BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
was the bombing of japan the right thing to do

I will follow up my previous argument and the one my opponent has made in the best way possible. First - the holocaust is completely, and I mean completely, 100% unrelated to this debate topic. Was the Holocaust worse than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Definitely. But that's not what we're here to debate about, which is why it's irrelevant. My opponent, showing a general lack of knowledge on the history of World War II, tried to argue that Pearl Harbor was irrelevant. My opponent also fails to realize that it was the attack on Pearl Harbor that ultimately brought the US in the war, and the reason that the US ended up bombing in Japan. While Pearl Harbor and its death toll has direct correlation to the argument, the holocaust does not - thus my opponent's point is null and void. It should be noted that Operation Downfall holds no relevance to this argument. Not only did it not happen, but the only numbers of people that would've happen are purely estimates. Due to the risk circumstances of Operation Downfall, there was actually no way to accurately even get close to how many people would've died. This means my opponent has clearly cherry picked estimates that point towards the highest number possible. There is a great possibility that the amount of US soldiers that died in Operation Downfall would be less than or equal to the amount killed in Hiroshima. This means that my opponent's own logic can easily backfire, and Operation Downfall could very well be the 'least amount of deaths possible' that my opponent so greatly is arguing for. My opponent still provides insufficient sourcing, among other flaws in their argument. This means that my point about Japan's ability to surrender and my point about a massive amount of casualties stand nearly unscathed. For these reasons, I will continue to support a massive Con/Neg voter turnout.
was the bombing of japan the right thing to do

you state that the Japaneses were willing to surrender in 1945, But this statement is untrue. The Japaneses were not willing to accept are unconditional surrender at the post dam conference of 1945. this means that they were given time to stop fighting and were warned (and i quote from the post dam conference) "prompt and utter destruction.". The Japaneses government had time to reply and were even warned about the destruction that would follow. so you were wrong. And next it leads to what will cause the most deaths. I will state that the atomic bomb was only a small fish in the big lake of WW2. There were even worse crimes committed beside the war itself. A good example would be the holocaust which killed up to 11,000,000. And if you are to mention this is irrelevant this you stated the pearl harbor indecent which should have nothing to do with the bombing of japan. And when i state the bomb was unmoral remember this is war, everything to the first gun shot makes it a crime against mankind, and in war the only thing that matters is which will lead to more deaths. we only had two choice since japan did not want to make peace: Operation Downfall or use the atom bomb the atom bomb killed 246,000 , But operation downfall would have killed 1.7"4 million american troops and a estimated 50000 would only return. That is only the american troops, the deaths on the Japaneses side would have been way more. I do hope that this argument will be enough to state that it was the best choice even though unmoral and wrong the deaths were the only thing that mattered. and if japan only surrendered this would not have been a problem.
was the bombing of japan the right thing to do

My opponent continues to present a self-confused, contradictory argument that I shall easily dismantle. I will first start off by using a quote from a source that is quite literally impossible for my opponent to refute. Former United States president, Herbert Hoover. ". . . the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945 . . . up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped . . . if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." Quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., "Judgment at the Smithsonian", pg. 142. So already, no. What my opponent is saying about having to do it due to the Japanese's refusal to surrender is already null and void as a point completely. I will refute every single thing my opponent has stated by simply pointing out that they have yet to use a SINGLE source. My points about a needless amount of casualties stands. My opponent either agrees on this point or has no way to counter it. In a similar way, I will bring up the argument made about ethics. My opponent, on the topic of ethics and morals, has contradicted themselves more than I could understand. They are trying to somehow negate my arguments by saying war is immoral, without realizing that he/she is in DIRECT support of the previously mentioned 220,000 deaths. At the end of this second round, I am still winning, and my opponent still has yet to provide anything of substance, anything with a source, and anything logically supporting their argument. For these reasons I continually urge a massive Con/Neg voter turnout.
was the bombing of japan the right thing to do

the bombing of Japan was unethical but War in general is immoral. As I stated in the first short argument we had two options: 1. Use the new atom bombs or 2. Operation downfall. If we went with the 2nd it most likely would have led to the end of the japans government since they did not which to surrender because of their pride. The government even issued a special police were in the case of American invasion everyone (including the civilians) would have to fight for their homeland. And this was shown in the many battles of the pacific were even japans solider even though they knew they were defeated would keep fighting in till death, some would even take a grenade and kink's a group of soldiers. It would be the same if we invaded their mainland. The dropping of these super weapons was a fast and quick way to end this horrible war. There is not much to say on a topic that only is based on moral because this is War no mater what you do War is and always will be the true hell on earth. That is all I shall say for now.
was the bombing of japan the right thing to do

My opponent presents a messily formatted, self contradicting, and all around flat argument. Today I will easily dismantle any semblance of logic they tried to make and then negate the resolved to top off. They first state off that the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki were the right thing to do with the least amount of deaths possible. Using the 'most conservative terms possible' in the words of UCLA, an estimated 220,000 were killed/injured, as opposed to the only 2,403 deaths that Pearl Harbor brought. It should be noted that according to Pearl Harbor's own website, only 68 of these deaths were civilians. This means that if you multiplied the amount of civilians killed in Pearl Harbor by 3235, you still wouldn't have the amount of people killed in Pearl Harbor. So no, it wasn't the 'least amount of deaths possible', as my gruesomely misinformed opponent suggests. The argument I would make is that it was a highly unethical way to go about striking against Japan. I would await my opponent's response to this claim, but they've agreed with me before I even said it. This means that my point is agreed upon by my opponent and his only real claim has already been destroyed. For these reasons, I urge an obvious Con/Neg vote.
An infinite substance exists and exists alone

Pro loses this debate because he has essentially agreed with my ontology of non-existence. He now clarifies that by "reason for non-existence", he really meant "lack of reason for existence". In other words, he has turned this into a very simple dichotomy: Either an infinite substance DOES have a positive reason for existence (and therefore exists), or it does NOT have a positive reason for existence (and therefore does not exist). No amount of word-play can get around it. He also admits the truth of the PSR's first contrapositive: "If an object does not have a reason for its existence, then it does not exist." Both of these concessions directly imply that nothing can exist without a positive reason for existence, which is just another way of saying that "non-existence is the default state, and a positive cause is necessary to escape it." I'm not sure why Pro seems to take issue with this, as his own concessions lead straight to that conclusion. Ignore his strange objection. It has clearly been established that non-existence is the default state. I'm also not sure what Pro was aiming for in bringing up the PSR's second contrapositive, since it in no way contradicts anything I said, nor does it really do anything to support his argument. This all just comes down to the second premise of Pro's syllogism: "An infinite substance does not lack a reason for its existence" Cancelling out the double-negative, that translates to -- "An infinite substance has a reason for its existence" He claims that the justification for this can be found in his opening argument. However, if we actually take a look at it, he only proved 2 things: 1. An infinite substance is not self-contradictory 2. There can be no external cause of the substance's non-existence Neither of these even come close to a positive reason for the existence of an infinite substance. Therefore, Pro has not affirmed his 2nd premise, his syllogism is not sound, and his burden of proof is not fulfilled. I'll do the same thing Pro did and rephrase my round in the form of a syllogism. P1. X exists if and only if it has a positive reason for existence P2. An infinite substance does not have a positive reason for existence C. An infinite substance does not exist D.E.Q.
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

I. ResolutionThe full resolution for this debate is as follows: "In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black. "II. DefinitionsInherent: existing necessarily as a property of a thing or phenomenon. Advantage: any state, circumstance, or opportunity that is favorable or beneficial in achieving a desired end. "The one who plays White" is the player in control of the white pieces (occasionally hereafter referred to simply as "White" while his/her opponent sometimes referred to as "Black"). White is the one who, by standard Chess rules, makes the first move. Any other word not specifically defined will assume its most common dictionary definition for the context of this debate. III. Debate StructureIn this debate, I will be arguing that making the first move is an action which provides White with an inherent advantage not sufficiently counter-balanced by Black's assets, and so Black must therefore play that much better to achieve an objectively superior position. Further rules are as follows:(1) The burden of proof will be on me. (2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden. (3) Con must use his/her first round for acceptance only. Later rounds are to be used however we see fit. (4) 8,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 8,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 8,000 character limit (including posting "pictures" of nothing but text a la Apeiron) is strictly prohibited. Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant).
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

I'm really sorry. I've realised I'm way in over my head with this debate. It doesn't help that on Sunday afternoon I also suffered a seizure which means I'm nothing like able to form any kind of structured, coherent argument. As such, I concede this debate to Pro, and advise him to start this debate again with someone who'll be able to give him the quality of debate he deserves. My deepest apologies, Jon
Aliens are present

Rebuttals of Arguments: “Here is my argument-“ Points 1-6, the “conclusion,” and the statement after the sources are all plagiarized from DDO user Mothman [3]. The rest seems to be plagiarized from DDO user philochristos [4]. Rebuttals to Sources: “telegraph.co.uk” The existence of this website proves nothing. It’s a news site with thousands of stories, you can’t just declare them all to be a source; that would be like claiming “all the .com websites, there’s got to be some evidence on one of them you can’t refute.” “physics.org” See above. “Slate.com” See above. Summery: This was clearly intended as a trap debate. Pro blatantly committed plagiarism, hoping to be called out for it in the first round; at which point he could cite the debate rules. When I did not fall into the trap, and came up with an argument about anal probes to which he lacked the ability to refute, he chickened out.As my argument is the only one with a leg (or otherwise) to stand on, vote con. Sources: [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.debate.org...
Aliens are present

This debate is clearly referring to intelligent extra-terrestrial life, being present on earth. This round I shall present a basic case against that motion, next round I shall obliterate pro’s case; or in the famous words of Marvin the Martian (a fictional character), “I'm going to blow it up; it obstructs my view of Venus” [1]. Argument: As much as the possibility is fun to ponder, the likelihood is too remote to be of any significance. I will concede that UFOs exist, as UFO stands for “Unidentified Flying Object.” It does not stand for “Disk-Shaped Aliens From Others Planets,” as clearly evidenced by letters in the acronym. Everything seen in the sky, is first a UFO, until such time as it is identified. I admit there are witness accounts of anal probing, however I think alien connections to those rape fantasies are easily dismissed; as there is no logical reason for a species to invest in coming here (likely hundreds or thousands light-years of travel, which by all known science means hundreds or thousands of years spent traveling), with no better visible goal than to rape a very small number of people who can’t get pregnant from it [2]. As for aliens with nice goals, well if such friendly visits were as common as some people claim; there would be mountains of evidence by now. Without evidence in favor of aliens, there can be no more than assertions to claim their existence. However from an objective standard, lack of evidence means until such time as significant evidence is provided, the resolution is to be rejected. Sources: [1] http://www.imdb.com... [2] https://www.facebook.com...
Aliens are present

Rules: Round One: I will post the rules and argument and my opponent will post their argument. Round Two: I will post my rebuttals and my opponent will post their rebuttals. Failure to follow rules will result in a 7 point deduction. Here is my argument- 1. There are so many planets out there, there just has to be life on other worlds. 2. It is impossible to disprove the existence of ETs because you would have to search every inch of the universe, and other universes 3. They could be microscopic. 4. UFOs exist, The Tinley Park case is the best evidence These UFOs were proven not to be flares, they have to be, a. Top Secret Government Craft, or aliens 5. The meteor found in Antarctica proves there was life on mars http://www.telegraph.co.uk...... 6. Europa may have life on it. Conclusion since it is impossible to disprove the existence of life on other planets, it is not possible to say there is no life on other planets. Probability suggests there is life on other planets.The universe is estimated to have 3e26 stars in the galaxy. That is an unimaginably large number. Assuming conservatively that there's 1 planet per star, and no moons, that's 3e26 chances for life to emerge in the universe. But that's a very conservative number. After all, it's not as if each planet only gets one chance. The universe is 13.82 billion years old.[2] Let's cut off the first two billion years and assume there were no planets before that time. Still, that's 11.82 billion years that planets have been around. If we assume, conservatively, one chance at life every year, that's 3e26 times 11.82 chances at life. And if we assume chemistry is happening, not just in one place on a planet, but all over the planet, that raises the probablistic resources to a mind-blowing level. So it would appear that there are enough probablistic resources in the universe to produce life no matter how unlikely life is prima facie. But that is assuming nature is all on is own. However, if nature is not all on its own, then there's an even greater chance of life emerging. If there is a God known to be capable of producing life, and if this God produced life on earth for the sake of its own glory, and if this God had a passion for his glory, we should expect this God would want to produce life in more than one place in the universe. With the ability and the motive, there is at least some positive probability that God would produce life somewhere else in the universe. So it is highly likely that there are aliens elsewhere in the universe. NOTES 1. http://www.physics.org...... 2. http://www.slate.com...... I leave it to Con to search the entire universe and show me it is all dead.
The Law of Diminishing Returns Applies to Kittens

Regarding the "Synergistic Effect of Kittens": While it is true that multiple kittens have added utility, what is being forgotten is the added stress that additional kittens can bring. The spectacle of two or three kittens playing does provide some extra entertainment, but not enough to overshadow the costs of feeding two cats, or the time spent cleaning two litter boxes. The extra stress, taken alongside the inability to focus on multiple cats at once, negates the added utility of multiple kittens. It is also worth noting that kittens can and will synergize in a negative fashion, producing even more stress. Having several kittens opens up the possibilities of cat fights, which lead to damaged furniture, vet bills, and the like. Not to mention kittens whose propensity to cause trouble is increased by having other kittens around. Regarding the "perspective of cat": Kittens are, for the purposes of this debate, considered sources of amusement. Someone who does not consider cats a source of entertainment would not be collecting cats in any number, given that they would never produce any amusement for him. To continue the wheat analogy; someone who cannot eat wheat will always have zero returns from a wheat farm. However, for those of us who can eat wheat, the farm would have varying returns, as we have a use for the output. In short, only those who can utilize a system's output are considered when the returns are quantified. If only the people who would own kittens are considered, and when one acknowledges that additional kittens require additional work, the diminishing entertainment becomes clear.
The Law of Diminishing Returns Applies to Kittens

They are distinct so that if you accept either argument (or both) you are obligated to agree with Con and vote against the resolution. Reason #1: The synergistic effect of kittens. For the resolution to be true, my opponent states clearly that having two kittens must be less enjoyable than twice the enjoyment of having one kitten. But the reason why the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply between one kitten and two kittens is that the synergistic effect of kittens playing together overcomes the fact that you already had a kitten. This is best illustrated by replacing the word kitten with the concept of a naked female. From the prospective of a male, one naked female is good. Two naked females however is much much better. Why? Because when you have two naked females, there are new horizons opened up, horizons which yield much higher utility, so high in fact, that two females together is worth significantly more than having one female twice, or doubling the value gained from having one female. Now with kittens it is a little harder to illustrate graphically, but the concept is still the same. Two kittens can play with each other, or engage in fierce cat fights, depending on the breed. One war like kitten in fact is actually worthless in and of itself. It's not until two when the utility/enjoyment of the kittens spike. And if the law of diminishing returns is not applicable for the increase of one kitten to two kittens, then the blanket resolution "the law of diminishing returns applies to kittens" is false. Reason #2: The perspective of cat The Pro has based his entire argument on the point of view of what he calls "a cat person". But we are not all Cat people are we? In fact, in the world there exist many people who do not like cats. For example the zounds who are allergic to cat hair. In fact, to Those people, every kitten produces a NEGATIVE utility. Now if we accept the arguments of Pro, we see that as Cat haters increase the number of cats in their possession, the negative worth of each New cat is smaller than the negative worth of the previous. Let's take the point of view of Jimmy who's allergic to cats. The first kitten will fill his house with x number of cat hair. This causes his allergies to flare up when he walks around the house. The second kitten adds another x hair. But by the 10th cat, the house becomes already filled with cat hair. An additional x cat hair would not have much more impact on Jimmy's allergic reaction to cats. Thus instead of diminishing returns, I have just proved to people who hate kittens, there is a law of POSITIVE RETURNS. For each Additional unit of input added to a production system, there is GREATER additional output. If either argument flies, then you must vote against the resolution. And since they both fly, the resolution has been proven false. Thank you.
The Law of Diminishing Returns Applies to Kittens

The Law of Diminishing Returns states that for each additional unit of input added to a production system, there is less additional output. Planting one kilogram of seeds might yield one ton of wheat, but two kilograms of seeds will not result in two tons of wheat. By the same logic, having two kittens is more enjoyable than having one kitten, but not twice as enjoyable. If you have one kitten, assuming you are a cat person, you gather some enjoyment from it. It cuddles, does cute cat things, etc. Having two cats is indeed more enjoyable; more cute cat things are done. However, dividing your attention between multiple kittens means you do not get the full benefit from each cat. Kitten A might be doing something entertaining while you are playing with Kitten B, for example. Since your time and attention are finite, there is no way to fully appreciate multiple cats, particularly in large quantities. If you had one hundred kittens, would you even notice if another were added?