BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Our troops can fight the war on terror at home.

I will be arguing against the claim that American soldiers can fight the war on terror domestically as efficiently or more efficiently than continued direct foreign intervention. Meaning that no American troops are physically in foreign land. Also I am assuming that you believe that, "We should be challenging the Jihadist extremists to come and try again to defile our nation once again.", meaning that you find it morally necessary for the Jihadist to not only attack American citizens first but for the American society to provoke terrorist action through intimidation or in your words a "challenge". I don't think I or even you fully understand your arguments. 1.) if we are facing a war on two fronts, then how would leaving the foregin front benefit the cause of finishing or neutralizing the war on terror? 2.) if you dislike the fact that we are losing our "liberties" due to the foreign war on terror, how would focusing and increasing the war on terror strictly on domestic issues relieve such a burden; it would increase it. Using military to impose law is even more deliberating. "But the average American also wrestles a different form of domestic terrorism: that raised by the drug cartels of China, South America, and Mexico. Not only are we fighting for our rights and the rights of criminals. But we are fighting for our right not to take drugs." Yet the "average American" advocates and is solely responsible for the wanting and circulation of drug trade--blaming foreigners is only 1/4 of the problem. If the American population were truly against drug cartels, then, well... there would be no such cartels as no money would be made. "Everyday Americans are exposed to gang violence and anarchy." I believe the sentence should be, "everyday Americans cause gang violence and anarchy." Such accusations are easily seen in the mass media via music and individualistic attitudes. Once again, although neighboring countries may be a major factor in the exporting of illegal substances, they aren't necessarily forcing the American people to consume them. It's basic business ethics. The drug lords know that the Americans will willingly buy their product, therefore investing in the American population is financially wise and is based upon the consumption of the American. The removal of the drugs will either a.) causing violence and crime due to withdrawal from addiction or b.) the withdrawal from drugs will have to dealt with by rehabilitation which would cost the tax-payers millions, if not billions of dollars. Once more: "we" aren't losing as "we"--collectively;over 50% either don't care or want the drugs. Really? Challenging? No diplomacy or continuing the war on terror on foreign land? Defenses are already on the alert after 9/11, how would not attacking the enemy directly benefit us? Would it not harm us? The terrorist aren't a country, meaning they will attack, as you said, domestically. Such domestic prevention will be hindered without direct foreign intel.
Our troops can fight the war on terror at home.

[I reserve the right to clarify and substantiate my remarks in rounds 2 through 5: graynet2013, the following are suppositions, premises, and challenges to any opponent] Our troops are fighting a war abroad against a virulent group of fanatics that have been bent on terror for hundreds of years. Only recently have we been initiated into the conflict of terror politics. Since the Arab jihadists have no prejudices for those that get in the way of their political aims and sovereignty, they have proven their crass disregard for the sovereignty and civility of others as well. Does it justify the billions and billions of dollars spent in American tax dollars to fight only half a war that has run its course already? There are several forms of terror in the world. And we Americans at home are facing a war on two fronts! We have lost our liberties, our livelihoods to extreme domestic measures as our security agencies wrestle domestic terrorism born out of the Islamic extremism that has infected the rest of the world. But the average American also wrestles a different form of domestic terrorism: that raised by the drug cartels of China, South America, and Mexico. Not only are we fighting for our rights and the rights of criminals. But we are fighting for our right not to take drugs. Everyday Americans are exposed to gang violence and anarchy. The fear they inspire serves them. It's a game of coercion and extortion to the drug lords in our neighboring countries. They create the fear through the domestic terrorism of gang violence and atrocity. This atrocity inspires the innocent to escape using the very drugs that are the foundation of this domestic terror crisis! Our brave troops should be fighting this war with us now. Because we are losing. We should stop instituting hatred abroad. We should be fighting for those that are suffering from addiction and corruption in our own neighborhoods. Our enemies are living right here among us: both foreign and domestic. So many of us, with our rotted minds, and misguided principles are getting trampled by the drug cartels that are getting rich off our enemies and our citizens. We should be challenging the jihadist extremists to come and try again to defile our nation once again. With our brave soldiers and patriots at our sides, God be with the enemy of peace. Because they would not survive our resolve and integrity.
Stem Cell Use

As you stated, stem cell research is dangerous. Most stem cell research is safe, but requires the waiver, in case of any difficulties. The waiver for stem cells is just like a waiver for normal organ transplants or other types of simple surgeries. Stem cells are a good thing for medical groups and industries. According to the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, stem cells dramatically improve the ability for drug companies to screen side effects of new and improved drugs earlier in their development process. The California institute of Regenerative Medicine also states that, stem cells have furthered scientists" knowledge of cancer and other diseases when cells from a cancer patient is taken and combined with stem cells to test stages of cancer or disease. Stem cells help determine certain types of affects due to the cancer and better demonstrate how to cure these types of occurrences. Not only do stem cells help with cancer and other diseases, but the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine states, that stem cells can address infertility by developing into egg cells or sperm cells just so that they could be combined and tested for fertilization.
Stem Cell Use

There are always moral/ethical issues no matter what type of surgery or procedure. Overall, the person who is going to have this procedure done has the procedure done. There is a waiver that the patient is forced to sign if they wish to have stem cell research performed in their presence. This eliminates the moral or ethical issues on the doctors who are performing the procedure. The doctors do not just take a patient and do stem cell research on them. Not only is a waiver signed, but the patient is under confidentiality so that they are not getting into problems with people about moral issues. Stem cells are also used for other types of research that have moral or ethical issues, so it is not just stem cells that have these types of issues. Stem cells are not the only procedures that have moral or ethical issues.
Stem Cell Use

like you said animals can share the same defects as humans as my other argument stated the success rate in using stem cells in animals have been extremely low. not only with risk many are worried about ethical issues. stem cell research explains how if embryos are not used for stem cell production it will be disgarded which is like killing an human egg. Even if the embryo is used in the stem cell process it creates a non natural baby which can cause a great amount of siblings who are strung out and unaware of each other. many see this as an "act against god" or messing with human life.
Stem Cell Use

As stated before, there are always other implications that can cause these types of occurrences not only with stem cells, but as well as many other types of medical procedures such as blood transfusions or any type of body surgeries or procedures, therefor nobody could make the assumption that it is only stem cells that cause these things to occur. Stem cells are just as safe if not safer than any other type of medicine. CNN states, when a person goes through the process of stem cell research/therapy, they are checked up on constantly, to ensure the least if any complications or injuries. CNN states, after 2005, they had found a way to take an embryotic stem cell out of the embryo without it being destroyed or harmed. Stem cells are also safe, due to the fact that they are tested on animals who have similar defects, to make sure that they are safe for use. The animals are not affected negatively, so the stem cells are proven to be safe for human use. Stem cells are one of the safest medicines.
Stem Cell Use

Actually three are many unanswered questions involving stem cells and many risk. Depending on type of blood disorder, type of transplant, age and health of a person can cause fatal results, and complications that require treatment or hospitalization and can be life threatening. The older an adult stem cell is increases the chance of genetic damage caused by the host. OnlineWellnesscommunity also explains how animal model success rate has been low. Chem445stemcell explains how there"s has been at LEAST two cases of developed leukemia after stem cell process. It also explains how effects caused by stem cell transplants are not curable and are permanent. In fact in a number of studies patients have noticed objects growing where they are not intended.
Stem Cell Use

Although Cancer Connect states that it is wrong to use chemotherapy and radiation, they do not have a point to argue against stem cells, due to the fact that the very way we try to cure cancer without stem cells is by radiation and chemotherapy. Every medical treatment has side effects that could or could not be harmful to the host. Cancer.net only describes one boy"s story, while overlooking the other thousands of people who get stem cells implanted. Although there may be some effects that cause people to be harmed or just minor pain, you have to look at all the good that can be done due to stem cells. According to Jim Cohan, there is an infinite possibility of curing diseases and injuries when stem cells are used. According to Jim Cohan, the main reason why people are living longer, healthier lives is due to the very fact that stem cells are being used for treatment. Has there been any other type of medical discovery that can cure spinal cords, heart attacks, burns, or cardiovascular diseases. There may be a few that can cure some of these symptoms, but they cannot cure all of them like stem cells can.
Stem Cell Use

As cancer connect states Using stem cells include radiation and chemotherapy which can cause long term effects such as cataracts which causes the lens of the eyes to become cloudy and blur vision. Or Infertility which means someone cannot have a baby and can also result to new cancers called secondary cancers. Stem cell transplants also weakens the immune system making someone more venerable to infection, the stem cell may even start to attack the host because it does not recognize it, and this is called graft-versus-disease. Cancer.net explains how other effects such as fatigue, mouth sores, and loss of hair, low blood count, rash, nausea and vomiting are common after stem cell use. In fact 4years after a boy went through stem cell therapy he developed abnormal growth in his brain and spinal cord, being operated on and removed doctors noticed it looked like a giloneuronal tumor. Discovering further they discovered the tumor could not have stemmed from his own tissue and was in fact from the stem cell therapy. So you think possible new cancers and harsh side effects are worth it?
Stem Cell Use

Stem cells are good for many medical discoveries, of which benefit people more than ordinary medicine. According to Ian Murnaghan, stem cells can be useful in serious cases of injury or defect, such as Parkinson's disease, type 1 diabetes, arthritis, burn victims, and cardiovascular diseases. In a sense, stem cells reverse the effects of these diseases by being available for use if and when they are needed. According to Murnaghan, stem cells can be the solution to helping the pharmaceutical field, by introducing new "drugs". Stem cells will benefit medical facilities and organizations.
Stem Cell Use

However, even the government says that it violated a 1987 law prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for any research in which a human embryo is destroyed. because the people were against it according to gallop. com the rate of disapproving stem cell use is increasing. As the hasting center also explains For others, who see great promise in what stem cells might do to cure illnesses such as Alzheimer"s disease and Parkinson"s disease, it is immoral not to move forward with such research. is it worth killing human life and allowing your tax pay to go into scientist doing so?
America was justified in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"However, in case of the Japanese islands, I do not believe that attack was the only way to end the war." I never said it was. I said that was the only real logical way to do so. Plus, if we were just like, "Japan, please stop, bros." They would say no."Not only was Japan without a navy," False. Japan had a navy, even one of the strongest ( http://en.wikipedia.org... )"without a sufficient air force". Also not true. ( http://en.wikipedia.org...;) According to this source, the Japanese had the following strengths in their air force: -33,000 personnel -Over 1,600 aircraft (including 1,375 first line combat aircraft). -The aircraft were organized into 85 squadrons; -36 fighter -28 light bomber -22 medium bomber -Total military in 1945 was 6,095,000 including 676,863 Army Air ServiceSeems pretty sufficient to me. "They had few resources," Well, that may be true, but they borrowed and used resources from Germany and Italy. "Before then, it was a fierce debate among the President's advisers." That's the point. It took some SERIOUS consideration. "Russian invasion in Manchuria". Might I add that Japan invaded Manchuria back in 1931?"We sought the unconditional surrender." Not really. Like I quoted before, our plan was to try and get Japan to surrender, then use force if needed."As the Pro said, we were all about attack." I never said that. What I said was that our only logical option was to attack. We were not "all about attack", what Truman, Churchill, and Kai-Shek wanted was for Japan to surrender on peaceful grounds. If that was not available, we would go to Plan B, which was to attack."avoid the deaths of more innocent men, women, and children." You do realize that Japan killed those same innocent people in Pearl Harbor and all the other pointless invasions."promised complete and utter destruction." Facepalm. Did you even read the quote? The quote clearly says, "This ultimatum stated if Japan did not surrender, she would face "prompt and utter destruction." This clearly brings negotiations of surrender as the Plan A, and attacking being the Plan B."Why should they surrender because the enemy promised to kill them?" Double Facepalm."It would have been more reasonable to demonstrate our power to the Japanese before we actually used this on them." We did. There was this whole big thing called, "World War II". And since you say before we actually used this on them, does that mean you believe that it would be okay if we attacked them at a later time? If so, the kind of goes against your case."had asked Japan for a truce and offered the idea of negotiations." We. Did. I'm getting kinda tired of saying that.And about all this secret bomb stuff, please provide a source to prove that case.
America was justified in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I. For the sake of ending a deadly war. Let's first examine the military deaths in WW2. These combined trump the total of deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. WW2 was obviously a war that needed to be ended as quickly as possible. And, by the time America bombed Japan, the two other main powers had been eliminated. Hitler had committed suicide, and Mussolini had been murdered, so the only remaining main axis power was Japan. Since we had to get Japan out of the picture in order to maintain a stronger peace and to finally end the war, we had to make them forfeit the war somehow. The only real logical way was to attack, so we did. Other reasons under this topic will follow this paragraph. My second reason under the above "I" topic is that if we hadn't have attacked Japan, further war would ensue and more lives would be lost. Like I explained above, the main real logical way to end the war was to attack. If we hadn't have attacked, Japan would still continue their efforts in the war. You see, many allied powers were still in power when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. So if we hadn't have attacked, it would basically be Japan vs. The rest of the world. This would obviously cause way more Japanese deaths than the bombings. II. Truman was not the only one who decided to drop the bomb. Everyone blames poor Harry and criticizes him for dropping the bomb. This claim isn't even true. This was a very hard subject to concern and decide, and Truman had help in deciding from the UK's Winston Churchill and China's Chiang Kai-Shek. Truman even had physical help in the bombing by the UK. So to conclude this argument, the risks of dropping the bomb were highly considered and planned, and the leaders of the allies (except for Stalin, and Roosevelt because he was dead at the time) agreed on one point that "This ultimatum stated if Japan did not surrender, she would face "prompt and utter destruction." This statement is a fair choice because of all the conquering, pointless invasions Japan was doing before and during the war. Japan had done many unneccessary things such as bombing Pearl Harbor, and invading many, many other countries. There will be more next round. In the next round, I will take Con's arguments and counter them if I can, and then I shall make further arguments of my own.And Con says that he won't forfeit, so I am excited about this debate.
America was justified in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

For this debate I will be arguing that the USA was justified in bombing Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). First round is for acceptance. I do not hope to offend any people as I argue Pro on this debate, and to prevent any accusations of me being racist, I will just say this: I am not a racist, I never have been, and I never will be. Everyone is created equal.
Medical Healthcare Professionals are Paid Too Much.

You are exactly right. Doctors are not gods and thus should not be treated as such. Many years of education does not create infallibility. Doctors do and will always make mistakes, mistakes that in some cases cause the death of their patient. It is for this reason there is a significant area of law dedicated to doctor accountability. Medical malpractice, tort reform, and the issues surrounding the American legal system do not speak to the absolution that American's grant to doctors simply because they went to school for many years. If a doctor believes that he/she is seeing too many patients, resulting in insufficient care, then it is their duty to refuse to work in such an environment. To continue is a violation of their Hippocratic Oath. Moreover, to maintain the status quo of insufficient care by not speaking out and "conveniently" accepting more pay because of the system is just plain wrong. Changing the problems of speedy, prescription-based, band-aid-type medicine falls solely on doctor's heads. Doctors as individuals, doctors as a lobby, and national doctor's groups such as the AMA should be held accountable among others for a failing system. But why would they speak out? They benefit from this system; they are paid because of it.
Medical Healthcare Professionals are Paid Too Much.

When patients are billed for a service, often times it takes months before the practice sees money from the insurance companies or from the patient and in order to meet costs, must book twice as many appointments for the doctors. There is no way around it and getting highly-paid doctors to work for less or free in the meantime while waiting for a payment is not going to happen. The patients belong directly to the practice! Without the practice, the doctor would have no access to patients and does not have the power to change limit the number of patients they see unless they own their own practice (then we can really talk about malpractice insurance rates!). Money makes the world go 'round when it comes to a practice chock full of physicians. Everyone has worked hard to be where they are and they all want to be paid. This is not to say that they are sacrificing quality, but nothing would ever get done if doctors spent an hour on each patient. Physicians pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money to go towards medical malpractice insurance. People are clammoring to get their hands on this money and jump at the opportunity to sue a physician. There are some things no one fix, not even a doctor; that's life. The liability standard must be set so high so people who are ignorant to the facets of healthcare can't take advantage of the system. Patients have to trust that doctors are doing everything in their power to ensure their well-being. Doctors are well aware of the fact that just because they administer test 1,2,3,4, and 5 they are not going to get a big, juicy paycheck. Most Americans cannot afford these services and are counting on either the hospital to take on these charges, the insurance co. to pay (which could take months), or if they don't have insurance, simply be in debt. The poor health of Americans has little to no correlation with the salaries of doctors. There are many contributing factors, many of which are completely in our control. Doctors are not gods and cannot reverse 30 years of Big Mac damage. Doctors are being paid for their expertise. People are unhappy with doctors visits, but what choice do they have? If you're upset about how much doctors are paid, then go to med school.