BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was it just to kick Japanese Americans out of certain states during WW2

Ok really first your gonna say its racist because of a stupid cartoon. Second how was it racist its not like we gathered them up and shot them one by one, No we gave them a HOME not a killing field a Home. So what if its not the best at least they had a place to stay that was more safe than the streets of America. And the only reason I think it was just is because WE WERE IN WAR TIMES. We would have done it to Germany, Ireland, Italy, Britain, or Mexico if they had attacked us. Japan started a fight they could not when and America wanted no chance of loosing so they took a freaking safety precaution. If you knew someone was going to sneak in your house and kill you would you just sit in your room. NO you would get ready for the worst. Thats exactly what America did. I see that and the Supreme court saw that if you dont see it than you are BLIND.
Was it just to kick Japanese Americans out of certain states during WW2

Yes it was racist. First of all, why didn't we put all the Germans or Italians in camps? Granted the Nazis never attacked our country but they got much closer to the mainland U.S. than the Japanese ever did, as there were reports of German submarines just off the U.S. coast [1]. Also, we had been racist to them prior to the war as well. Why else would the San Francisco school system segregate those of Japanese descent from the white students [2]? Finally, this video should show our racist attitude towards the Japanese during WWII http://www.youtube.com.... We considered the Japanese race to be subhuman before and during the war. Also, you say the supreme court said that it was just in Korematsu v. United States. They ruled it was constitutional. And at the time considering the political makeup of the supreme court, they made this decision because there was nothing in the constitution saying they couldn't do it, not that it means that the constitution said that they could (broad vs. strict interpretation at work). Finally, there is evidence showing that one of the judges withheld a U.S. naval intelligence report saying how Japanese-American citizens showed no threat to the U.S."s security. Even so, why did Ronald Reagan apologize for this if it was just? We kicked them out of their homes without any reason than "The country that your grandfather grew up in attacked one of our territories." Sure we gave them a house and food. Except it was in the middle of the desert surrounded by armed guards and barbed wire and they were crammed in there with hundreds of others. And if I was kicked from my home like they were, this would still be a flagrant violation of my rights as a citizen of the United States of the America. When one becomes a citizen of the U.S., they give up some of their natural born rights for other guaranteed and protected rights. This social contract promises all U.S. citizens the writ of habeas corpus as well as trial by jury of your peers. The 4th Amendment guarantees the protection of a citizen"s property and yet this was violated. No charges or evidence was brought up against a single American citizen that could give any sort of reason for those American citizens who just happened to be Japanese to be locked up. In fact, evidence was to the contrary [3]. And even so, what in the world could a normal American citizen, like all of these people were, have told the Japanese military about us? They never got close enough to launch bombers at us. If Pearl Harbor had been taken under Japanese control, then we could have been looking at the possibility of an invasion. However, that did not happen. [1]http://www.allmilitary.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://articles.latimes.com...
Was it just to kick Japanese Americans out of certain states during WW2

My opponent says that it ways a form of racism. Well lets think if we did not take that action we might not be here, we could be part of Japan. It was for Americas safety that we did this. Even the supreme court agreed that it was just. If we had not of been in war times i think it would have been un just, but we were not we were in one of the biggest wars of all time. It was safer to ask them to leave. And we did not put them into camps we gave them a option to go there if they could not afford to move. It was a act of kindness to actually give them a place to stay. If you were asked to leave from your home wouldn't you per-fer to get a place to stay rather than you just be kicked out on the curb. We could have easily just said get out of out country you are a threat, but we did not we asked them to leave certain states. We provided them shelter and sources of living. Japan through the first punch and we hit back. We asked them to leave the states that Japan would have the best places to attack us. If we did not ask them to move one of them was probably a spy and could have told them and we might not be here today. If a American was really a American they would see that it was beyond fair to ask the Japanese Americans to leave four or five states!
Was it just to kick Japanese Americans out of certain states during WW2

After Pearl Harbor, everyone panicked. It was, as my opponent points out, the largest attack on American soil ever. Not since the War of 1812 had foreigners attacked Americans on American soil. However, was it just? No it wasn't. Hawaii was simply a territory of the U. S. at the time, not even a state. We removed these people from their home because we overreacted and propelled by racism, we kept these American citizens in camps for the duration of the war, even though they showed no threat to the U. S. We removed all the rights that they had been promised when they had become U. S. citizens. There was no trial by jury nor was habeas corpus used. The due process of law which they had been promised by us was suddenly revoked just because people who shared their ancestral homeland had attacked the U. S. Also, since America is capitalistic, there were people who took advantage of this. As these American citizens were being forced to leave their home and bushiness with no indication of when they would be allowed to return, greedy entrepreneurs bought the properties at next to nothing. The U. S. could have prevented this but did not, as they only allowed these people to bring what they could carry. Finally, these camps that the U. S. sent their people to were not the best places in the world. They were located in the middle of the desert where these legal residents of the U. S. had to deal with rattlesnakes and other environmental conditions as well as being surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers all day long. Shootings weren't unheard of either, as these people were sometimes killed just for straying too far (. http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Was it just to kick Japanese Americans out of certain states during WW2

Was it just, Yes. America was attacked, it was the first major terrorist attack on the USA ever. Since we were at a time of war it was just. Its like the saying says 'its better safe than sorry' for all we know someone could have been a spy and we could have been attacked. America at least gave them a place to stay if they could not get enough money to move and get a better home. Even though the places were not the cleanest or the healthy-ist they had a roof over their heads and food and water. Those are probably the three most important things you need to survive besides air. America did and always will have the right to do any action if it is for the well being of are country.
Should abortion be safe, legal, and rare? Pro (yes) Con (no).

My opponent admits that abortion is homicide. This means that abortion is unlawful murder (https://www.google.com...;*). There isn't a such thing as justified homicide. That is a contradiction in terms. As for people having the right to make difficult choices for themselves, can my opponent objectively establish that right's existence or did she just make it up? And lastly, my opponent argues that religious hypocrites need to have more compassion. It seems to me that it is good to have compassion towards the mother and the defenseless baby. If the mother is allowed to murder her baby, then how are pro-choicers showing compassion to the child? My opponent mentions for a second time that she is not a womb. Fair enough, but the point is that if there is a person in that womb, then the baby should be recognized as well.
Should abortion be safe, legal, and rare? Pro (yes) Con (no).

My opponent argues that self-abortion is dangerous due to the fact that women could kill themselves. However, it should be obvious that abortion is dangerous even if women's lives are not at risk. Why? Well, because the baby is sure to die in these procedures. Besides, abortions done today are not completely safe. Not only is a baby murdered, but women still have a small chance of bleeding to death. Furthermore, why should people feel bad for baby murderers that accidentally kill themselves? As for rape victims, a wrong action does not justify another one. Rape is horrible but why would murdering a baby be the right thing to do? Adoption is the better option if the woman does not want her baby. As for mental patients, I must ask, is money more important than a human life? My opponent says that losing their life savings would make them suicidal. But surely this is not the proper response to a disaster. In life, one shouldn't give up and die just to escape their personal problems.
Should abortion be safe, legal, and rare? Pro (yes) Con (no).

Cool beans. Let's go back to the days when contraception and abortion were banned here in America. Women were literally forced to give birth. Women resorted to self abortion, and died from blood loss, organ damage, poisoning from at home remedies. Some like the Duggar family want to return to those days. Thankfully, contraception was legalized and abortion soon after. Question 1: Should a rape victim be forced to give birth? Question 2: Should a mental patient br gorced to give birth? I have 4 mental illnesses, and not only would I be forced to go off my life saving meds, but that would make me suicidal. I would need an abortion to save my life. My Statement: The just get your tubes tied argument would work if that procedure were more available to consenting adult women on request covered by any insurance.
The Holocaust Happened

I believe the Holocaust occurred, But to argue against that position requires viewing it through a radically different looking-glass. If you don't find my arguments acceptable through that viewpoint, Then you're the one who needs to get out. People get banned from all the time just for using the words "jew" and "holocaust" and "nazi. " I'm not the one who posted the ridiculous idea of holding a debate over whether the Holocaust happened. Unless you're planning to debate someone in particular, This entire post was just begging for trouble. This debate can end in one of three ways: -Someone will respond with hate-filled non-truths; -The debate will be fruitless because no one will respond -Someone will respond in the manner I did (recognizing the ridiculousness of such a discourse). And yes, It's funny: Because it's a SARCASTIC response to a stupid, Offensive, Fruitless post which suggests there's anything to "debate. " My arguments also contain the only sliver of usefulness to humanity, Because it both acknowledges the existence of the Holocaust (albeit coyly) and it awakens people to the mass-murder dangers which are consistently associated with Marxism and its daughters.
The Holocaust Happened

I am taking this argument from the viewpoint of a Socialist SJW. 1. I don't want the Holocaust to have happened. I identify my gender as SomeoneWhoDoesntExistInUniversesWithTheHolocaustIsm, And therefore how I imagine my identity to be in that manner has to be respected according to new policies and legislation. Also, You have to refer to me by my new pronoun: "The Holocaust Didn't Happen and I am Not Making This Up. " Or else I will throw a fit on campus and have you thrown in jail. 2. The alleged "Holocaust" was under a Euro-nation with lots of expensive social programs. It offends me to think that you would demean the Socialism of my Nation (Na-zi) in this way. I recently had my eyes opened to the wonders of Socialism by my tolerant, Progressive professors in Sociology, Anthropology, And "New Interpretations of Math. " As long as it has a rainbow or a green leaf on it, Then it HAS to be good. And if it was good, Then it couldn't have produced the Holocaust (just like if God is so good and there's evil in the world below Him, Then God can't possibly exist). 3. Photoshop. 'Nuff said. 4. Those "victims" weren't really people: They didn't even have very high-ranking Facebook profiles! They were mostly random collections of organs and biological waste that were barely capable of thinking. They weren't productive members of Society, And had to be set aside for our convenience. Plus, It's not like we can pay for all those social programs and high-living without dropping a few bugs here and there and redisributing their property. 5. All that "history" stuff was white-washing by Christopher Columbus.
The God Of The King James Bible Created The Universe And Earthly Life

*No acceptance round, just start debating.ResolutionThe god of the King James bible created the universe and earthly life.Pro Has 4 sets of 10,000 characters and the Burden of Proof to demonstrate that the god of the King James bible created the universe and earthly life and to refute Con.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute the resolution and Pro's supplemental claims.*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree.Otherwise...*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.Definitionsgod - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authorityhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...King James Bible - an English translation of the Bible made in 1611 at the order of King James I and still widely used.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...create - bring (something) into existencehttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...the universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...earthly - of or relating to the earth or human life on the earthhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...life - the condition that distinguishes animals, plants, bacteria, and archaea from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth and reproduction.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...*May the better argument win!
Gnostic Atheism is more logical than Agnostic Atheism

As both of us are atheists, PRO apparently of the position tat the proper answer to the question of "god(s)?" is "no.", and myself certainly of the position of "that's a stupid question." there may be something here to discuss. I am myself a gnostic atheist on all propositions to the question of "what god(s)?", knowing particularly that the vital question of "god(s)?" itself has not yet been answered.To more clearly explain my position, without the ability to externally view the universe, it's silly to act certain on the preposition of god(s). It is my position that any gnostic atheism on the question of "god(s)?" is at best an argument from ignorance, and arguments from ignorance are to be rejected.As such, this is the shape and character of my position on the resolution.As PRO did not outline any rules, I'll propose some: namely that neither of us engage in argument from authority, that fallacious reasoning not be used, that all usages of words be taken in good faith, and if there is a problem with such a usage, or if a usage does not seem proper for the contextual intent that the opponent ask for clarification rather than using "GOTCHA!" style tactics. In short, all I ask is that each of us abide by logical reasoning, and act in good faith.
Gnostic Atheism is more logical than Agnostic Atheism

So you admit that we have both forwarded good reasons for the views we inended to espouse through this entire debate. I can only see that this would be good grouds for a tie on the convincingness of our arguments, and as you yourself have said, LD, you forfeit the conduct point: "GO ONE GET THE CONDUCT VIEW."I fully admitted to my mistake as soon as I realized it. You even admit to engaging in "filthy tactics" in a debate accepted in good faith; this can only be seen as a forfeit of conduct. It is my contention that Gnostic Atheism is necessarily an argument from ignorance, and only after I forwarded this view did you present your own argument, which itself is a no-true-scotsman fallacy. To that end, even my arguments in favor of my stated intent are more sturdy. It is in this way point in my own favor.
Gnostic Atheism is more logical than Agnostic Atheism

I ALSO GAVE A REASON FOR MY VIEWS: "I shall assert that Gnostic atheism take it too far beyond the realms of what atheism itself is. Atheism is a doubt or disbelief in a deity, to then assert one knows of its nonexistence with certainty is to then refute one's reason for being atheist in first place (doubt or disbelief)."GO ONE GET THE CONDUCT VIEW.You lost the debate.You debated for my side.You wasted a valuable opportunity of mien to have an actual debate by snapping this up without reading everything fully out.this , if anything if far poorer conduct than anything ever done on this site before conduct-wise and is a complete and utter shame to the memory-space of DDO.You have wasted no only the voter's time but your own time too and it is for this reason that I must declare you utterly annihilated.The BOP was on you but not only did you fail to meet it you met my own BOP FOR ME.So stop trying to twist this because when it comes to filthy tactics, I'm the inventor.I have not only annihilated you, I have in fact won this from the very beginning since you debated for me all the way through.
Gnostic Atheism is more logical than Agnostic Atheism

Well, in this case, the good faith of the debate is the subject at this point. I clearly explained my purpose, and since we both agree that the resolution deserves no support, and as you insist that one must win and one must lose that my stipulation that this debate be taken and engaged in good faith has been violated. As such I claim victory on the grounds of conduct, and further on the grounds that I have given a REASON for my particular views on agnostic atheism which has stood unchalleneged, my intent being clear from the start that I wished to argue in favor of agnostic atheism.
Gnostic Atheism is more logical than Agnostic Atheism

... How dare you come and take up my debate assuming you can play dumb and fall to the hands of mercy of the 'morals' of DDO voters?!I made this debate to win or to lose. To tie would be a great shame to myself and to you for it would show lack of effort, of an equal amount, from both parties.You wish to chicken out and hope upon my mercy and gratitude to you for being so courteous as to apologise for your ignorant stupidity beyond regard.I shall assert that Gnostic atheism take it too far beyond the realms of what atheism itself is. Atheism is a doubt or disbelief in a deity, to then assert one knows of its nonexistence with certainty is to then refute one's reason for being atheist in first place (doubt or disbelief).My opponent in fact has explained he meant to be con and hence AGREES with me on the matter.There is not one single way that this is not a full out win for con.
Gnostic Atheism is more logical than Agnostic Atheism

Hey, you're the one who started this shindig and put forward a positive statement as resolution, so you have the burden of proof here. I already stated my position, namely that without the abiliy to observe context outside the universe, no position can be honestly taken in any way on the existence of gods; Hume's problem of induction is particularly valid here, and I see no reason yet to question Hume on this point.This is to say nothing about OTHER aspects of atheism, particularly whether god(s) can possibly be more than a curiosity or bit of useless trivia, but the case still has yet to be made that it is more logical to think that there is no god than to think that the question cannot be answered.
If Britain and France kept their empires but swapped places in Europe, the Nazis would've won WW2

Alright, Tom. You are being really rude. Judges, take this into consideration when voting on conduct. But, since you have failed to refute my arguments, I will state them again. The entire bible is a metaphor, and by closely reading, it is clear how much God hates nazis. This is clear in genesis 6. "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the lord." It is clear that Noah is the opposite of hitler. So, if god likes Noah, he thus hates hitler. This is also clear in chapter 10. "The Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites" The word "Sinites" uses the word "Sin." Therefore, the Sinites are pretty much hitler. God hatred is implied, because it is a metaphor. Since it is clear that God hates nazis, the nazis will never win Thanks again Jim for this wonderful topic. I do think that God hates nazis, and the nazis are stupid.
If Britain and France kept their empires but swapped places in Europe, the Nazis would've won WW2

Thank you for accepting Con, however I do say I am pretty confused by your choice of opening statement, which is completely irrelevant to the task at hand. Also, my name is not Tony or Tim. Anyways, I believe that the battle of France (Britain) would've been like World War 1: A huge stalemate. The British Empire was comparatively larger and stronger then the French 'Empire'. The British Empire was a self-sufficient machine, able to match up against the Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians and Germans in World War 1. Their naval power had blockaded the Germans, and were successful and holding the line in the Battle of Jutland. The Ottomans only held off the British and French joint Naval attempted breakthrough using heavy coastal batteries. The British Empire had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, at least 50% of the rest of Africa, India and Malaysia and Burma in it's empire. That would supply enough troops to counter the Germans, let alone forgetting about the British troops from mainland Britain. The French, even with it's smaller empire of Indo-China (Vietnam) and parts of Africa, would've provided support, but would not supply as many to counter the Germans (as shown in May 10th- June 17th 1940). However, I believe that Britain would get defeated. Assuming Germany use the same tactic to trick the British like they succeeded to in real life (Faking an attack through Belgium, then attacking from the rear using the Ardennes) the British main forces would've been cut off, and when the British are beaten at Dunkirk (Dover) they will lose their main army, allowing Germany to march on Paris (London). Knowing the way France was easily beaten, and knowing why the Germans decided not to invade mainland Britain (France, the reason being aircraft) knowing French aircraft, I think they would've been beaten, the Wehrmacht lands in France (Britain) and the Germans sweep up and kick France out of the war. I also have evidence that Hitler had NO intention to fight a war on 2 fronts, proven as he went to the trouble of a pact with his biggest enemy. So, assuming this is true, the Germans WOULD NOT attack Russia until France (Britain) was beaten. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...
If Britain and France kept their empires but swapped places in Europe, the Nazis would've won WW2

Thanks for this wonderful topic, Tony. I personally believe that the nazis were terrible, and God hated them. So, no matter where the countries were located, the nazis would go to hell, because god hates nazis. This is made clear in genesis 5. "When Jared had lived a hundred and sixty-two years he became the father of Enoch." Now, this may not be literal, but since its the bible, everything is a metaphor. I believe that the word "Enoch" kind of sounds like "nazi." Therefore, god obviously hates nazis. Thanks again Tim for this great topic