BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
North Korea

The forces do not need to be within Japan in order to respond to an invasion by North Korea. There are already forces in South Korea that would be immediately involved in the fighting and reinforcements could come from Hawaii and Guam within a short space of time. Having forces in Japan simply makes North Korea more likely to attack Japan with missiles in the event of conflict with the South so forcing Japanese involvement. Given Japanese history as a colonial power in the region Japan should if possible be kept out of the conflict as its involvement would provide propaganda for North Korea. The presence of US bases on Japanese soil presents an obvious target for North Korean missiles. A Japan free from US bases would arguably safer from any North Korean threat. The US has been aiming to develop a more flexible military that can deal with global issues more rapidly. In Asia it has been advancing its use of Guam as a marine base and command centre. US soldiers do not need to be stationed on Japanese soil if one takes into account the huge military presence in Guam, Hawaii and South Korea, as well as the various nuclear equipped naval battle groups that are free to roam the Pacific. The marine base in Okinawa was due to move to Guam in 2014, but that has been delayed.[[http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/2nd-ld-us-sees-marines-move-to-guam-delayed-beyond-2014]] Even Japan's pacifist military approach would provide Japanese safety/security, while allowing US engagement from the DMZ or Guam.
China

Much in the same way China's neighbors may feel threatened by a new powerhouse in China, China has the same right to be threatened by the US presence within the region. A Chinese presence in the Gulf of Mexico would be unacceptable to America and so China has every right to arm itself. However, its foreign policy objectives take into account the potential threat its rise may cause and has taken steps to ensure to reassure other Asian states that it does not pose a threat. Ultimately, peace and prosperity is in its interests. If China's aim is to become a super power it has a better chance of achieving this by surpassing the US in global economic dominance. US military presence on top of its support to Taiwan only threatens China more than it does Japan or the US.
Russia

If Russia wants the Northern Territories, it is a issue between the Japanese and the Russians. If the US keeps its military in Japan as a reason to "keep an eye" on the Russians, it could possibly kill relations between the United States and the Russian Federation. It could also start a second "Cold War" or even possibly a war. Why would the US want to get into a malay with one of the most powerful nations on the planet. Also this would never happen, Russia would not want to attack Japan. It has no reason to. Especially after the 2011 Earthquake.
2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami

After World War 2, the Japanese were forbidden to build up an army. All they have is a small SDF (Self Defense Force), that protects the people. In March 2011, a massive 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of Sendai, Japan. It triggered a massive 40 foot Tsunami that inundated the Japanese Coast. The Earthquake also damaged the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant causing a massive evacuation. So far, 14,000 people are dead with another 13,000 injured. The quake is expected to cost Japan almost US$300 Billion, making it Japan's toughest crisis since World War 2. Now back to the SDF, the magnitude and scale of this disaster is unprecedented. It is obviously too large for just the SDF to handle on its own. With the United States in Japan, they will be able to offer as much assistance as humanly possible to help the people of Japan bounce back from this terrible disaster. If the US abandons Japan now, it will look like a terrible incident of a nation that doesn't care about the welfare of millions of people who are in distress.
2nd biggest economy

Japan can manage perfectly well on its own and has no real need for foreign troops on its soil. It has been normal throughout history for great powers to provide their own defence and so it is very odd for the second (or possibly now third) most powerful economy in the world[[Edmund Conway, Chinese economy overtakes Japan, The Telegraph, 26/12/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6890189/Chinese-economy-overtakes-Japan.html%5D%5D to rely on the most powerful for its defence, it is as if the USA has reduced large areas of the world to being its protectorates. Japan can certainly afford to defend itself without U.S. assistance. Indeed it pays the USA to keep forces on its soil, to the tune of $2.15bn in 2009, but that is down from $3.17bn in 1999 [[http://www.stripes.com/news/japan-seeks-decrease-in-payments-to-support-u-s-bases-1.112317]] so meaning it has a smaller force itself. Why not simply have a bigger Japanese self defence force? That would be the reaction of almost any major power in history. Japan is a liberal democracy that has come a long way from its WWII days, and should be at the stage where it is able and willing to protect itself. Global issues dictate that it cannot rely on a pacifist constitution and American protection. Its army, although not battle tested, is indeed a powerhouse not only in the region, but the world. It is very difficult to measure military power today (it is no longer to measure navies only on battleships or the army on manpower) but despite Japan's army being a 'self defence force' only it is one of the most powerful in the world.[[http://www.globalfirepower.com/]] Its short and long range Patriot missiles are sufficient to protect it from any imminent threat that North Korea may pose.
Japan itself

The base in Okinawa creates local problems, with outrage from residents about the pollution, accidents and crime that US soldiers bring, including the rape of a school girl in 1995. In addition, Japan is already crowded with the base creating growing environmental problems. Moving the base would recreate the same issues, but in another location, namely Nago. The dispute has already cost Hatoyama his premiership, and is likely to continue to cause trouble as long as the US maintains a base, particularly since it has never apologised for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Okinawa base is located on the site of a bloody World War II battle, and has been described as an example of American imperialism. Ultimately, Japan wastes money funding the US presence when it could be funding the develpoment of its own military, a vital tool in today's geopolitics.
Hegemony/Overstretch

The United States already has military presence in South Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Europe etc. This creates the impression that the United States is exercising too much of its hard power Hegemony and is trying to bolster its image of being a Hegemonic World Leader. This fuels anti-Americanism throughout the world, most countries already think that we are trying to be the policemen of the world. Also Overstretch is a huge factor. Overstretch is when the military of a country is too thinly spread. To spread in fact, that the government may not have enough resources to defend itself in case of an attack. If the US withdraws its bases from Japan, it would be better protected against other nations that deem to attack the country. It would have a better chance of defending itself.
East Asian stability

US troops as in Europe aid in keeping the stability of the region and preventing war. East Asia is perhaps the region that needs this source of stability most as it is a region with several great powers and needs to adapt to the rise of China. Essentially US troops in the region provide reassurance to everyone in the region. For Japan, South Korea and the ASEAN nations they provide assurance against China while for China they provide reassurance that Japan won’t return to bad old ways of being an imperialist power. The US forces in Japan do exactly what NATO did in Europe with different players. Keeps Japan down (for China) and China out (for Japan). Joseph S. Nye Security is like oxygen: you tend not to notice it until you lose it. A continued U.S. presence in East Asia provides the oxygen that is so crucial for the region's stability and economic prosperity... The United States must maintain its troops, develop regional institutions, bolster its allies, and remain deeply engaged in Asia. [[Joseph S. Nye, 'East Asian Security: The Case for Deep Engagement', Foreign Affairs, July/August 1995, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/51210/joseph-s-nye-jr/east-asian-security-the-case-for-deep-engagement%5D%5D The current security framework benefits everyone by providing the necessary stability for the economic growth that everyone wants to continue and so lift people throughout the region out of poverty.
North Korea

North Korea is close to Japan and is one of the few countries around the world that is still a major and unpredictable threat to its neighbours. While Japan is an island and has a powerful navy meaning it cannot be invaded directly by North Korea it is easily within range of North Korea’s missiles and as a staunch US ally may well be one of the most likely to be attacked. Japan like the US would like to see the North Korean regime end and has close ties with South Korea. Neither the US nor Japan would want to be unable to respond to a full scale North Korean attack on the South and Japan is the best staging post for any such response if such an eventuality occurs.
China

The rise of China provides a major challenge to all other Asian powers; how do they respond to a major country with its economic growth in double digits and which is rapidly arming? Without the USA which is despite Chinese arming by an immense margin the biggest military spender in the world then these countries surrounding China would feel compelled to spend more and more on their own militaries to maintain deterrence against China. There are already worries that the Peoples Republic of China could take Taiwan within three days,[[http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2010/08/10/taiwan-war-games/]] without the presence of the USA in the region and able to respond quickly this would be much more likely to become a reality rather than just a war game. While Japan does not recognise Taiwan it does recognise the role Taiwan has in its security and has closer links to Taiwan than it does to the rest of China. China has recently begun to throw its weight around almost demanding a monroe doctrine for its neighbourhood by trying to prevent US access in international waters.[[https://debatewise.org/debates/2195-china-should-be-allowed-more-control-over-its-own-seas]] At the same time China continues to signal its intention to develop the long arm of its military, most notably through preparations to build aircraft carriers, the ultimate platform for projection of force.[[http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008110263.html]]
2nd biggest economy

Although Japan has the financial resources and ability to purchase US hardware its military is not battle tested, nor are its citizens completely easy with the idea of assuming a higher security profile. Whether it wishes to or not there is always a possibility that Japan would get drawn in to a regional conflict over China, Taiwan or the Koreas, which it may not be ready to handle. Also, Japan's military is not a full active military fighting force. It is just a Self Defense Force, so it would not have the capability to defend itself in a conflict in the region. Also, this argument is non unique, Japan is no longer the 2nd largest economy. China recently surpassed Japan as the world's second largest economy.
Japan itself

Local problems at Okinawa could be better handled through regulation and enforcement of laws as well as work between both nations towards resolution. While the US supports the treaty that banned the Japanese from building up it's own military beyond purely defensive measures, the US owes Japan that protection. In addition to this, if Japan as a people want the US gone it can be done with a vote - Japan is a democracy, after all. The fact that this has not happened means that it is a minority that feel the base is a problem, not a majority. Japan has been a loyal ally of the US for several decades so the likelihood that any significant section of the population still holds any ill will over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is unlikely and Japan has shown reluctance in apologizing for it's own horrific crimes in Nan King, China during that war, even building a museum to honor the men responsible for what is now known as the rape of Nan King. Would be the pot calling the kettle black to complain about US atrocities while not admitting their own. Ultimately, the partnership between Japan and the US is the very reason they are one of the worlds leading economies and while crimes committed by US service personal there are horrible and need to be punished, appropriately, this does not change the fact that the partnership benefits Japan as a nation more than harms it.
Parents don’t have absolute rights over their children, society has an important stake in their upbr...

Parents don’t have absolute rights over their children, society has an important stake in their upbringing and this is primarily carried out through the school system. The costs and social impact of unsafe sexual practices that result in STDs and teen pregnancy are carried by society as a whole, not just the parents of those involved. So education about safe sex is entirely justifiable. In any case, many parents do not feel able to talk to their children about sex, leaving them in a dangerous state of ignorance.
Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who are informed the better. Not all sch...

Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who are informed the better. Not all schools promote safe sex and a few schools don’t even give sexual education, so is it right to say that the amount of STDs amongst teenagers and pregnant teens is due to the promotion of safe sex? It might also be good to consider that the amount of pregnant teens and teens with STDs are due to lack of information given to all teenagers in the whole nation. After all, the Netherlands, famous for its very frank sex education, has both a higher age of first sexual experience, and much lower rates of teenage pregnancy and STD infection than countries such as the USA and the UK. And research shows that abstinence education often fails – inevitably many teens who sign chastity pledges do end up having sex, and because they have not been taught about safe sex methods, they are much more likely to become pregnant or infected as a result.
We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than ...

We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than ever – a development which preceded widespread sex education and which cannot therefore be blamed on it. Keeping children in ignorance about sex will not stop them having sex, but it will mean that the sex they have is riskier, resulting in unplanned pregnancies, abortions and STD infections. Condoms, while not perfect, are widely recommended for the prevention of STDs. They have been shown to be effective in reducing infection rates in both men and women. So it is important to make the idea of safe sex more attractive to these teenagers to prevent STDs and for teens to get pregnant. This is why at schools teenagers should be told and encouraged to use condoms if they are going to have sex.
In the USA one out of every four teenage women between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one of th...

In the USA one out of every four teenage women between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (not including AIDS-infected teens). That is 3.2 MILLION WOMEN, according to research into the most common STDs amongst teenagers that was presented last year at the National STD Prevention Conference for the first time. Ignorance is not a solution and therefore teens should be better informed and learn more about how to have safe sex. A good way to inform them is through their education. This is why safe sex should be taught at schools.
Safe sex education is a right, regardless of your religious background. Religious groups should not...

Safe sex education is a right, regardless of your religious background. Religious groups should not be able to dictate the curricular of state-funded schools. Teens must have access to a range of viewpoints on human sexuality, including biological, religious, ethical, and health perspectives, in order to help them make up their own minds as to the right way to act. A choice for chastity until marriage is much more meaningful, and much more likely to be kept, if it is a positive and informed decision.
Parents don’t have absolute rights over their children, society has an important stake in their upbr...

It isn’t the place of schools to sexualize our children in this way. Many people believe that sex education should be left to parents, who are best placed to decide what information their children need and when the best time to tell them is. Even if human reproduction has a place in the biology classroom, that is very different from courses of “safe sex” education that promote promiscuity in a way that often undermines the values parents are seeking to impart at home.
Safe sex should be promoted in all schools; the more teens who are informed the better. Not all sch...

Instead of continuing with the promotion of safe sex, why don’t schools just give teenagers sexual education and tell them about the options like condoms and pills, instead of actively promoting them and making them every time more and more attractive to use? Shouldn’t they be promoting the best and most secure options? The best way to prevent STDs and pregnant teens is ABSTINENCE. So why don’t schools start by promoting that? Not strictly abstinence until marriage, but just abstinence. If students wait at least until their bodies are done developing fully and until they are not in puberty, the amount of STDs will be reduced dramatically, not only because the human body is better developed for sex at an older age, but also because we are more mature when we are in any kind of relationship.
We have to accept that for a wide variety of social reasons teens are now more sexually active than ...

Condoms, while better than nothing, should not be promoted so much in schools. It is one thing to inform children of their options and a complete different thing to promote safe sex as a lifestyle. By making the idea of safe sex more attractive to teenagers you are also making sex itself more attractive. You are in a way telling them that they can be safe having sex and this has an encouraging effect to start. By making them feel that by using these products they are protected from any risks it only makes them more eager to start having sexual relations. They are physically not prepared for that and the medical reasons for why they are at greater risk is specifically related to females. A 15-year-old girl has a 1-in-8 chance of developing pelvic inflammatory disease simply by having sex, whereas a 24-year-old woman has only a 1-in-80 chance in that situation. And pills and condoms are not as effective with teenagers, mainly because teens are more apt to forget to take the pill or to tear a condom. Between 9% and 18% of teenage girls using the contraceptive pill become pregnant.
In the USA one out of every four teenage women between the ages of 14 and 19 have at least one of th...

There is without a doubt an STD epidemic amongst teenagers at the moment, but for quite some time the media and schools have been teaching these teenagers about how to have safe sex. We must now take a hard look at the message of safe sex which is being taught to these teens. People believe that if the teens can be taught how to have safe sex, the number of pregnant teens and the rate of STD infection will reduced dramatically. But they've been teaching them this for some time now and the statistics and our own common sense tell us something different. What if the increasing number of teenagers that are sexually active and that have STDs are actually the consequence of promoting safe sex to them?
Safe sex education is a right, regardless of your religious background. Religious groups should not...

Safe sex education promotes values and practices that are offensive to many religious groups. For example, most safe sex education focuses heavily on condom use, which is directly counter to Catholic teaching. And promotion of “alternative sexual practices” can encourage people to see homosexuality as normal, which is offensive to many Christians and Muslims. In this way “safe sex” education forms part of a wider liberal attack on religious belief. Not only is this unacceptable to many parents and local communities, it is also an assault on teenage believers who are forced to sit through these classes.
Slippery slope from words to physical harm.

Becoming offended is not the same as being physically harmed. When someone physically harms me I do not have a say on whether it hurts or not, it actually damages the body. However when one faces 'offensive material' one has a choice whether one is offended or not, offense is a subjective interpretation. If labeling someone or something offensive is subjective then who has the right to say that this offense should be sanctioned by law. There is no arbitrary, objective or scientific fact to base such a law on therefore the law will be based on a one sided subjective view which goes against equality because the state is picking and choosing what is offensive or not. Also the need for freedom of expression trumps the need to save people from 'offence', this is due to allowing different cultural groups to express their opinions to allow progression and to avoid a dictatorship of opinion. People who become offended can mature up and view the material in a different perspective. One must question why Religious offence should be civil offence, why not make political offence a civil offence? What makes religion so special? Surely by making religious offence a civil offense the state is being biased towards religion, the state should be neutral. More importantly though, what counts as religious offense? surely wearing a cross on your neck could in principle offend a Muslim, what criterion do we use to tell what is religious offense? Surely this will contradict many of the rights already in place.
Slippery slope from words to physical harm.

The small offences do count and need to be responded too in some way because allowing them to continue allows a perception to build up that can become engrained discrimination. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams there is a sense in which the foundational form of religious hatred and religious offence in our culture has been and remains anti-Semitism. Its history in Europe shows how the slippage can occur from abusive words and images to assumptions about the dangers posed by a community stigmatised as perpetual outsiders to actions designed to remove them for good. [[Archbishop's lecture - Religious Hatred and Religious Offence, 29/1/2008, http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1561%5D%5D Obviously the Jews are an extreme example where movement from dislike and abusive words over centuries turned into murder and eventually genocide. Yet the easiest place to stop this movement is right at the beginning. Making religious offence a civil offence does this because it shows recognition that causing offence on such grounds is wrong and is not a route society should wish to take.