BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Japan shouldn't have passed it's new bill (for SDF)

Abortion is not the topic of debate here. I of course wish we could still have a respectful and engaging debate. So, the first problem is domestic. Japan have survived for 70 years without a military that is allowed to fight overseas. In fact, the SDF is unconstitutional to begin with. The common narrative as to the reason for this bill is to battle 'potential threats' from China, Russia, and North Korea. However, if you think about it, battling 'potential threats' in these country is basically an invasion. If any of these countries are actually going to attack japan, the SDF has perfect constitutional right to defend itself. The narrative for this new law is completely invalid. However, there is a true and reasonable reason behind this law. Japan have always received military protection from the US. The US, however, does not have as much incentive in using Japan to counter-balance China's influence of the area as before. The US, then, have continued to pressure Japan to develop it's own military. To edit Article 9. Why so? Japan is already a great US ally. If it has a well developed military, then it would be another powerful ally. Then what? Well, what US needs most right now is someone who can fight in Syria, Iran, and iraq hand in hand with the US. With a already well developed naval force, 2 (possible) aircraft carriers, and a strong infantry (regulars) unit. Japan has an unbelievably advanced military. It could also be an important force to project power in Asia. The US policy in these countries, however, is really flawed. Look what they did in the middle east that got their own ambassador killed! Libya, Bangladesh, it's a mess. and it's tragic what have happened. The US always finds someone to blame, and somehow our attention is always diverted from what the US is doing. Arming the rebels? The 'moderates'? The moderates get paid. They work for whoever pays them more. Now, the US is arming them, the US can't ask for the weapons back. Then what? A lot of them are already working for ISIS. ISIS already has so many US made artillery? I wonder why? If US's policy is already flawed, what will happen if Japan, currently not involved in this war, was to fight there! Hell, Japanese people will be killed. The only difference is, Japan doesn't even have a proper anti-terror unit! It doesn't even really have it's own intelligence unit! Japan is so vulnerable to terrorism. Most of the police force aren't armed, and are not trained to deal with terrorism. Japan would be doing the most unimaginable thing. Which will lead to the most unpredictable consequence. and we have been shown time and time again that Japan isn't prepared for unpredictable consequences. How did Japan respond to Fukushima? Frankly, Japan is so much of a bureaucracy, too stubborn to take such a risk.
Japan shouldn't have passed it's new bill (for SDF)

This is a speed debate, each argument only has 30 minutes. The general rules are 1, no trolling 2, no need to cite sources UNLESS told to do so in the comments section 3, just be nice, be debate-like. I believe that 1, the self defence force should not be allowed to operate outside of it's country, 2, the current official narrative for passing the bill is not valid, and 3, Japan is eventually going to cause harm on itself due to this bill. Please note that I am looking for a debate with more discussion than sources, more informal than formal. Please list your own thinking. Thank you!
creation or science

I'm not concerned whether or not there is a god. You're the one who created this debate, and you have failed to argue effectively (or even attempt) to debunk ANY of my arguments. When somebody dies, its probably much like before when you were born- nothingness. Moral is a standard created by society and based on evolution partially as well. Hundreds of years ago, slaughtering people in public was 'moral', as was the genocide of several civilizations (i.e, the aztecs). Humans care about our friendship groups and family instinctively like any other animal. Moral doesn't need to be created by a greater figure. Humans 'took that first piece of food' because it is an evolutionary instinct to eat. My opponent has failed to debunk any of my arguments, provide certifiable proof that a god exists and hasn't cited any of his sources. He hasn't researched any of his findings, ignored virtually every piece of evidence I've given him and seems to cling onto the belief that there must be a god behind all of this even when I have thoroughly debunked his claims. I must ask you pro, why you seem to cling so strongly to the belief that there must be a god and don't believe in science when science is all around you. Formulas, evolution, the universe- we have evidence behind a lot of it, and we're learning more and more every single day and finding new evidence as to why a god doesn't need to exist, to control our lives or create what we call our home. The bible was written by people who didn't know better then we do nowadays, and its time people opened their eyes and saw that.
creation or science

I think why people created the fictional reality of science but I leave you with this. I still stand strong in my faith and why are you so concerned about proving that there is not a god or is it somthing more, are you scared to except the fact there is a force that no one can stop, a force that controls our fate. And one more thing if the world was created by science, tell me this what happens to sombody when they die. And I know I keep saying "and one more thing" but I relized on a much deaper point. What created moral? and before you resort to the bill nye concept of group image think about this lets say you and me were the first viable humans, and you had a peace of food and I took it, there was no group image of right and wrong therefore neither of had any kind of feelings, so there could not possibly be a presence of science known as evelution, it had to be the work of a divine creator. And that is my final argument
creation or science

I didn't say evolution took billions of years. I said that the universe took billions of years, INCLUDING evolution. Earth itself has only existed for 4.54 billion years out of the 13 billion that the universe has existed for, and life only about 3.8 billion years ago. Water formed on earth at about the same time. Now, please cite your sources. Where did you get the information that the ocean gains 500-700 pounds of salt a year exactly? Because I did a quick search and I can't find anything on it. If it is true, the ocean still wouldn't 'be completely made of salt'. That is ridiculous. Quite a bit of the salt in the ocean is probably removed from evaporation or spread out so much across the ocean that it wouldn't make a difference at all. There is as much as 321,003,271 cubic MILES of water in our oceans- to that amount, as well as with the amount of salt that is most likely removed from the ocean each year, it is doubtful that 500-700 pounds of salt would even make much of a difference. Even though you claim that you believe a god used science to shape our world, that wouldn't account for all the biblical contradictions and evidence on this earth that disproves a god, but I'll argue that in the next round. http://www.palomar.edu... https://www.google.com.au... http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...
creation or science

The big bang theory is just a theory. Even then, you have it all wrong. The big bang theory does not imply that 'chemicals squished together' in under 10 seconds. The big bang is said to be an expansion caused by a singularity of some kind, causing the expansion of our universe. The formation of the planets and elements was an incredibly slow process, which you must understand- hydrogen and helium were said to be present at the time of the big bang. These elements formed stars, which formed elements over generations and generations and the explosions of these stars shed the elements all over the universe. Eventually, these elements created planets, some of which evolved life. We have solid evidence that all of this took place over billions and billions of years. There is science behind why the universe only started off with helium and hydrogen as well, which you can find here: http://scienceblogs.com... https://www.google.com.au... http://www.big-bang-theory.com... Now, as for what created the singularity? I don't know. No scientist knows. However, the same argument can be said for Christians. Now that I've explained what created our universe, according to the large majority of scientists, please inform me: what created god? And don't say 'he was always there', because couldn't that be said for my side as well? You must provide proof also.
creation or science

Ok so my first argument is going to be on the beginning. So scientists say that the universe was formed by some chemicals that just happened to squish together and in under 10 seconds create things like the the sun, the gravitational pull, all of the solar systems, do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds. Now lets say that some how all that I have previously said is true, that all of those outrageous things have happed what created the chemicals?
voting should be compulsary

Thank you for your response. My opponent has answered neither of my arguments in favour of compulsory voting. All she has done is answered *some* of my rebuttals to her arguments. 'It is proven that this does not work and many randomly select a candidate' Huh? My opponent says it is proven, but then provides no proof! This statement should be discarded-my point stands. 'I agree so what is the point of making it compulsory if there are people going to spoil their ballot card?' Why would people spoil their ballot if there is a 'no suitable candidate' box? Besides, even if it were the case that some people would refuse to vote in protest, I don't see why any majority of people would do so. The burden of proof is on you to show this. 'A rebuttle it is not that it offers a better result it is the fact that they are more established with more followers and have more faithful citizens voting and voting should be fair that is the whole point of a democracy' The point of democracy is that elections best reflect the will of the people. If that is unfair to a few parties, then that's unfortunate, but a price worth paying. 'Also "One of the devious reasons for making voting compulsory lies in the fact that a new reformed House of Lords may be elected by proportional representation."' For the record, my opponent copied her argument from here: http://www.facebook.com... -not the link she cited. This is an ad-hominem attack- the motives of people campaigning to make voting compulsory have nothing to do with the merits of the proposition itself. Since that is all my opponent has given me, I await her last round.
voting should be compulsary

I thank my oponent for his quick response! A few rebuttles first: 'by putting a 'no suitable candidate' box at the top' It is proven that this does not work and many randomly select a cadidate ie - the first cadidate on the ballot therefore it is unfair and is not very democratic as it is forcing people to vote against their own will. 'Whatever measures the government takes, there will still be substantial portion of the population that does not vote.' I agree so what is the point of making it compulsary if there are people going to spoil their ballot card? There is no point of making voting compulsary if there is no effect. 'This is unfortunate. However, the fact remains that the end result would better reflect the thoughts of the country as a whole.' A rebuttle it is not that it offers a better result it is the fact that they are more established with more followers and have more faithful citizens voting and voting should be fair that is the whole point of a democracy. Also "One of the devious reasons for making voting compulsory lies in the fact that a new reformed House of Lords may be elected by proportional representation." http://en.wikipedia.org... ( sorry for not referencing before). Awaiting your response.
voting should be compulsary

Thank you for your response! Sorry about the confussion - i put it under politics but did not specify in the debate title! =/ Adding to my argument there is now the 'donkey vote' especially in Australia where voting is compulsary. It is done by normally voting the first few names and is normally around 1-2% of votes which could make a difference which gives certain advantages to parties which could find candidates winning due to there position on the ballot paper. 'making voting compulsory would mean broader, more accurate' I totally disagree because of donkey votes and spoiling ballots making voting less accurate and therefore unfair and the totally opposite of what is actually wanted. Also , 1. It is a limit on freedom. The right to vote contains the right to not vote. 2. A higher voter turnout cannot be said to heighten the legitimacy of a government when the voters have been forced into giving their support. If the will of the voters to stay at home, it has a right to be reflected. 3. Making voting compulsary hides the problem rather than solving it. Allowing parliament to ignore important measures that would do something to get people to vote. 4. People forced to vote will vote against the people making them vote. 5, It would be unfair for minor - new parties and independents whos supporters are not so big as the established parties as incentives for votes for political parties will be removed .
voting should be compulsary

'Sorry, i did not specify beforehand my situation concerning politics and general elections. ' It's nice that you apologise. However, creating a debate in which you posit an unreasonable position for your opponent to uphold, and then expecting them to attack it head on is just silly. Having said that, definitions can only be challenged in the first two rounds, so I'm afraid you're stuck with it :P. 'As stated in the definition of voting - voting is a choice' My opponent misunderstands the definition. The definition does not state that voting is a choice, but that voting is a system designed to MAKE a choice. The definition has no bearing at all on whether voting is compulsory or not. 'Voting should be made compulsory when life or death situation' Voters take note. My opponent has conceded the entire argument in my first round - namely that there are, indeed, situations in which voting should be made compulsory. As this point in my post, the situation stands like this; 1. In the two scenarios I have presented, we both agree voting should be made compulsory. 2. In the one scenario that my opponent presents, namely general elections, voting should not be made compulsory. At this point, the argument stands 2-1 in my favour. However, I will now contest my opponent's case against compulsory voting for general elections. From her first round; *voting should not be compulsory as it is not a civic duty but a civil right* A: Some civil rights ARE compulsory. Take, for instance, the Rights of the Accused [1]. In the situation a person is arrested, they cannot deny, for instance, the right to be Innocent Until Proven Guilty. That makes it compulsory. *Making voting compulsory can be seen to infringe basic rights of freedom of citizens* A: My opponent gives the example of Jehovah's Witnesses, claiming that do make them vote would violate their religious freedom. However, consider the implications of this. By this logic, we should not deny the right of radical Muslim's suicide bombing because it infringes their 'religious freedom'. Clearly, violating religious freedom is not enough to decide something. *Also there is random votes if people are made to vote * A: This is a possibility. However, it may also force more people who would otherwise have just ignored the issues to really consider their views and vote accordingly. My opponent essentially repeats these arguments in her seconds round. -- Argument in favour of compulsory voting in general elections -- If everyone were forced to vote, we would get a more accurate consensus over what the people of the country really want. At the moment, only the percentage of the population who feel it is their obligation to vote for their party, or who are very interested in the politics of the country vote. However, making voting compulsory would mean broader, more accurate results that really represent the whole country. [1] . http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com...
voting should be compulsary

Sorry, i did not specify beforehand my situation concerning politics and general elections. As stated in the definition of voting - voting is a choice and no one should be forced to vote in general elections if they do not want to because in australia it is seen that many people either spoil there ballot paper or vote for a random party which is not the whole idea of this all. Also making voting compulsary is not a freedom of speech because with freedom of speech comes freedom not to speak therefore forcing someone to vote is not their own choice! Voting should be made compulsary when life or death situation but how about politically? where many people do not hold an opinion and also others are not affected by it? When elections come many people do not care and i believe they should have freedom to vote and freedom not to vote .
voting should be compulsary

First, definitions; Voting: 'a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative' [1] Compulsory: 'Obligatory; required' [2] My opponent's case, while superficially plausible, does not stand up to observation. The resolution, as stated, does not address the circumstances surrounding the 'voting'. I affirm, therefore, that voting should be made compulsory in the following circumstances; 1. Three people are on a boat, lost at sea. All three of them are about to die of starvation, but there is only enough food for two to survive until help comes. It is decided that the only way to survive is to vote on who should be sacrificed in order for two of them to survive. Clearly, in this case it should be compulsory for all of them to vote because if one person voted, he would just vote for somebody else, which is unfair because two people would have no say in whether they live or die, and if only two voted it would also be unfair and they would be likely to vote for one another, ending in a stalemate. 2. A madman breaks into a building full of innocent school children, as well as their carer, waving a gun. He threatens to kill them unless they all vote on whether his previous girlfriend should take him back or not. If they vote no, he will turn the gun on himself, if they vote yes, he will drop the gun, turn himself in and try and win her back. However, if they do not vote, he will turn his gun on all of them. Clearly, in this case the carer should force the children to vote, for their own sake. As my opponent's arguments do not address either of my scenarios, I will leave it up her to show how I am mistaken in inferring we should make voting compulsory in both these cases. [1] . http://www.google.co.uk... [2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
voting should be compulsary

I believe that voting should not be compulsary as it is not a civic duty but a civil right. Making voting compulsary can be seen to infringe basic rights of freedom of citizens ie many Jehovahs Witnesses believe they should not participate in political events forcing them to vote explicitly denies them their freedom of religious practice. Also there is random votes if people are made to vote and many people have no interest or knowledge of the candidates running.
voting should be compulsary

I would also like to remind any voters that voting should not just be taken on the specific topic of voting in general elections, or in political spheres, but in the more general topic of merely 'voting' as laid down in my first argument. That said, I would like to conclude the debate by rebutting my opponents final argument; 'In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. ' This shows that many people are uninterested to vote! and therefore making it compulsory would have the numbers rise' No. In fact, it shows nothing of the kind. If readers would be so kind as to actually read the link, the article is a piece on racism, implying that the reason Bush won the elections against Gore was because the vote counters conveniently 'lost' many black votes. Whether the article is accurate or not I have no idea, but it has nothing to do with 'uninterested voters' as my opponent seems to think. 'You state in round 3 that every citizen that is entitled to vote should vote and go on and say that it is in the interest of the people however I disagree as many people do not vote because governments say things and when they get into power they dont act and many of these bad pasts make it unrewarding to vote' Indeed. However, the point of democracy is that if parties consistently fail to live up to their promises, then the people will not vote for them next time round. Also, they can protest, complain, go on strike and even rebel. This is an argument on democracy in general - I don't see how it refutes any particular compulsory or non-compulsory aspect of it. 'You go onto say that it reflects the core values of democracy If people who want to vote vote it gives a bigger voice to people who care about democracy and governments' It would force a lot of people, who would otherwise not be bothered, to really think about who they would like to see leading them. It would renew interest in people who had, indeed, lost interest or faith in the democratic process. 'what is the point of making voting compulsory when people have random votes. And this eliminates voters that have no interest or belief in the process and people who vote are serious about the government' This argument is almost entirely negated by my suggestion to put a 'no suitable candidate' box. People who truly have no interest in the process would vote there. 'so vote for Voting to NOT be compulsory because we have a right to be heard and a right to not be heard when we choose! ' Nay, we have a DUTY to uphold, a duty to make sure our leaders represent the will of the people.
voting should be compulsary

Thank you for your response, 'In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted.' This shows that many people are uninterested to vote! and therefore making it compulsary would have the numbers rise. http://www.alternet.org... Sorry for this mislink and thank you for correcting me. You state in round 3 that every citizen that is entitled to vote should vote and go on and say that it is in the interest of the people however I disagree as many people do not vote because governments say things and when they get into power they dont act and many of these bad pasts make it unrewarding to vote. You go onto say that it reflects the core values of democracy If people who want to vote vote it gives a bigger voice to people who care about democracy and governments what is the point of making voting compulsary when people have random votes. And this eliminates voters that have no interest or belief in the process and people who vote are serious about the government. so vote for Voting to NOT be compulsary because we have a right to be heard and a right to not be heard when we choose! Many thanks to my oponent for debating with me! it was a great pleasure. Good Luck. =]