BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
JROTC Programs are good for Teenagers

The JROTC is brainwashing just like BOOTCAMP. I WILL PROVE that my debater is brainwashed by JROTC. The INSTUCTORS use mental hazing techniques. I will prove that a person does not need JROTC to have a successful career in the MILITARY and the fact that it does MORE harm than not joining JROTC. 1)INSTILL My opponent says that JROTC provides education for a healthy body mind and spirit. He also says that platoon training INSTILLS teamwork. If INSTILL is the word he used, then he is brainwashed by the INSTRUCTORS. The word INSTILL is often used in the BOOTCAMP I went to. The word was usually put into the context of INSTILLING DISCIPLINE through PAIN. A main saying in BOOTCAMP that we always had was that with "PAIN BRINGS DISCIPLINE". 2) HAZING Instead of the PAIN one would go through in BOOTCAMP, My debater says they go through GAMES... "more care than GAMES" This means that at times, they do go through GAMES at times. EVERYONE in the military, at least in the MARINES knows what GAMES are. They are played whenever people need to be DISCIPLINED by INSTILLING PAIN. It is a type of HAZING used to straighten out subordinates. MENTAL and PHYSICAL GAMES such as unnecessary running, jumping jacks, mountain climbers, etc. IS JUST like what we did in BOOTCAMP... only in BOOTCAMP it was way more intense. JROTC prepares a student in the hardships of BOOTCAMP. 3) JROTC is used as a Recruiting Program To prove that my debater is brainwashed... He says that RECRUITORS lose POTENTIAL RECRUITS because THE INSTRUCTORS (the ones who went to college) often need to straightened out by THE RECRUITORS (that are experienced in the military). THIS IS VERY FAMILIAR, ENLISTED individuals are always the RECRUITORS. If you are ENLISTED, that usually means that the person did not go to college. COMMISSIONED OFFICERS usually are the ones that went to college, ENLISTED soldiers usually UNDERMIND the COMMISSIONED OFFICERS behind their backs when it comes to RECRUITING INDIVIDUALS, it teaches RECRUITS that OFFICERS know nothing about being a soldier. Military recruiting—Veterans for Peace has campaigned against the JROTC, stating that it is merely a military recruitment program.[48] The CCCO argues that 70% of Army JROTC students that continue with Army programs enlists directly into the lowest rank of the military, Private, with many ending up worse off economically than non-veterans. Now why would someone go to JROTC for 2 years, when going to college for one year gets you the same rank in BOOTCAMP? In order for someone to join a branch of the military, one has to go through the branch's respective BOOTCAMP. How does a member get a head start in a military career if it is staring them in the face and they do not take it? 4) At a Very young age, kids are taught about FRATERNIZATION: My debater says that a cadet is treated as an EQUAL as long as you are the same RANK. In the military, we are taught to basically be friends with your OWN KIND. Do not hang out with those that are lower than you, because you work with them. EXCEPT for this is JROTC, they are not working at JOBS that protect our COUNTRY. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Capitalism

My position: I will be arguing that capitalism is not moral, not the most productive economic system we can have, and is the antithesis of liberty. Pro's position: My opponent will be arguing that capitalism is moral, the most productive economic system we can have, and the is condusive of liberty.Rules of debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for argument since I am not using round 1 for argument. This is to keep the number of argument rounds between us even.3) The last round that is used for argument should not contain new arguments. It can contain new information/facts but only if it is in rebuttal to your opponent's previous arguments. Violation of any of these rules is reason for voters to award the point for conduct to the one who did not violate these rules. Definitions:Capitalism: an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price sytem and competitive markets. [1] Private Property: a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities. [2]I don't feel a need to define any of the other terms used for Capitalism, since those won't make a difference in my argument. If pro wishes to define other terms, they may do so.Note: If pro objects to any rules or definitions, they should say so in the commments before accepting the debate and we can discuss an alternative. Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Hiroshima was necessary

The Emperor stays Ultimately, Japan was allowed to keep her Emperor. But the Emperor's retention was not established with complete explicitness at the time of Japan's surrender. Two main factors helped Japan's doves resolve the issue: The atomic bomb had shown the doves that they had run out of time and that further delay would result in the Emperor's demise. While the Allied surrender terms did not explicitly guarantee the Emperor's retention, neither did they refuse the request made by Japan to the Allies on August 10, 1945 to keep the Emperor. Moreover, the August 11, 1945 Allied response referred to the Emperor's continuing role in Japanese government: "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers" (Butow, pg. 245). Sec. of War Stimson later explained, "the Allied reply... implicitly recognized the Emperor's position by prescribing that his power must be subject to the orders of the Allied supreme commander" (Stimson & Bundy, pg. 627). The Japanese government correctly interpreted this and other statements in the Allied surrender terms to mean that the Emperor could be retained. On August 14 the Emperor told Japan's cabinet, "I have studied the Allied reply and concluded that it virtually acknowledges the position of our note [requesting the Emperor's retention] sent a few days ago. I find it quite acceptable." (Toland, pg. 936-937). With this reassurance and at the Emperor's "desire", on August 14 the Japanese Cabinet unanimously signed the surrender document, agreeing to Allied terms (Toland, pg. 939). Altho the Japanese military still wished to fight on as late as August 14, it was the doves rather than the hawks in Japan's government who had the final say. As mentioned earlier, it was the atomic bomb plus the belief that the Emperor might be retained that finally led the doves to play their trump card: the direct intervention of the Emperor requesting the Cabinet to surrender immediately. Were Atomic Attacks Necessary? www.doug-long.com/hirosh2.htm
Hiroshima was necessary

You have studied Japanese philosophy, I see. However, as I said, the Emperor at that time, Hirohito, was uncompromising. His men were fanatics and he was, as you said, seen as a god. He probably believed that he could not be defeated, so he would not surrender. His surrender came as a shock to the Japanese people. A peace treaty may have worked earlier on in the war, but at this point the Japanese were past negotiations.
Hiroshima was necessary

Let us begin. People have argued, since 1945, that the famous nuclear bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which brought a final end to World War 2, was unnecessary. I maintain that it was necessary because it was simply the only way to end the war. The Japanes had proven, over many occasions, that they would not surrender, choosing to fight to the death. The Japanese were severely weakened by then, but gave no indication whatsoever that they would surrender. Emperor Hirohitio refused to surrender to the Americans. What they needed was a crippling blow to morale, a super-weapon that could destroy entire cities. They had one, thanks to project Manhattan. The massive loss of civilian life was deeply regretted, but it saved many more lives by ensuring Japan's surrender. Japanese soldiers were fanatics, and their Emperor stubborn and uncompromising. The bombing was the only way. I await your argument.
The United States Government was founded on principles of faith.

The United States Government was founded on principles of faith.Such as the 10 commandments. The colonialists emigrated from Europe and other countries they came from mainly to escape religious persecution and corrupt government.Freedom of religion combined with separation of church and state makes it illegal to ban religion, and illegal for gov to fund, promote, or give tax breaks to certain religions.I'm not quite sure what your evidence for the 10 commandments is. If you're talking about laws against murder and stealing, then that would be a rather poor argument, since such laws have existed in societies which had never heard of any Abrahamic religion, and can be inferred from a secular point of view. Separation of church and state is supposed to be exactly what it says on the tin, so I don't see how that is an argument.Marriage is a holy relationship between 2 people that love each other and god. Churches, pastors, ministers, pieces of paper, ceremonies, and government aren"t involved.marriage is not a $40 piece of paper that 2 people that don"t necessarily believe in god, or like or live with each other, buy in order to get unfair gov tax breaks, that is the new slang false perverted definition of marriage.Same-sex marriage has existed in other societies that predate Abrahamic religions. Take ancient Greece, Rome, and Assyria for example. Assyrian religious texts confer equal blessings upon same-sex couples wishing to marry. If the state chooses to exclude same-sex couples from marriage on the basis that Abrahamic religions don't like it, then that would violate separation of church and state.Abortion should be allowed only when its needed for the safety of the mother or if its needed to treat a physical health problem. Reportedly its safer to get an abortion within the first 3monthes of pregnancy than childbirth.Okay. I don't see how this helps your case, though.Everyone who doesn"t want to impregnate should get sterilized. Sterilization is a 10minute procedure, in and out of the clinic 1 hr, back to work few days. For vasectomies, this is true. Female sterilization is more difficult. In addition, sterilization is generally not supposed to be reversed. Accidents happen. Sometimes a condom breaks. Sometimes get raped. Sometimes you just arent ready for children quite yet. This is what abortion is for.Sterilization is safer than abortion, pregnancy, and childbirth. Abortion can potentially cause death or severe permanent injury to the mother.When done safely (as in, when it is legal and can be done by a licensed doctor and not by some random guy with a coathanger), abortion rarely causes complications. Out of every 100,000 safe abortions in the US, 0.6 result in a death. Compare that to the 220 out of 100,000 that die from unsafe abortions [1]. Now, out of every 100,000 live births in the US, 21 of them result in the mother dying [2]. This is enough to show that abortion is safer than childbirth.[1] http://www.guttmacher.org...;[2] https://www.cia.gov...;
The United States Government was founded on principles of faith.

From your title I assumed the title was what the debate was about, you should have titled it make policy decisions solely based on religious beliefs on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. People shouldn"t make policy decisions solely based on religious beliefs. Now its to late for me to opt out of the debate. The United States Government was founded on principles of faith. Such as the 10 commandments. The colonialists emigrated from Europe and other countries they came from mainly to escape religious persecution and corrupt government. Freedom of religion combined with separation of church and state makes it illegal to ban religion, and illegal for gov to fund, promote, or give tax breaks to certain religions. Marriage is a holy relationship between 2 people that love each other and god. Churches, pastors, ministers, pieces of paper, ceremonies, and government aren"t involved. marriage is not a $40 piece of paper that 2 people that don"t necessarily believe in god, or like or live with each other, buy in order to get unfair gov tax breaks, that is the new slang false perverted definition of marriage. Abortion should be allowed only when its needed for the safety of the mother or if its needed to treat a physical health problem. Reportedly its safer to get an abortion within the first 3monthes of pregnancy than childbirth. Everyone who doesn"t want to impregnate should get sterilized. Sterilization is a 10minute procedure, in and out of the clinic 1 hr, back to work few days. Sterilization is safer than abortion, pregnancy, and childbirth. Abortion can potentially cause death or severe permanent injury to the mother.
Jayz is the most successful rapper in the industry

Success: (as defined by the dictionary) 1. the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors; the accomplishment of one's goals. 2.the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like. 3.a performance or achievement that is marked by success, as by the attainment of honors: The play was an instant success. 4.a person or thing that has had success, as measured by attainment of goals, wealth, etc.: She was a great success on the talk show. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) In my argument I will tell you shy you cannot call jay-z the Most successful rapper int he industry. While there is no denying he is successful rapper, however to call him the most successful is not a true statement and a matter of opinion here are the facts I will be arguing. 1.) Jay z is not the richest rapper. That record goes to Diddy standing at $500 million (http://www.celebritynetworth.com...) 2.) Kanye west holds the record for most Grammy's by a rap artist not Jay z (http://www.grammy.com...) 3. I wil show you why he is not the biggest artist in rap to right now 4.) Why his clothing line is not the best compared to other rappers with clothing lines 5.) other rappers that also own sports teams. these arguments will show you why Jay z is not the most successful rapper in the industry
Jayz is the most successful rapper in the industry

Jay-Z has been awarded fourteen Grammy Awards, became part owner of the Nba's Brooklyn Nets, creator of the clothing line Rocawear, married the famous singer Beyonce Knowles, and sold over 50 million albums worldwide. He also has his own record label called Roc-A-Fella Records that has the biggest artist signed in the rap industry right now. He also has equity in the brand, Ace Of Spades champagne, thats worth over $50 million. http://www.youtube.com...
God Has commited most if not all of the 7 deadly sins.

All will be explained when one accepts this debate. First round is acceptance. If you do accept, you must have knowledge of God and the bible, please. Also, voters, please do not vote on weather you agree with your prior opinion, but on the arguments both convey. I am a catholic, but i like to have opinions. Please be open minded and do not vote just because you and your prior opinions disagree with me. 7 deadly sins: Sloth, greed, envy, Pride, gluttony, lust, and Wrath. PREPARE FOR ALL OF YOUR MINDS TO BE BLOWN AND HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF EVERYTHING.
God Has commited most if not all of the 7 deadly sins.

Okay, I'll start by attacking what Pro said in his intro to his last argument. After giving me CONSENT to post the rest of my case into the comments section because my mouse glitched and his "submit" instead of "make changes," Pro continues to argue that I did not cover "most" of the deadly sins. Pro obviously ignored that comment, even after he kept commenting after that. Because I was given consent BY PRO, this argument is still valid in this debate. Therefore, I have argued 4 sins. One of which was defaulted to me, one of which Pro did not attack at all, and two of which I am about to rebuild.Sloth: Disinclination to exertion; indolence; laziness.Pro completely misunderstands my point here. My point was about how God does cure diseases through us. No miracles that Pro is talking about seem to happen, but God does cure. To make my previous argument a little simpler.1. Humans Cure Diseases2. God Created Humans3. God Created The Cure To Diseases.It was as simple as that, but for some reason, Pro argues that I claimed that God did not create diseases, so his entire rebuttal will be thrown out as it did not attack my actual point. Pro also argues that I claimed that just because we are alive, we are okay. I did not say this. This just ties back into my main point. Because we are alive we are able to cure diseases, therefore, just being alive allows us to do the work to help ourselves. We cannot be babied by a higher power, we need to fend for ourselves, as no one knows the extent or power of God. This brings me to my next point.Greed: excessive or rapacious desire.Yet again, Pro has chosen to argue something completely different from what my point really was. Worship powers God and allows him to help us and heal us, yes. But my main point was that God cannot always help us because he does not have enough power. If God gains power through worship, it can even be considered a payment for all he is able to do. Asking for Worship is not greedy of God because he needs it. The only reason that Pro can argue that God tortures us is because God does not receive enough worship, and therefore cannot help us as much as Pro claims he can. Again, Pro argues a much different point that I, initially, did. His rebuttal will be thrown out.Voting issues:I have proven that God has not committed 4 of the 7 deadly sins.I have proven the resolution false.Pro has not attacked any of my initial points and argues them at a tangent.
God Has commited most if not all of the 7 deadly sins.

First of all, I would like to clarify several things. My oponent did not cover Envy, wrath, gluttony, or pride. He merely restated my argument word for word, so I asume he has no argument against them so those 4 sins remain strong. My oponent coverd greed and sloth, and had an automatic win on lust because of my belief that God is not lustful. Assuming that he has an amazingly strong rebutle next argument to my attacks on his case for greed and sloth, he still only wins 3 of the sins. A 4 to 7 ratio is needed to win this debate, as stated in the resolution "most if not all". So by my oponent only covering 3 of the 7 sins, he himself does not uphold his argument at all, which would seem now that I would win by default. My oponent also stated that I said that God "went against" these sins. I did and I apoligize, that was a poor wording of it, but I meant to say how he commited them. Now, on to cover his case. Sloth: My oponent seems to blame all the sickness in this world on humanity, but the majority of disease come from bugs and birds. We did not somehow infect these animals with the diseases, God made the animals have that. IF they developed over a long period of time, since God is all knowing and all seeing, he knows that the diseases would soon affect us and doesnt care. This ties along with wrath, which my oponent didn't cover, so Sloth goes to me. My oponenet also states that since im living is an act of God. Well, what if I have cancer, or diabetes? While i'm not bringing my personal life into it, my oponent thinks that as long as your living, your ok. God ingores our pleas for help and healing, therefore showing Sloth. Greed: My oponents entire arguement is about how our prayers fuel him to help us. To heal us. As said in my arguments in sloth and wrath, he ignores us and often torments us, so the fuel we give him is going nowhere. He isn't giving back what we give him, which is exactly what greed is, "excessive desire". He desires it, and wants more, but doesn't give back, showing his greed. I thank my oponent for his strong cases and for a good debate. Vote for AFF!
Meat production should be significantly reduced

Grain-fattened U. S. beef is even more inefficient, taking up to 10 times more grain to get the equivalent amount of meat. With a billion people worldwide under the poverty line, this is something we can't afford. We should eat grain, not meat. ------ Ranch animals make more greenhouse gases than cars ------- Clearing forested land, making and transporting fertilizer, burning fossil fuels in agricultural machinery, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep contributes 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change, a. k. a. Global Warming would have a great many adverse affects on humans, which I trust I do not have to elaborate on here. ------- Red meat and mortality ------ Eating only about four ounces of red meat per day over a period of ten years can make you 30 times as likely to develop cancer and heart disease as well as have high blood pressure and high cholesterol. -------- Meat is much more perishable than grain------- Grain and corn can be stored for a much longer time on average than meat, which almost inevitably becomes infected and decomposes from bacteria and fungi. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.washingtonpost.com... Most recent national geographic magazine as well
Meat production should be significantly reduced

Once again, thank you Lexicaholic My opponent contends that meat consumption, not production, should be reduced. He is misunderstanding something however. If meat consumption was significantly reduced, the laws of capitalism would require production to fall also. No company is going to keep making the same amount of meat if their customers are now spending half as much money and there are half as many of them. Therefore, a drop in consumption would result in a drop in production, therefore supporting my resolution. To defend my points on the nutritive value of meat and the inefficiencies of its production I will say this. When we have millions and millions of people starving to death every year and the only thing we had to do to stop it was significantly reduce our meat consumption and transport all the grain that would have otherwise been wasted on meat production over to those people, then that is reason enough to significantly reduce meat production. Then my opponent says that if production was reduced but consumption wasn't reduced there would be problems. This is an incoherent statement. Production can't reduce below the rate of previous consumption while consumption stays the same. That's like saying a person who usually eats 3 eggs a day suddenly finds out there are no eggs left in the world, but he somehow still eats 3 eggs. I agree that a decrease in production would increase DEMAND. This is where you must decide what is worse, millions of starving and dying people, or high meat prices and some people out of jobs. I think my opponent is mistaking a reduced amount of meat with no meat at all. I agree, we need some meat to get our daily amounts of key nutrients that meat provides. However, most middle class Americans get more than enough of these nutrients and could survive with a drop in meat consumption. Poor people already can't afford meat such as steak so it won't affect them. Vegetarians manage to get all their nutrients through alternative routes such as peanut butter etc. We can manage, plus we will still have some meat, just not as much. Now I must point out that my opponent has offered almost no argument against the environmental detriments of meat production. He has simply suggested we need better business practices. What business practice would get rid of all the CO2 and methane cows and other ranch animals make each year. Large-scale Filters are impractical. Therefore, my point stands un-refuted.