BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Japan should be able to have a military and control of Okinawa.

This topic is urgent problem for the U. S. and Japan. As pro points out, the independent nation should have military forces of its own. However, unfortunately, Japanese government is not considering seriously in having military forces of its own. My opinion is that it is impossible for the country to have a military and control of Okinawa. There are number of reasons. Firstly, Japan does not have a highly sophisticated technology to produce military weapons which are equivalent to those of the U. S. Japanese government has spent less money on military build-up since the end of World War Second. As one example, the Military- Industrial complex supporting the U. S. military strength has not been established. Therefore, it is impossible for Japan to surpass the military power of the newly emerging country like China. When the country takes this situation into consideration, it is reasonable to depend on the U. S. military forces stationed in Japan, mainly in Okinawa. Secondly, post-war Japanese Constitution rules that Japan strictly refrains from making war. Therefore, the creation of the military forces is not accepted and admitted by the government. Thirdly, there are few energetic and patriotic younger generation who are well prepared for joining in the military service to protect the country from being attacked by the neighboring countries like China and North Korea. The two countries have a hatred feeling toward Japan. Finally, the presence of U. S. military forces in Japan plays deterrent role toward the enemies. In other words, it can threaten them from the diplomatic point of view. Therefore, Japan needs U. S. military in Okinawa. From above arguments I believe the day when Japan would have military forces of its own will not come forever. It is reasonable for the country to seek for the military assistance from the U. S.
Japan should be able to have a military and control of Okinawa.

Since the end of WWII Japan has not had a military and has been occupied by the U.S. and much has changed. Japan is no longer a dangerous empire but a peaceful nation. Although former Axis countries, Germany and Italy, have been able to keep their right to a military, Japan has not. Japan instead has a weak "Self-Defense" force that has no real power. Okinawa military base is controlled by the Americans and costs the Japanese millions. To add to this there have been incidents of rape and general anarchy when it comes to the U.S. soldiers stationed in the Japan. The Japanese have had uproars when their people get continually harassed and molested and this must stop. It is becoming evident that the U.S. is not as strong economically and cannot protect Japan like it once has. The threat of military action from North Korea or the ever more aggressive China is real. China has up taken up territorial disputes with not only Japan but many other bordering nations like Taiwan. Japan harbors the most populated city in the world, Tokyo, and the safety of those people are at stake. You will see that if Japan were to re-militarize it would: 1. Increase U.S.-Japan relations 2. Alleviate U.S. Responsibilities 3. Allow Japan the rights they deserve as a nation 4. Make the area a safer to possible invaders 5. Help the ailing Japanese economy due to the ability to manufacture arms. 6. Make the U.S. more stable economically and militarily 7. Satisfy Japanese public As you can see, there are many strong reasons that the Japanese should be able to once again have an army. Some would point out Imperial Japan and the actions taken by that empire to negate this topic. The fact of the matter is Japan is a peaceful democracy, not at all resembling what it once was. It is our moral obligation to the Japanese people to return the right to them. Things have changed, and with these new times so does our foreign policy. Please vote in favor of this topic. -Edward Szczepanski
dogeball

When we argue the concept of dodgeball we must think about it nationwide, several years ago in our nation it took place every day in schools across the country. The concern it presents now is that this is an aggressive sport that you aren't penalized for trying to "out" the other player. This raises concerns of bullies being able to take out their aggression on a fellow class mates. Various kids ganging up on one other child can cause them to feel like a target in school.
there are no absolutes

When you said the statement and saw your fingers, you are seeing them regardless of the infinite amount of possibilities of outcomes that could be there destiny. Your existence has been more than 5 seconds, and during those millions and millions of seconds that you have been living and breathing on this planet your fingers have never stopped growing with you. As you stand and breath and work your fingers are decaying and changing. the skin is changing they are coming in contact with new substances and things. To sum up what I am saying, your hands and everything around us is in the everlasting process of changing. It is impossible to pinpoint an exact moment of time when it is or will be in an exact state.
there are no absolutes

Imagine I make a statement. This statement could be, "I have five fingers on my hand". At the exact moment I say it, the statement is locked into place at the time it was spoken. Imagine, five seconds after I say it, I consider the truth value of that statement. Five seconds ago, I said "I have five fingers on my hand", and the statement referred to a point in time that lies five seconds in the past. What I'm saying is, all statements are meaningful only within the context of their uttering. The statement "I have five fingers on my hand", said five seconds ago, was true five seconds ago, and retains its truth because it refers to fingers and a hand that only existed five seconds ago.
there are no absolutes

Absolute (n) viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative. When you look at something you see it for how it is in that hour,minute,second, moment. For example, when staring at our hands we see five fingers. That is absolute, in that hour,minute,second,moment. There is no proof that they will stay the same,absolute forever. In fact, from this moment forward there are an infinite amount of outcomes that could change your five fingers. Your han
Vegetarianism is harmful to the human body, and is wrong

First, I must say that if you are a participant in vegetarianism, that's your choice and I support your act of free will. I will in no way make an attempt to disengage you from your practices. Anyways, on to the debate. To start off, any dietitian will tell you that meat is an essential part of anyone's diet. People are omnivores we eat BOTH meat, and vegetation. Our bodies weren't made to live without meat. It contains a substantial amount of protein which we need to grow (especially us teenagers). Dating back all the way to the first hominid species, we ate meat. And as much of it as we could. Now, I AM against the way some slaughterhouses do away with the lives of animals. But keep in mind...not ALL the meat manufacturers prepare meat this way. I'm not sure which ones do and don't, but it could easily be found out. I imagine it's more the underground companies that can't afford humane methods of slaughtering. Slaughtering isn't humane you say? Well, I agree it isn't when the rip the throat out of a cow, and slam a chicken up against a wall. But if it's just a quick twist of the neck, or an injection, they don't feel a thing. And America is a heavy meat eating country. We love meat, simply stated. There's no way we could just rely on natural occurring deaths of animals to eat, they must be killed according to the demand. That's all I have for my opening statement, I look forward to seeing whomever chooses to take up my debate.
Cohabitation before marriage

So rushing into marriage without living together moving in together than realizing you can't stand each other after awhile but want to give it a shot because you are married thus making the relationship harder which leads to one or both parties becoming unfaithful or having arguments quite often and eventually getting divorced, is that the psychological stuff you are talking about? Cohabitation does not mean you are entering it think oh well if it doesn't work out we'll break up, moving into together is a choice you have made with your partner because you both think you are ready to take the next step in the relationship. Neither party ever thinks ok if this doesn't work out we'll just break up. A lot will stay together even if there are problems because they choose to want to work on it rather than feeling forced to have to work on it because they got married to soon. Moving in together actually requires a lot of responsibility. Also a lot more couples get married after cohabitation together rather than before. Also you are saying that the couples get used to each other living together when they are married which is the exact same thing as moving in together before they get married they feel each other out start getting use to each other around all the time and finding out each others bad habits and then moving past them because they have made that choice because they want it to work rather than feeling forced they have to make it work for the sake of a marriage. In conclusion I am for couples living together before marriage it is a very natural thing for couples to do and the relationship ends up better for it no matter the outcome.
Cohabitation before marriage

If they wish to move in with every partner they have people are more than welcome to do that. Also just because you marry someone doesn't always mean they are your real partner as you say. Everyone is different. But to live together before you get married is a key step in any relationship and will see if you can actually stand living with each other. I have heard many stories of people breaking up after they have moved in together because they couldn't stand living with each other and realized they didn't actually work out together, imagine if they had gotten married first. The second partner doesn't have to solve this problem if in the end they are both happy, you don't have to get married to prove you love someone nor do you have to get married just to live with the other person. Also sex before marriage if that is a real issue for a couple then they are quite likely not truly meant to be with each other and will break up or they will get married if they truly love each other. No guy will marry a woman just to have sex with her. Couples have the right to move in together before marriage and in the end it will always be the better choice than not living together then jumping straight into marriage.
Cohabitation before marriage

If they could not get accustomed to their Habits, if they broke their relationships, they should try with every partner until they find thier real partners? Also, may be one of the partners is happy just living together, without marriage. How the second partner should solve this problem? Also it takes experiment after getting marriage. And the last point, the couple might have religious problems, for instance, if one of them is not going to have sex before marriage. Some religions are very strict about it.
Cohabitation before marriage

You say you can give dozens of examples of young couples breaking up after living together. Well that's a huge shocker that some couples broke up after living together. Cohabitation before marriage is one of the stepping stones to knowing if you should get married. If you don't live together but have been together for awhile and then get married and then move in together then you learn about each others bad habits it will put an instant strain on the marriage. Also a girl is free to live with whoever she wants to live with same with anybody, it's called free will. If you live with your boyfriend or girlfriend before you get married you will learn about each others bad habits you will start getting more in sync with each other and you really get to know each other. Not to mention I can also give a whole lot of examples where couples have lived together first and then got married and everything has been fine.
Are women stupid

"Women are contradictory"Pics or it didnt happen"and emotional roller coasters"There is an old saying that explains why this is. It goes something like this.Women are crazy,And Men are dumb,But the reason women are crazy,Is because men are dumb. So yes women can be emotional, but if you had to deal with men and their stupidity your entire life you would be a train wreck too. "They are also seemingly invincible, because they can bleed for a week and not die."Ok hold on right there. First of all women bleed out of their Vagina's, and thats NORMAL. Do you know what would happen if a guy started bleeding out of his BALLS once a month? HE WOULD HAUL A** TO A HOSPITAL. Women are better then men in that if their private parts are going through hard times, they can take it normally and live on their lives. Men on the other hand freak out when one of their balls is bigger than the other two, or that their boners only last for 5 minutes, or that they cant go to a urinal and pee without spraying it into all 3 stalls, or that it points east or west instead of going straight. Hell men even google the average length of a penis because they freak out about how big it is, you never see women goggle how large the average snatch is because they think theirs is too small do you?I rest my case. (note that the resolution is women are stupid but the Pro has yet to give an argument about anything at all relating to women's brains)
all living things should go to jail

you know what screw this topic lets talk gibberish efhjgvsfewqljhdjwqol jhyg`2p[eof98t534eroguhbckriwpdslckchbmddeajikalwjfgcyeijkldsnvjhfgeiwokdlfjbchgurieowp;sldfmjb ireold;skmjnv,hgerwiaoewqpxclmjkguhrr8032-wq9uiykdfgvjksle;fbgfc'f,dmwjhjeu321iowql';po2ieuhjwf,rfke;poqw0if9bgflkd;p-e08957yug4h3kjrlef;obgi9fu8dihkjen3kml4;rotg0h9'ofpe0322- 3per[of'iguhe3b.jnwf/jvoibfuhew3ji oire9gbuhi'ore3=2pokeifrjugbyreok3lmrnfjguffirole;w,3lmknjwhdskl;'w[ep3oejirf;' \478774 ';juhre3ireu8y7ueg3hui49857648920876t7y8u2iej
Being a solipsist is unreasonable.

8000 character limit.No semantics.First round: acceptance/defintions Basic definitions:1. solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. [1]2. unreasonable: exceeding the bounds of reason [2]Sources:1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Government should be abolished

That said, I will now begin my argument. In this debate, I hope to defend a radical claim, that government is unnecessary and undesirable. First, I must define what a government is. I define government as a geographical monopoly on the legal initiation of force. I define initiation of force as use of force against an individual who has not yet used force against the aggressor. Initiation of force with respect to property is determined by who either produced the good, or in the case of land, put the land to use in some way. I believe that my definition of government is accurate as the government is the only institution which may (on a large scale) initiate force through taxation, laws prohibiting victimless crimes, and it's monopolization of police and courts (as well as many other fields) either de facto through crowding out private competition, or de jure through outright prohibition. With definitions out of the way, I will move on to my positive case against a state. There are two objections commonly brought up by anarchists which I will now put forth. A. Moral Objections In order for the state to exist, it must necessarily tax it's subjects; this is a form of theft, as it involves the forcible involuntary taking of someone's property, aka theft. As theft is generally regarded as immoral, this provides a strong moral argument against government. Furthermore, anarchism is the only system which could reliably permit people to voluntarily abide by any form of governance that they please. This could be done in two major ways. The first is with a homeowner's association, requiring contractual agreement to a political system and certain laws in order to purchase or rent a house there. The second is through private police agencies, which could provide enforcement of certain laws to all who subscribe to their services. B. Practical Objections While the moral argument may be found convincing to many people, others (myself included) would rather focus on the practical consequences of the issue. For these people, there are several pragmatic arguments which I find convincing. The most powerful of which is the fact that government, by definition, is a monopoly; as such, it has misplaced incentives, as the profit motive is not sufficiently present, due to lack of competition. On the other hand, in a market, firms are incentivised to provide the best good or service at the lowest price so as to attract costumers. If government is less efficient in virtually every field you can name, from food to cars to clothing, con must provide an explanation of why fields such as police, law, etc. are exceptions to this rule. Conclusion I hope that I have shown why anarchy, whether one values ethics or practicality, is superior to statism. As such, I believe it follows that government would be abolished in order to achieve the aforementioned values. While many objections might be raised against the above arguments, I hope to respond to any objections that con may raise in the next rounds.
Can and Should Student Be Allowed To Bring Their Devices In The Classroom

For my rebuttal, I will be quoting line by line. "I will say students can bring their cell phones to school, but not in the classroom, if they are given permission to." When a student is bringing their device to school but does not bring it in to the classroom, what purpose does the device serve? The resources present on the phone are being wasted. "I choose no because today there are debates if students should bring it to school or not, but this majors mostly on classroom and learning topics since a lot say that students get distracted by devices or they can't learn by this or that with device in their possession. " Why is it that a cell phone would prevent the learning process from happening? As I see it, a phone is a catalyst rather than a deterrent. I would also like to take a look at the wording used: "they CAN'T" Can't is a contraction for cannot which is suggesting that the students lose the capacity to learn because of the possession of a phone. This is a major stretch of the truth. The possession of a phone is quite the opposite and would allow the students to research information which they cannot recollect in order to allow the student to learn the information and prevent them from falling behind. "I am saying that they can't bring in in the classroom, and they can just put in their locker until they are able to get it, and schools should tell students if they have an emergency use the phone in the school office if they need to call someone or their parents, or if they forgot their homework, project, or their stuff, come prepared, especially in high school, cause no one has chances." 1) Until it is proven that phones are a detriment to the learning environment, placing phones in a locker is a serious waste of materials which could have applications in the classroom. 2) If there is an emergency, students with phones can use a text message through their cell phones to allow rapid communication without the need to leave the class or disrupt the class in any way. 3) The occasions of homework, missing projects, or missing materials is mostly irrelevant with the exception of materials. Say for example, and English student forgets their textbooks and instead pulls up the Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet on their phone. The phone has allowed the student to supplement their phone for the missing materials in question and has proven the cell phone to be an asset to the school.
Can and Should Student Be Allowed To Bring Their Devices In The Classroom

I can see your argument being true ,but I'm still against students bringing devices in the classrooms because with taking pictures and taking notes they can ask a classmate or teacher to email them it or just write it on paper ( except for students that have disabilities with eyesight or can't be able to right ) because there should be no problem righting down notes with pencil or paper but you do make a point there. As for my argument I'm still (against) it because devices distract students from working or try hiding it when teacher or staff is not looking towards them. Most likely students can't search information anyhow from school wifi because not everyone can or doesn't know how to get the IP address or password to use it so it will be difficult for them to go on the Internet. If there is computers already provided in the classroom they can use those or be sent to the school library to search up their information cause you can you that instead of a phone or device.
Can and Should Student Be Allowed To Bring Their Devices In The Classroom

This is my first debate, so please forgive any errors the procedure. For my opening statements, I would like to explain the potential benefits which having a cellular device in the classroom could have. The primary benefit is information access. This time is referred to as the information age for a reason, the information is out there. What we need to learn is how to use it. The phone in the student's pocket has access to more information that 1000 textbooks, but the students need to learn how to process and use the information within. By having the phone with them and having more exposure to the information, in theory, students can have better information literacy. The utility of the phone is also very helpful in the classroom. Students can take pictures of notes and assignments to remember them and contact their teachers to assistance. I have seen several occasions where teachers post an assignment on the board for students to write down and watched students with phones taking pictures of it to remember it. Phones are are valuable resource which our students need to practice its use.
Can and Should Student Be Allowed To Bring Their Devices In The Classroom

I will say students can bring their cell phones to school, but not in the classroom, if they are given permission to. I choose no because today there are debates if students should bring it to school or not, but this majors mostly on classroom and learning topics since alot say that students get distracted by devices or they can't learn by this or that with device in their possession. I am saying that they can't bring in in the classroom, and they can just put in their locker until they are able to get it, and schools should tell students if they have an emergency use the phone in the school office if they need to call someone or their parents, or if they forgot their homework, project, or their stuff, come prepared, especially in high school, cause no one has chances.
Omniscience and omnipotence

When speaking of Omniscience and Omnipotence, we had best stick to deities. Human behaviors have no place in such an argument, lest we fall back into the old idea that just because one has knowledge of an event, that does not means one causes the event". That works for humans but not for gods, especially omniscient and omnipotent gods who are the "Authors of all things". For that reason alone, Omniscience implies Predestination, tho we need not debate Predestination here. But what does benevolence have to do with either Omniscience or Omnipotence? Could not an Omniscient or Omnipotent god just as easily be a bad guy as a good guy? In the old days, most gods were considered nasty beings and required sacrifices to keep them at bay.