BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The bombings at pearl harbor were justified.

-.- I was hoping for an actually good debate, but I guess I'm out of luck. Oh, and feel free to deduct conduct for saying that. I could care less at this point. His first point relies entirely on his second point being true, since if I prove it was our place to assist then by his arguments, we weren't being belligerant. So, his argument is that it wasn't our place to do anything because of the neutrality policy, and not following the Monroe Doctrine. 1. Placing the embargo was within the neutrality policy, as an embargo is not an act of war. Thus, we were still within our neutral bounds. 2. You don't respond at all to the fact that since China is our ally, we become obligated to assist and protec them when they are in need. Both of these reasons show why it was our place. 3. I'm sorry, but what the heck does the Monroe Doctrine have to do with anything involving Japan? What the Monroe Doctrine is about is the US threatening military action back in the 1800's against Eastern powers who were looking to colonize South America and Cuba. This literally has nothing to do with Japan. Since I'm proving it was our place to assist China, it proves that the Embargo on oil was justified, thus making the bombing of Pearl Harbor not justified.
The bombings at pearl harbor were justified.

"First of all i am not a she i demand a apology," I'm sorry? Your icon kind of looks like a girl... Just saying. "second of all this may have been true but the Japanese may of only had enough for war machines." Exactly my point. Without oil for their war machine in China, they would've had to stop killing innocent civilians. "the US was being belligerent towards Japan while it wasn't their place." 1. How were they being belligerent? 2. How is it not our place to assist an ally? China was our ally (they had yet to turn Communist at this point, and we were still friends with them), thus giving us an obligation to assist them. 3. Even if we weren't allies, how is it not our place to try to save lives that would otherwise end? "it said in the source that embargo meant war." 1. What source? 2. The embargo wasn't an act of war. The embargo was the US's action to attempt to force the Japanese to stop advancing into China, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians along the way. It was an attempt to PREVENT and STOP war, not start it. Bombing Pearl Harbor, however, WAS an act of war, and was what caused us to enter the war in the first place. "It is really none of our business what Japan does to China or any other nation." Okay, I'm sorry, but this is just ignorant. Refer to points two and three above, as this argument is basically the same as the one when he said "it wasn't their place." My opponent's third round, line for line, has been refuted. My arguments can clearly be extended. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was not justified in any way.
The bombings at pearl harbor were justified.

I will note that my opponent has the BOP. Let's rebut my opponent's really bad argument. My opponent's only argument was that the Japanese were out of options because of the embargo on oil. This is false. Even with the embargo, the Japanese still had the oil to operate their war machine for two years(1), which would've been plenty of time for the Japanese to attack, acquire, and fortify the oilfields that the US owned in the Philipines(1). This would've given the Japanese with the oil they need to continue their conquest of Indo-China(1). Also, I'd love to see where she found that FDR had declared war on Japan before Pearl Harbor, since it wasn't in her source. Moreover, the Japanese did not do what they did in hope that the US would lift the embargo. The Japanese planned Pearl Harbor as a pre-emotive strike against the US so that the Japanese could better control the Pacific(1) so that their push into China would go uninterrupted. With her scant paragraph refuted, I shall move to an argument of my own that will probably be a talking point in this debate. The oil embargo against Japan was a justified measure to stop the Japanese's brutal push into China. The oil we were sending to Japan was fueling the same machine that was butchering hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians. Specific instances of this was like the Rape of Nanking(2), where officers had competitions on how many people they could decapitate with a sword(2) and a total of 250,000 to 300,000 civilians were murdered(2). Without oil, they would eventually have to stop operations there, thus sparing lives. This impacts te debate because my opponent is trying to claim that because of the American embargo on oil to japan, the Japanese were justified in bombing us. But this is false because the embargo was justified to stop Japanese war crimes. So the debate breaks down really simply. My opponent has the burden of proof to show why the bombing of pearl harbor was justified. This isn't being done at all. So you vote con. Sources: (1) - http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (2) - http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
The bombings at pearl harbor were justified.

The Japanese were left with no choice If they had no choice it was justified therefore pearl harbor was justified The Japanese were left with no choice. The Americans were being very belligerent towards Japan. First was the oil embargo. Te Americans striped the Japanese of almost everything. they were left with nothing. They had he idea that it might make the Americans change their ways. FDR already declared war on the Japanese. The west were being hypocrites by being shocked at their own behavior. http://www.theamericancause.org...
Morality doesn't come from a god

I welcome my opponent to debating morality. I would argue theirs no objective morality in practical terms. I do believe in genetically predisposed traits passed on by our ancestors in which we instinctively believe to be morally correct. People have very different morals. I like comparing western civilization to eastern civilization. I believe morality is a by-product of culture and specific gains. Morality comes from where someone's socialized, the culture they grow up in and their experiences. I would even argue theirs an evolutionary process with morality. Overall, I would argue the best morality is a secular morality. Someone (even if their Christian) can have a secular morality.
JJ Abrams is a bad director

"The critics who review movies are people whose careers go entirely into analyzing movies and judging whether they are good films or not to general audiences.... To dismiss every critic who likes a JJ Abrams as an idiot while assuming only smart people dont like JJ Abrams's movies is such a bad argument that ironically, it makes YOU look like the idiot...."In case you didn't get it, I was talking about user reviews, not critic reviews."Now youre just whining."Nope, telling the truth, I gave 2 good arguments:1) his annoying shaky camera2) his annoying lens flareThese are facts, valid arguments, not whining. I see you just respond to my 2 valid arguments with an insult (you say that I'm whining), without giving any valid arguments yourself to counter my 2 valid arguments, which are real facts, no way to deny them. "Pro's borderline idiotic arguments are completely entrenched in his own warped bias against JJ Abrams and not grounded in any sort of reality whatsoever. Any professional movie critic who approves of JJ Abrams' movies is automatically branded as an 'idiot' according to con, and according to him, anyone who isnt as good of a director as Christopher Nolan must therefore be a terrible director, which does not make any logical sense whatsoever." Whoa, now you call me an idiot and my arguments idiotic? Lol I never called you an idiot before. This is how you debate? By insulting your opponent out of nowhere? How mature of you. Not. I didn't call you an idiot before, but you called me so maybe you are the idiot. I was talking about idiots in general who like JJ Abrams. Maybe you've automatically included yourself in that category, not me.You are wrong. I never talked about the critics. Can't you read english properly? I was talking about user reviews!Also, your profile pic is from the terrible movie Pirates of the Caribbean? Really? How old are you? Wow. That shows your intellectual level or lack of. That movie is complete plagiarism. It just copies left and right entire scenes, characters, etc. from Monkey Island (1990). Even Ron Gilbert knows this. It has nothing original. Shame on the directors, to just ripoff in a cheap way a great original videogame and try to fool younger generations who don't know Monkey Island into thinking POTC is original when it's not.There are many videos that expose the cheap ripoff, here are 2 blatant ones. I despise this kind of plagiarism.https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...;I'm new to debates.org, I didn't know this site well. But now I see people actually post big posts on here. So, I don't care if I lose this debate, I know when I say JJ Abrams is bad, it's just my personal opinion, there is no evidence to back this claim. Just like there is no evidence to prove the majority of the population are not intellectual, but are dumb idiots like JJ Abrams who like his shallow, empty movies, without a story, without heart and without a soul. Few people will probably be intellectual enough to realize I'm right.
JJ Abrams is a bad director

1) Critic Ratings and Income"it doesn't mean anything because the majority of the people on those statistics are idiots like JJ Abrams. "The critics who review movies are people whose careers go entirely into analyzing movies and judging whether they are good films or not to general audiences. .. . To dismiss every critic who likes a JJ Abrams as an idiot while assuming only smart people dont like JJ Abrams's movies is such a bad argument that ironically, it makes YOU look like the idiot. .. . "His movies are still bad, have no soul, no heart, no story, irritating shaky camera, he abuses lens flare so much that it gives me vomits. Complete shallow idiotic dumb moronic garbage"Now youre just whining. "While all of Nolan's movies have a rating higher than 8, almost all JJ Abrams' movies have ratings lower than 8"Not being as good as of a director Christopher Nolan doesn't mean that they must therefore be a terrible director though, it just means that they are not as great of a director as Christopher Nolan. You can still be a great director but not be as great as Christopher Nolan. Pro's borderline idiotic arguments are completely entrenched in his own warped bias against JJ Abrams and not grounded in any sort of reality whatsoever. Any professional movie critic who approves of JJ Abrams' movies is automatically branded as an 'idiot' according to con, and according to him, anyone who isnt as good of a director as Christopher Nolan must therefore be a terrible director, which does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
JJ Abrams is a bad director

Super 8, another very unoriginal movie, he just copied the classic E.T. How moronic. If 1 idiot (JJ Abrams) directs idiotic movies in a country of say 1000 people and 950 of those people are complete idiots who will still watch his crap, only 50 people are intelligent, intelectual and have good taste in movies... Sure you can mention box office, money, ratings, but it doesn't mean anything because the majority of the people on those statistics are idiots like JJ Abrams. His movies are still bad, have no soul, no heart, no story, irritating shaky camera, he abuses lens flare so much that it gives me vomits. Complete shallow idiotic dumb moronic garbage. Of course, the 950 idiots will watch and like his garbage. Also, I never use Rotten Tomatoes or Meta Critic. I use IMDB to check ratings, Super 8 is a mere 7,1, Mission Impossible 3 just 6,9 rating. Very poor ratings to consider someone a great director. Compare those poor ratings to a great director like Christopher Nolan. All of his movies are way above the rating 8. The Dark Knight got the rating of 9! No JJ Abrams movie got a 9. BOOYAH! Nolan's movies (IMDB ratings): Memento 8,5 Batman Begins 8,3 The Prestige 8,5 The Dark Knight 9 Inception 8,8 The Dark Knight Rises 8.5 Interstellar 8,6 JJ Abrams' movies (IMDB rating): Mission Impossible III 6,9 Star Trek 8,0 Super 8 (cheap copy of E.T.) 7,1 Star Trek Into Darkness 7,8 Star Wars: The Force Awakens 8,6 (I hope this misleading rating will drop a lot during the next months) The comparison is obvious. While all of Nolan's movies have a rating higher than 8, almost all JJ Abrams' movies have ratings lower than 8... One of them even lower than 7. I rest my case.
JJ Abrams is a bad director

Just look at his Star Trek reboots And his poor, unoriginal Star Wars The Force Awakens. JJ Abrams' movies have no heart and no soul. Not to mention his irritating shaking camera technique that give me nausea, and his irritating lens flare. Enough already, Jim. Grow up. Start making movies with actual content, instead of hollow dumb movies full of irritating lens flare and shaky camera.
Rationalism (Pro) vs. Empiricism (Con)

I thank sengejuri for his (her) argument, but I am little disappointed. The argument is just negating Rationalism, rather than making positive case for Empiricism.1. Without a basis of subject area you cannot have the subject area. Science, technology and engineering (hereby, STE) are all dependent upon mathematics (also, logic), without mathematics there wouldn't be any STE. 2. Humans being irrational doesn't make Rationalism false. I can use same argument for science (Humans are not completely scientifically literate, therefore........).3. Observations and tests are also can be wrong. 4. There was no empirical evidence in Con's argument for Empiricism. Actually, it was a rational argument.Since there was not much things to rebut, my argument is short.
Rationalism (Pro) vs. Empiricism (Con)

Thanks for opening the debate. I will begin with my opening arguments and save rebuttals for the next round. I believe Empiricism is the primary source of knowledge for 3 reasons: 1. Many disciplines cannot be understood through intuition alone. Yes, mathematics can be, but that is only one subject area. Disciplines such as medicine, human anatomy, biology, archeology, history, geography, meteorology, oceanography, demographics, language, psychology, etc, etc... require vast amounts of evidence and sensory analysis to learn. I submit that when the total knowledge of these subjects is compared to mathematics, we see more evidence for empiricism than rationalism. 2. Humans are not completely rational beings. As such, the most important subject - human interaction and human nature - cannot be understood or predicted through pure intuition. As an example, if humans were completely rational beings then the chronic gambler facing financial destruction would simply remove the harmful behavior and stop gambling. However, we know this does not happen because humans are also driven by emotion, instinct, and culture. In this scenario, the gambler would likely pursue the non-rational behavior of going deeper in debt. When it comes to fellow humans, sensory experience and evidence usually serves as a better predictor of how people will act, rather than pure reason. 3. Reason can be wrong or incomplete. Humans can make great leaps in knowledge through intuition, yet there is no guarantee that such theories are correct until they are tested through Empiricism. Even the most brilliant minds sometimes fail to see hidden inconsistencies or unforeseen variables. For example, Albert Einstein embraced the theory of a static universe based on assumptions he thought were correct. However, empirical evidence eventually showed that those assumptions were incorrect, and the universe is actually expanding. Because humans are imperfect, we must accept that human intuition is also inherently imperfect and therefore cannot be a completely reliable source of knowledge.
Rationalism (Pro) vs. Empiricism (Con)

Rationalism is a methodology, in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive[1], such as, "some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions"[2]. The best examples of this thesis are mathematical and logical truths. The basic mathematical and logical truths are known by intuition, knowledge a priori, and other truths can be deduced from these truths. Also we have innate knowledge about some truths, such as morality, we cannot sense of what right and wrong are with our five senses. Other innate knowledge is The Law of Non-Contradiction[3],basically it means two contradictory propositions cannot be true at the same time. For example a person cannot be both mortal and immortal, they are mutually exclusive. The problem of empiricism, which is in favor of rationalism, is that we cannot verify empiricism[4]. If our experiences tell us about the nature of reality, then how can we ever check our experience with what reality really is, in order to know that? The answer is (with current knowledge we have) never, so we have to rely on reason. Poverty of the stimulus is the assertion that natural language grammar is unlearnable given the relatively limited data available to children learning a language, and therefore that this knowledge is supplemented with some sort of innate linguistic capacity[5]. Example, children start to understand the grammatical rules before they even know what noun or verb is. There are some propositions which favors empiricism,but in fact they are wrong. First is empiricism is simpler than rationalism, therefore using Ockham's razor we should choose empiricism. But may be it is not simpler but incomplete, also the empirical method is greatly dependent on innate knowledge, such as mathematical and logical truths. We cannot have science without mathematics, - true statement which cannot be proven empirically. Second is all rationalists do not agree about Innate Knowledge. People did and will have different interpretations about knowledge, how to gain knowledge and etc. ,but it doesn't make it wrong. People having different ideas about what punishent serial killer should get, doesn't mean serial killer can go without any punishment. Sources:[1] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - . http://plato.stanford.edu...[3] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] - www. mesacc. edu/~davpy35701/text/empm-v-ratm. html[5] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...[*] - . http://en.wikipedia.org...
No opinion, rather not say.

Ok, it's not that deep.I left the characteristics blank because I want to focus on the issues. We live in a world of prejudiced and closed minded people. Many are so petty, they let a debater's opinion on a particular issue sway their judgment. The self-crowned laureates and veterans on this site already treat it like it's an elitist country club or gated community. How is a knee jerk response relevant? One of the main problems today is people let their beliefs hinder open communication.
No opinion, rather not say.

The fact is that all these supposed future statesmen, cutting their baby teeth here in the world of debating, are not one bit prepared to actually come out of the closet and state their opinions, as in voting on the big issues or by some sort of self description. Vote on the issues if you wish to debate, not hid behind an anonymous visage, unless you are afraid of stating your opinion openly. This site is rife with future lobbyists. Begin your argument please........
The rich not giving away money is acceptable.

Of course any old hobo wouldn't be running these buisnesses. There are many poor educated people in america. And why couldn't a poor person run a buisness as well as a rich person. Ah, my opponent says that rich people are generallu more "educated". There are many people at the heads of buisnesses who havn't been "educated" or have buisness degree's. Here are a few who were in fact COLLEGE DROP OUTS: 1) Bill Gates-founder of Microsoft 2) Michael Dell-founder of Dell Computers 3) Steve Jobs-co-founder of Apple Computers 4) Steve Wozniak-co-founder of Apple Computers 5) David Geffen-co-founder of Dreamworks, SKG 6) Larry Ellison-founder of the database company Oracle 7) William Hanna-of the cartoon producers Hanna-Barbera 8) Sheldon Adelson-real estate and casino owner 9) Jack Taylor-Enterprise Rent-A-Car Source: . http://www.helium.com... These people were not fully educated, they dropped out of college. So according to my opponents logic, they should not have become the great buisnessmen they are today. "Spreading the weath a little more equally" is not communism in a fancy way. I really don't see where communism comes into this now. I'm not trying to become a dictator or anything. .. or am I. .. .? ??
The rich not giving away money is acceptable.

My oponent states that "we" could take over the rich's business. However if any of the people who are going to take over the rich's place as head of the business then wouldn't they have a suceseful business already. I don't know about you but I dont want any old hobo on the street running the economy of America. Here is the thing about the rich. Most of them are educated. Heres the thing about homeless people, they are generally not well educated. Also when my openent talks about "spreding around the wealth", she is just saying Comunism in a fancy way.
The rich not giving away money is acceptable.

My opponent has based his argument on the fact that if we overturned the rich, their money would simply dissapear. America does not need the rich to survive, in fact it only need their MONEY to survive. And by overturning them WE could take over their buisnesses, so they would not fail. The wealth of the rich would be spread out a bit more equally, therefore removing the people on welfare, meaning less taxes would be spent on welfare, therefore improving the economy and showing that overturning the rich IS an option
The rich not giving away money is acceptable.

Without the rich the country woiuld colapse, and many leadrs in the world agree that America is the leader of the free world. So you could say that the fre world would colapse without America. How would America fall apart? Simple. The top ten percent of America pays over 50% of the taxes in America. How? Because thery have more money to tax of cource. If you started a rebellion and overturned the rich by I dont know killing them I guess America would lose 50% of its money paying for those unproductive people to be on welfare. The rich have to be productive (to make them rich)so if you "overturn them busnesses would fail, meaning product prices would go up causing the poor to die from hunger esier. So overturning the rich is not an option. My openents only argument is that this would happen if the rich did not give away their money. I feel that I have disproved this argument about a rebbellion agiast the "bourgeois".
The rich not giving away money is acceptable.

Of course the rich have to give away their money to be socially acceptable. They must do this in order to survive. Already at this very moment a new revelution is being planned (headed by myself of course) to overturn the rich. The modern form of bourgeois are going to be slaughtered in their thousands unless they share part of their wealth. "Why should they have hand it out to every unproductive homeless person on the street or to charities to be considered a good person? " Because they'll DIE thats why! "By with holding money the rich would be doing a service by elimantating the people on welfare, by forcing them to get a job and contribute to society" Clearly not, their simply making the people on welfare become exceptionally grumpy and they will eventually rise up against the rich and their hard earned cash. They'll riot and the destruction will be devastating. These riots will send America into an even greater depression then the last one.