BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The late-night metro rail does more harm than good.

"1)It leads to more kidnaps. For example what if you is on the metro rail by yourself, maybe at, 1:00 in the morning and nobody is around but one stranger. THat will give that person to rape, kidnap, or do anything that they want to do." There are some steps that can be taken to avoid any situations like this. Avoid riding the metro if possible. If intuition tells one that another passenger is a little bit sketchy looking, one should listen to it. One should either not get on the metro with that person, or move as far away as possible so that if said person begins moving towards one, one can prepare to defend oneself. Going anywhere alone at night can make all of these things more likely to occur. "2)More fights.Late night metro rail can lead to fights because most likely there will be more drunks on the metro rail, and this could lead into a big fight because the person that is drunk might act stupid or do dumb things towards another person. Meaning that the person that is not drunk to get very irritated." It is up to the person who is not drunk to act negatively, positively, or neutrally to the intoxicated co-passenger. It is not in any way the fault of the metro that people chose to fight others because they are intoxicated and thus irritating them. Drunk people get into fights with others, drunk or otherwise, in many other places. Bars, stores, parties, etc. Now that the pro has been established, the con will be given. The metro provides a good and convenient service. It allows for people who work late jobs, go to night school, or are intoxicated to have a relatively safe ride home. It further helps to prevent drunk people from getting behind the wheel of a two tonne (give or take) speeding bullet. Blame should not be laid on the metro. The faults of man are not the responsibility, nor are they the faults, of the metro. People rape, kidnap, or fight others everywhere else, simply because the metro is no exception does not mean it does more harm than good. Instead of blame, questions should be asked. For instance: What can be done to make it safer? There could be an established guard. What can be done about the drunken people who irritate the other passengers? There could possibly be a section designated for drunk people that keeps them separate from the non-intoxicated and the other intoxicated people. These are merely a couple of questions that should be posed, and some possible answers that can be carried out.
The late-night metro rail does more harm than good.

The late-night metro rail does more harm than good and here is why: 1)It leads to more kidnaps. For example what if you is on the metro rail by yourself, maybe at, 1:00 in the morning and nobody is around but one stranger. THat will give that person to rape, kidnap, or do anything that they want to do. 2)More fights.Late night metro rail can lead to fights because most likely there will be more drunks on the metro rail, and this could lead into a big fight because the person that is drunk might act stupid or do dumb things towards another person. Meaning that the person that is not drunk to get very irritated.
If Humans Travel In Space Racists Should Be Left On Earth

To respond to what you have just said I say yes and no, think of it like my criminal argument, the criminal believes that theft is the only way to make money but the government (and most of the human populace) says otherwise therefore they should not be allowed to steal and measures are taken to ensure they wont (although some do manage to steal), the actions of the thief are induced by the beliefs of the thief which are that the only way to make money is to steal therefore he is punished for his beliefs for theft is an action against the rights of others and therefore subject to punishment.
If Humans Travel In Space Racists Should Be Left On Earth

Racists have the belief of racial purity and removal of the elements (people) they find cancerous therefore they would have adequate power to remove those people if they had access to space (tossing a few hundred asteroids at a planet inhabited by those they find cancerous, absolute annihilation) also there is the fact relations between worlds could be severely strained to the point of war (it may sound like science fiction but our specie will do it). There is also the point "Don't all people have the same rights?" well yes and no, take into account convicts, yes they did have all the same rights as any other person but when they decided to commit actions (commit crimes) which interfered with another persons rights they lost their rights in the process. And finally your point "Wouldn't this make us no better than the racists?" well this is also a yes and a no, think to my previous statement does the government stripping the rights of criminals make them just as bad as the criminals, we generally say no and that's because its done to ensure the safety of the whole.
The United States should adopt Universal Healthcare

Restarting this debate because my opponent forfeited the last one.1st round is for accepting the debate2nd round is to argue points3rd round is for rebuttals4th round is for further rebuttals and closing statementsDefinitions:Universal Healthcare: Universal health care, sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care, usually refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all citizens of a particular country. It is organized around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes.
The aim of cinema is to entertain and not to educate

The primary aim of cinema is to entertain the masses. Cinema is one of the major source of entertainment in this global village. Long back cinema served the purpose of educating but in these days it is only just meant for entertainment and it does not teach moral values to the people.Today, people do not like taking advice and films based on giving advice and moral to audience fails miserably.So the sole aim of the makers of cinema is to gain a profit from these films. Most of the people in the modern world are educated.After a hard day's (or week's) work people need some sort of entertainment and not boring 'moral stories'. Today cinema has become the most popular and the cheapest means of entertainment. It provides great relaxation for the hard working laborers who have no other way of entertainment. For a few hours they escape into a different world altogether and forget their woes and worries.Most cartoons, soap operas, or violent crime television shows are to entertain and simulate. Why do films based on unreal and imaginative things for which there has been no record over the years becomes super hits and mints money?? And why do films about superheros (with super powers) defeating atrocious villains after long unending struggles become record breakers in the box office in spite of the idea being repeated continuously? BECAUSE CINEMAS ARE MEANT FOR ENTERTAINMENT! :)
Should America be the worlds police.

I look forward to debating with you. "The U. S should be like madalore from starwars. " Mandalore was not a planet of space cops. They were a autocracy that was rife with terrorism from the death watch. I am wondering if you have actually seen Clone Wars. "the U. S can defeat anyone in a ground war" This is just blatantly false. The U. S does have a superior ground army, But they could not defeat anyone in a ground war. Take russia for instance. If their was a ground only conflict, The U. S could never annex Russia. It is simply to large to control with their infantry. Granted, Russia couldn't harm the U. S's superior infantry, But in the end it would end with both sides negotiating for peace. "Kaiser wilhelm had plans for world domination" This is the stupidest thing you have said thus far. First of all, Source? Because I can't find any mention of this other then some reddit forums. Second of all, No. This is wrong. Kaiser Wilhelm did not want world war 1. He wrote passionate letters to his cousin czar nicolas begging him not to go to war with austria. Kaiser Willhelm was many things, Including a incompetent leader that convinced his best diplomat/strategic advisor chancellor otto von bismark to resign. But czar nicholas was NOT madman desireing world domination. "U. S involvement in WWII did the same thing and got rid of Tyranny. " No. U. S invlolvement in world war II meant nothing escept they defeated the japanese. Do you know why the western front was opened up on D-Day? Not to defeat the Reich, They were already screwed. It was because the russians on the eastern front were trouncing the germans so hard with their superior man power they were going to have all of europe under their control if the U. K and U. S didn't to anything. "American involvement in Korea was good, Unfortunately we didn't liberate the whole peninsula but the part we did is the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. " This is a terrible exageration. American involvement in korea started a bloody war until russia stepped in and America had to pull out. South Korea is far better off then North Korea, But that's due to North Korea's dictators being generally incompetent. "Without America our world will be much darker" Would it? I think without America the British Empire would still be the worlds powerhouse. Who banned slavery first (without starting a violent civil war)? Britian. Who was the first nation in existence to have any semblance of democracy with the constitutional monarchy? Britan. Who was bombed and beaten and never surrendered? Britan "I'd like to see what the people think. " Don't refer to your oppoment as 'the people'. It makes you appear pompous and above the crowd. Personally, I do not want a country that out of the 239 years it existed has been in violent conflict for 223 of them being the peacemakers. (Source global reasearch. Ca)
Should America be the worlds police.

I'd like to point out why I'm for the U. S being the worlds police, Because the UN is too weak to do so. I like to think of the U. S as Mandalore from Star Wars. The U. S is powerful and can defeat anyone in a ground war. Guerrilla war not so much. U. S involvement in affairs has only made the world brighter. Without the U. S in WWI we'd probably be speaking German right now as Kaiser Wilhelm had a goal for world domination. U. S involvement in WWII did the same thing and got rid of Tyranny. After WWII people say America went to all of these countries because of Imperialism but we went to stop a new threat and that was Communism. American involvement in Korea was good, Unfortunately we didn't liberate the whole peninsula but the part we did is the most powerful and prosperous country in the world. The Northern part is one of the poorest countries in Asia and a dictator is ruling today. Did the American withdrawal from Vietnam do good? No because the Communists took Saigon in 1975 and now Vietnam is one of the poorest countries in Asia. We are doing the same thing in the middle east and we are liberating the people from terrorism. Without America our world will be much darker. Now that's my argument. I'd like to see what the people think.
the christian god is only true if you believe in him

if god shows up you know god, no belief involve well in the case that god requires on belief for its existence, it has to be false.. but that is also to say that god will not or can not show up one day my position is different, i know god is false.. so god can not show up one day you are right it is a belief, for you, like believing my claim that a god can not show up.. unless you know
The USA Shouldn't have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I am very sorry, but you are not answering my points. You contradict in your last statement when you say " Looking at it from a human point of view I still disagree. War claims such horrible deaths of civilians. Japan brought this horrific event upon itself by pearl harbor, kamikazes, and Bataan. They should have no mercy shown on them. War is to win and destroy your enemy, not be forgiven and kind. A sign of weakness from America would have enabled Japan to maintain fighting and the bomb caused them to shut it down." Apparently you are still looking at this in patriotic American terms because you still feel that innocent civilians should pay for what Japanese rulers and military men did. Now I understand where you are coming from where you have to protect your men's lives and I want to thank you for doing that and being part of our army. However, that is not the case. 1.5 million men is a totally false estimate. Also, when you say in your previous argument "All sides of the war did horrible things. Thats fact.". Why must we compare with the Nazis, Soviets and Japanese. What you are saying is "if the Nazis are doing terrible, cruel acts, why don't we try to kill as many innocent lives as they did". Again, why stoop down to their level. And again with Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor, was maybe sneaky and unfair, it is justified. Military men were killed in Pearl Harbor, not innocent women and children. The point was to destroy our navy. The point of the atomic bomb was to kill as many innocent lives as possible. And you don't get anymore immoral and sneaky then dropping an atomic bomb on a city full with innocent civilians. Szilard, a major part of the Manhatten Project, once said ""Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" This is a very good question. If we were to lose that war somehow after dropping the bombs, I believe our reputation from then on we have been of immoral monsters. Many would say that these bombings are a genocide. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. And genocide is indeed a war crime. I ask you, a military man and what seems to be an intelligient man, read the points made in my arguments and answer them. It has been a pleasure debating with you and I hope to soon in the future again.
The USA Shouldn't have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Looking at it from a human point of view I still disagree. War claims such horrible deaths of civilians. Japan brought this horrific event upon itself by pearl harbor, kamikazes, and Bataan. They should have no mercy shown on them. War is to win and destroy your enemy, not be forgiven and kind. A sign of weakness from America would have enabled Japan to maintain fighting and the bomb caused them to shut it down. Furthermore, the Soviets would have been much more powerful in soldier numbers and war craft if we would have invaded mainland Japan. And those numbers are legit when it comes to estimated fatalities. They knew what more we could do so that is why they surrendered. Also, don't forget about the ruthless Japanese men who did all those things you previously mentioned to our troops and the Filipinos. All sides of the war did horrible things. Thats fact. The bomb opened a can of 'nuclear' worms so to speak, but it was a necessary condition to save lives and end a prolonged two front endeavor. I mean we were thrown into the Japanese conflict unfairly. Do realize how inhumane sneak attack bombing Hawaii was? Thats ridiculous you would gladly look away from the fact that they attacked a peaceful nation to gain a few months advantage. How inhumane is treating POW's like dogs and cutting them up with machetes. Mass suicide on Okinawa lead everyone to believe that if Japan was invaded, the Japanese would have lost so many people. Also, we probably would own Japan as our providence. I think what the voters need to look at is the central question, what would have been the American costs of not dropping the bomb? Lives, money, backing from the home front, soviet discontent? Kill them before they kill us. Every part of WWII had inhumane acts so don't be so quick to blame America of wrongdoing when our interest was only to end the war with little loss possible.
The USA Shouldn't have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I agree the bomb was a way to boast our military might. But, you are far off in saying that American lives lost isn't worth the amount of Japanese we killed. The fact is the Japanese were on the brink of surrender after huge defeats in Okinawa and Iwo Jima. However, they STILL didn't surrender. You conveniently decided to not comment on the multiple warnings we gave Japan to surrender pre dropping the bomb. They STILL didn't after adequate warning. Whereas we gave them notice of our attack, Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack without warning that killed Americans. Who knows how long the war would have lasted? I feel like you way the cost of American and Japanese lives the same. This is wrong in war our people and their safety are the most important. War claims the innocent no matter wait. The fact is the Philippines and Mainland Japan were still in war mode and would have cost major fatalities. The Japanese as long as they had any hope would fight to the death. The examples I give in my last post support the grit and determination of the Japanese. 1.5 Million more GI's killed or bomb the them? Ask anyone from that time period if the bomb was justified and they all will say they were glad it was done because it brought an end to the carnage. We vowed to never use nukes again and we rebuilt Japans economy after the bombs. The Japanese were evil and they did pay for their war crimes. As a future Army Officer the job I have is to make sure my men come back with me after the mission at all costs. 1.5 Million MORE men not coming home is one of the strongest justifications for dropping the bomb.
The USA Shouldn't have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Alright, good points made by tjzimmer although I will get to them later. First I want to mention that you have justified the killing of many, many innocent people because of the wrongdoings of their nations leaders and military forces. Yes I know that they treated our prisoners terrible and abused them, but just because they were unethical doesn't mean we have to be. The USA is more humane then that. First point you made was Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor is something that cannot be compared to the dropping of the atomic bombs and for these reasons. Pearl Harbor only killed about 2,000 military were killed and 57 civilians were killed. The main purpose of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to cripple our navy, which is the point of war. To cripple the otherside's military to get them to surrender. Therefore, that was a somewhat justified move. The dropping of the bomb in Hiroshima killed between 90,000 and 140,000 civilians. In Hiroshima alone. That was not to cripple the military. That was to kill civilians who had very little or no part of the war. Second point you make is island hopping. How is that a point that the bombs were justified? That is what that theatre of the war called for. To push the Japanese troops out of those Pacific islands. Third point you make is fire bombing. We firebombed 66 different cities beforehand causing 330,000 civilian deaths. They were ready to surrender after this. According to William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Truman- "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Other important people against the bombing were Eisenhower and MacArthur, two people who without we would have lost the war. The invasion of mainland USA is the argument always used to justify the dropping of the bombs, but an invasion was too, unneeded. Again they were about to surrender when we dropped them. Fourth point is the Bataan Death March and again I say, why stoop down to their level? Why be as unethical as they were? Treat as you would want to be treated. Fifth point was the Kamikaze and this is was used out of desperation. They thought that they actually had a chance left in the war and thought this was needed. However in the closing days of the war, they realized all hope was lost. My point is that their was no military reason to drop the bombs on Japan because unlike what you say, they were on the verge of surrender. Watch the Fog of War, a documentary about Robert McNamara. He discusses how the bombs were a mistake. The only reason I think Truman decided to drop them was to show the Soviets and Stalin we had the bomb. Right after WW2, the cold war began, intiated by the dropping of the bombs.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

why should the govt. keep terrorist, serial killers alive and spend millions of doller for their maintainance? what probably is the reason ? killing these people actually save a huge money which will be used if the govt. keep them alive in maximum security prison. this maintainance expenditure is recurring in nature. why a rational govt. should keep all henious criminals alive and spend millions of doller for their maintainance in jail rather than spending that money in public welfare?death penalty is justified for this special category of criminals.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

"[T]here are some people who [deserve] death. [I]t will be too dangerous to keep them alive." Which is why maximum security prisons were invented. A person, secured behind triple barbed-wire fences, with armed guards at every few hundred feet has no chance of escape, and no longer poses much of a threat to society. "[K]eeping them alive will cost the [government] a huge money on recurring basis." As I originally pointed out, abolishing the death penalty would actually save millions of dollars every year. My first two points still stand: we would save ourselves millions of dollars, and would increase our standing in the global community if we abolished the death penalty.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

yes, both of your point are true.but we should think before taking in steps. there are some people who deserves death. it will be too dangerous to keep them alive. who they are ? muslim terrorists, first and foremost, serial killers, mass murderers, enemy of the state, traitors etc. these people are too dangerous to live. especially muslim terrorists. we all know how violent and dangerous they are.keeping them alive will convey a negetive message to the society also.and also keeping them alive will cost the govt. a huge money on recurring basis.that is also not desirable.