personally I am going to finish high school but I actually want to have a good life once I am out living on my own. I know the drop out rate in America is high and of course that doesnt make us look good. But we shouldnt be focusing on looking good we should be trying to get the people who want an education a really good one.
All schools should bring back corporal punishment

Everyone enjoyed my Christmas dinner. I've just taken an apple pie out of the oven, so I'm finished in the kitchen now. Merry Christmas to all at DDO.Right...I'll start by summing up the scientific evidence.Studies of corporal punishment show that those who are so disciplined have significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders, alcohol abuse, and one or more externalising problems. Those who are spanked are significantly more likely to become wife beaters.Other studies show that children who are disciplined with corporal punishment are more aggressive.These effects remain when studies discount those who have been abusively hit.Research indicates that corporal punishment in schools can lead to students having a negative self-image, and can negatively affect school achievement. There is a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.In the short term, corporal punishment has been shown to be no more effective than other methods of discipline.Even if corporal punishment did not cause the above mentioned problems, then it would still be ineffective at preventing them. However, there is a body of evidence and theory which shows that corporal punishment is a stressor and can lead to a violent reaction. This establishes causation beyond mere correlation.My opponent failed to show that any of the things he claimed were linked were in fact linked.There is also the human rights issue which speaks against corporal punishment. My opponent has been unable to say why it is not okay to hit others, including prisoners, but it is okay to hit children. That is because it is not okay. Violence against children must stop.
All schools should bring back corporal punishment

My opponent believes some negative things about children, but gives no evidence that children are worse than in previous generations. He presents no evidence that lack of corporal punishment is a factor in shootings. His whole paragraph is mere hidebound opinion.Let's look at some actual evidence. The most cited studies of spanking almost all found that spanking is detrimental to discipline:"Among the respondents without a history of physical or sexual abuse during childhood, those who reported being slapped or spanked "often" or "sometimes" had significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders , alcohol abuse or dependence and one or more externalizing problems, compared with those who reported "never" being slapped or spanked."[1]"The results generally indicated a linear positive association between physical punishment and child aggression.[...]The combination of infrequent reasoning and frequent spanking was associated with dramatically increased aggression."[2]"The findings were consistent with a socialization model in which higher levels of severity in parental punishment practices are associated with higher levels of children's subsequent aggression toward peers. Findings indicated that children who had been spanked evidenced levels of aggression that were higher than those who had not been spanked, and children who had been the objects of violent discipline became the most aggressive of all groups.[...]The findings suggest that in spite of parents' goals, spanking fails to promote prosocial development and, instead, is associated with higher rates of aggression toward peers."[3]"When parents use corporal punishment to reduce ASB [anti-social behaviour], the long-term effect tends to be the opposite. The findings suggest that if parents replace corporal punishment by nonviolent modes of discipline, it could reduce the risk of ASB among children and reduce the level of violence in American society."[4]My opponent doesn't say why he thinks it is necessary to physically punish children rather than warn them, reason with them, remove them from the situation, or otherwise discipline them. As a parent, I never found it necessary to spank my child. I fail to see what possible benefit can be derived from an adult inflicting violence on a defenceless child. How this is supposed to make a child reasonable is not explained by proponents of corporal punishment.I'm sure readers have seen on the streets parents losing their temper with their children and smacking them. Approval of corporal punishment gives an adult license to act out of temper. Anyhow, my opponent has to engage with the scientific studies presented to him.[1] http://www.cmajopen.com...[2] http://link.springer.com...[3] http://journals.cambridge.org...[4] http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com...
All schools should bring back corporal punishment

I believe that children are rude, selfish, irritating and ignorant because they have no accountability anymore. When I went to school children respected; each other, other parents, teachers and principles. I believe that spanking and such helped keep that respect. No whiny little brats want to shoot someone when there poor little feelings get hurt because they have had no structure in school or at home. I don't believe the child should have to bend over, it pushes the spine into a vulnerable area, I don't believe the paddle should be made of a totally ridged (hard) substance and I believe only the same sex should do the spanking 1 to a maximum of 3 hits.
Lionel Messi is a better player than Ronaldo

my point is simple, that Messi is better than Ronaldo. Not that he's not a good player, he's and excellent player but he wont reach Messi's level. Messi has set some of the most unbreakable records which i don't think Ronaldo, or for that matter, anyone would be able to break. The simplicity that Messi brings to the game is something that Ronaldo lacks.
Nuclear Bombs

I welcome my opponent to the site. It's a mystery to me why he chose me to do this debate but I'll go along with. Since Con did not specify, I assume the resolution is something like: "Nuclear Weapons Should Exist". As Con and as Instigator, my opponent has the burden to prove that they should not. I have the burden to negate Con's arguments, not necessarily to prove that we should have nuclear weapons. ARGUMENT Con has so far made claims but has not substantiated them. I ask him to provide credible evidence and/or logical statements to prove that it is wrong for nuclear weapons to exist. My opponent's first claim: "nukes kill people". Prove it. Also, prove that it is wrong to kill people. Second claim: "It gives off radiation" Prove it. Also, prove that radiation is bad. Third claim: "If the wind blows it will travel to the U.S if we nuke somwhere" Prove it. Fourth claim: "Nothing will survive and it will just complete devastation to the whole earth ... BECAUSE OF RADIATION !!!!" Prove it. That is all for now.