BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Use of Atomic Bombs to End WW2 Was Necessary

One of the interesting thing that I found out is that my source is exact opposite of the con's source. According to my source, it said that the Japan had no intention of surrender. The appeal for peace with the USSR was simply an attempt to delay the Soviet invasion. Japan had 8,000 aircraft (Most of them were kamikaze), hundreds of suicide boat, over 2 million of well-equipped soldiers, and bunch of civilian army. Why the bombing was necessary. When the Allie landed at the Okinawa, over 250,000 militia and civilian were killed. 20 dead Japanese for every dead American. Using the calculation, millions of Japanese will be killed when the Allie land at the Japan. I will predict that the Con will say this. "Even if the Allie land at Japan, Japanese would surrender right away" Or something similar. Let me say one thing. Japan is made up of bunch of mountains. If the Allie land at the Japan, the remnant of the army and the guerrilla fighters would just hide in the mountains, harassing the Allie frequently. Also, Japan had a determined ruler. The Emperor Hirohito was a determined man. He was unwilling to surrender. But he surrendered. Why? The Japan were fighting the men, and suddenly, they were fighting against the force of the Universe. Human vs Universe? Universe wins.
Use of Atomic Bombs to End WW2 Was Necessary

I won't do separate sections for my rebuttals, as my opponent didn't respond with much. I apologize to voters if my response appears cluttered. So my opponent fires back saying that more would've died if we had invaded instead of dropping the bombs. He claims that the usage of the bombs saved lives in the long run. This would be a legitimate point, if the Japanese leadership's main intention was to fight. That was not the case, however. I have shown and defended the fact that the Japanese leadership's main goal was securing surrender terms that were as favorable as possible. As I have said repeatedly, what stopped the Japanese was the entrance of Russia into the conflict, because they were holding out hope that Russia could negotiate terms of surrender that were more favorable than unconditional. Next he says I forgot about the paragraph's last line. I did not forget, I simply decided to not include it because it seemed unnecessary. All it says is that historians had gained a negative view of the bombings by the 1960s. My opponent says they were simply 'describing what had happened', but I don't think that is the case, given the context of the paragraph, and the use of the words 'belated indictment for war crimes'. My opponent finishes off with a quote from the then Emperor of Japan, who says that continuing to fight would lead to massive destruction. Here my opponent is insinuating that the nukes changed Emperor Hirohito's mind on the conflict. As I have shown repeatedly, the Emperor was seeking peace long before these nukes were dropped. Just because he said that after the bombs had been dropped doesn't mean his mind was changed by the bombing. He already had his mind made up about peace. Not only did he, but so did the majority of Japanese leadership. This is evidenced clearly by the appointment of Kantaro Suzuki as head of government, with his peace agenda. The statement may have been prepared to make it look like their minds had been changed, because it would look better to say that than to admit that they'd been waiting on getting good terms of surrender, during which time America had decided to drop the nukes. But my opponent also misses my overarching point about the kamikaze attitude most supporters of the bomb dropping say the Japanese had. I'll repeat it again. If they were ready to die 'honorable' deaths and fight to the last man, why would they care if the nukes dropped? The plan is to die anyways. The fact that they surrendered at all shows that they were not in kamikaze mode, but rather in 'preparing to surrender' mode. The timing makes it look like the bombs had a role, but we know that the Japanese government was more concerned with getting good terms of surrender than they were preserving the lives of their people. Thanks for reading.
Term limits

Now to start my arguments and rebutt yours. Except I was just curious what does v= stand for? I'm saying that if you don't like the president you can't vote for another one the next day you will have to wait till the next election which probably is in 4 years. Not really if there was another candidate people still might vote for the same president, he actually can be liked forever because if the leading religion or belief is the one he shares then he will always win whether he should or shouldn't. I do believe that we did draft the declaration of independence but are you sure that the people are always right. Have we always been right to not pass the alcohol bill or anything else? No. Also overthrowing a president? Do you know how hard that is to do. You act as if you can just decide and he's overthrown the next day. No, it takes a long time and a lot of people have to agree with you. If the president is doing a good job that is good that's what our country needs but what about the other people who want to try to become president? Are we just going to give them no chance because one guy has ran for a decade? We should have a term limit to stop this and also even if he changed his views on the second term he wouldn't be able to do much because it is only his second term and he is not known that well/ he also can be impeached at any time.
Term limits

Thank you for joining this debate. First I will rebutt your points and then move to mine. If the president is doing very well then we can't just let him keep on running what would the world be like. The first to fifteenth president was MR.PRESIDENT all the time. You act as an election is the next it is every 4 years you can't just If we did not want them in office, then we could just not vote for him/her in the next election. That can't happen. Yes we can do something about it for if it is his third time running obviously he is liked very much, now do you think that we can just easily convince everyone not to elect him the next terms, rather then 1st or second term it would be much easier and people would be convinced. Thank you for informing me but I had already had a good understanding of it. Suppose he wants to make a bill that would help him greatly and he's a republican, just assume: I am pretty sure that in the congress or supreme court has at least one republican-I said AT LEAST do you think that they would vote against him or for him? Exactly giving him supreme power. Also on that point if he has been elected for his 3rd term I am pretty sure he is liked by a lot of people which means, they would vote for him if he wanted to pass a bill and they would support him. Now to my points it will be brief: If there was no term limit you have to think about the rest of the world, how would they deal with the same president over and over again. What if that president has a view to keep all the soldiers in france. Now do you think that the French President would be happy and not wage war against this president? That's why we should have term limits. Thank You
Term limits

I have accepted this debate assuming that by term limits, by opponent means USA Presidential Term Limits. I will continue in this debate assuming that I am correct. For those who do not know, a president cannot have more than 2 terms in office. I believe that it is the 22nd amendment that prevents this. Also, I would like to ask everyone who willl eventually vote in this debate to vote based upon who had the better points and advanced their points better, and who refuted their opponent's points better. Thank you Now to my rebuttal to my opponent's points. >>My first point is because if a president is doing so well what if some people of the other party don't like him they would be stuck with him for the rest of however long he is still elected. The USA is a democracy. The power that the President has is from the people. If the president is doing very well, and everyone likes him, then why should we stop him?? Why should we limit how long the President has in office if he is very greaty liked? If there was a President that we all liked very much, and he/she did what we wanted him/her to do, then should we limit how long they can be in office? If they are very popular and many people like the President, then there is no reason for us to not let him/her in office! If we did not want them in office, then we could just not vote for him/her in the next election! Also, my opponent mentioned that, "what if some people of the other party don't like him." Well, if they are in the other party running against him, do you expect them to be best friends? Of course there will be some discord between the President's party and the party that was running against him. >>Secondly presidents views change over time, suppose you elect him for the 3rd time and he's run for 10 years what if he changes his views can you do anything? No by making a 8 year limit you have stopped this from happening. I do not quite see your point here. If we elect a President for their second term, and they change their views halfway into their second term, can we do anything about it??? What about if they are halfway into their first term??? This point is immaterial. >>Thirdly power is a strange thing and it always gets to people. After running for 3 terms you don't think that he might get greedy and want to run for more or abuse his power that he has. That is what the other 2 braches of government are here for. I am quite sure you have heard the term "Checks and balances", right??? In case you do not know what it means, it means that each branch of the government has another brach making sure that they do not do more than they are supposed to do. The President's job is enforcing laws. If he tries to do more, Congress can stop him by stopping his funding. My arguements were mentioned in the rebuttals. If the president is a popular person, and everyone likes him/her, then there should be no reason he/she cannot hold office for more than 2 terms. Thank you
Term limits

Hello and thank you for being here. I believe we should have term limits for a couple of reasons. My first point is because if a president is doing so well what if some people of the other party don't like him they would be stuck with him for the rest of however long he is still elected. Secondly presidents views change over time, suppose you elect him for the 3rd time and he's run for 10 years what if he changes his views can you do anything? No by making a 8 year limit you have stopped this from happening. Thirdly power is a strange thing and it always gets to people. After running for 3 terms you don't think that he might get greedy and want to run for more or abuse his power that he has. Thank you
Students not passing all classes should be ineligible to play high school sports

Quite frankly, I don' feel I have much to say; so I'll be brief. - My opponent never addressed my argument that schools utterly fail to graduate 1/3 of their students. - My opponent never refutes the fact that education needs major reform in the first place. - My opponent never shows us that no-pass no-play gives athletes anything substantial in regards to education, only that they'll learn just enough to pass while needed. =Conclusion= Ultimately what Pro advocates is a facade; when they don't contradict themselves, they still end up not advocating and long-term success for no-pass no-play. She only shows it's topical success throughout the duration of the student's school life. If you vote for my opponent, all you will be doing is inflating the fallacious idea that out education system is working as well as it should. No-Pass No-Play is a cop-out to hide the fact that education is failing, and punishing students for a faulty system is unfair to them.
We Should Have A Gold Standard in the USA

Well, my opponent's account no longer exists. Rather than writing obscenities in bold, all caps text for the next 4000 characters, I simply wish him well on his endeavors. Life is far more important than a debate website like this, yet I am disappointed that I could not see your case in support of this contentious issue. I will be happy to debate this with anyone who is willing, but for the time being, I simply invite readers to explore our arguments. There's a lot of good material there.
We Should Have A Gold Standard in the USA

How much is that dollar in your wallet worth? If money can be worth anything, it can just as easily be worth nothing. This wasn"t always the case. For nearly 200 years, the value of the U. S. Dollar defined by a certain amount of gold, or the "gold standard. " That system collapsed in 1968 when we reduced our gold reserves and removed the requirement to maintain at least 25% of gold on hand to satisfy Federal Reserve notes. In 1971, President Richard Nixon officially took the United States off the gold standard. What has happened since we left the gold standard? Inflation has run rampant " a dollar today can buy only one-sixth of what it could buy in 1971. Between the end of World War II and 1967, when America began edging away from the gold standard, annual inflation averaged less than 2 percent. But between 1967 and 2009, inflation more than doubled to average almost 4.5 percent. Your money doesn"t go as far as it used to. The gold standard is crucial to limiting the size of government. Today Congress has the equivalent of a credit card. Lawmakers can consistently spend more than we have, on the assumption that the government can print more money to pay down the debt if there comes a time when we can"t borrow it. The gold standard, however, forces Congress to use a "debit" card. It restricts the government to spend only what we have. The gold standard also helps the economy maintain an even keel. As long as the market is allowed to function freely, recessions are shorter and milder. Unemployment rates would be consistently lower, and any swings would be far less rapid. In 1967, future Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that leaving the gold standard would leave Americans vulnerable to forces that would devalue everything they own: In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation " Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. The "floating" currency we use today allows politicians to pursue policies that lead to wealth-destroying inflation. It"s simply not sustainable. That"s one reason why Steve Forbes recently predicted that we will see a return to the gold standard within five years.
Barack obama is the president of the United States of America- Troll debate

I never said the abreviation was CUSE, I only said that it was communist, it is still the USA, and it exists on Kepler 69c, a planet roughly 1.6x the size of Earth. It was here Karl Marx and Engel fled to lay the corner stones a new United States of America. After stealing the Millenium Falcon from Han Solo they made the whole journey of 14 trillion light years in two seconds. Whith them they brought seeds and tools, all that would be needed to start a new America. Apon arival Marx tamed the local beasts with the might of his beard, and used them to continue cultivating Kepler. The USA is one of the most powerful country on Keplar, and there anarchist communism gave them the power to become this. I have proven that there is another USA out there and it is communist with no president I present to you my shield of bullet proof logic!!!!! The Communist Manifesto: http://www.marxists.org... Hidden in the sacred text is the story I have just told you, this is undeniable proof that there is another USA out there that does not have a president Named Barack Obama. I await freeko's response.
Barack obama is the president of the United States of America- Troll debate

First of all, there is only one USA in the world of a sane human. Second, where is there another USA. And here is the only argument needed: According to the CIA World Factbook "chief of state: President Barack H. OBAMA (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. BIDEN (since 20 January 2009); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government head of government: President Barack H. OBAMA (since 20 January 2009); Vice President Joseph R. BIDEN (since 20 January 2009)" Also, When someone says USA it means the Earth's USA (America). Until evidence is found that there is another planet or country with the name United States of America, a "CUSA" (Communist United States of America) cannot be thus used in an opposition. Here is where you get the Bop, since you now need to prove that there is a "CUSA" and prove that it does not have a president. So, in conclusion, Barack Obama is the current president of the United States of America (on Earth) and until further evidence of a "CUSA" is presented then your argument is invalid. (Remember Gaurdian, it is the "USA" not the "CUSA")
Barack obama is the president of the United States of America- Troll debate

The BoP is on Freeko, because it will be very difficult to that he is indeed the president of the United states of America.1. Freeko does not define which USA he is talking about, so I will pick for him.... I choose the one in my head, and the one I choose, is the communist United States of America, where there is not a president.I accept and the BoP is on you.
The Death Penalty

First i will show you the outline of my case as to say that it is to prove in the hands of the government the death penalty can and has been used wrongly. 1. Establish that the death penalty has been used to convict innocent people and prove how it is given to people who have lesser offenses than murder. 2. That the there is not possible way to prevent a repeating offender till they actually repeat the offence. my burden of proof is to show the death penalty is used not only for the offences my opponent claims is justifiable and to show innocents can and has been convicted with the death penalty as well as prove that the death penalty is hypocritical to the laws of the state.
The Death Penalty

Looking for a serious intellectual debate on this topic here. I had a long and very interesting conversation with a friend about this and would like to see how my arguments stand up here. R1) Introduction of argument R2) Main body of argument R3) Cross examination of opponent's argument R4) Defence of own argument R5) Conclusion of argument I will first define the debate as a whole. I, as the Proposition, take it upon myself to prove that the Death Penalty (that is to say the state-sponsored execution of a convicted criminal) is a morally acceptable punishment to the very worst crimes where the perpetrator is likely to reoffend. I am going to argue this on 3 main points: 1. Establishing whether there can be circumstances in which the death penalty is justifiable and if so what are they? 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against repeat offenders rather than as a punishment I will lay these out in this first round and from there expand on and defend my position in future rounds. I'd like to thank any challenger in advance for accepting. My burden of proof is only to show that certain crimes should warrant the death penalty, and I will be examining why in later rounds. I'll look at concepts like the human rights of the convict and why human rights aren't inalienable. I want this to be a competently argued debate that focusses on the philosophical side of the issue. Thanks in advance.
All Psychics are Frauds

The latin rule goes as follows: Onus probandi incumbet ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat."As the resolution is: "All psychics are Frauds" and my opponent is Proposition the onus rested upon him. He has, in my opinion, not fulfilled his onus and therefore I should win this debate.As I pointed out his argument does not include a sizable percentage who a. do not charge money, b. are convinced of their own powers. A fraud is a person who enages in wrongful behaviour intentionally and who by doing so commits deciet. There is no evidence that people like Nostrodamus or Julian of Norwich should be included in those people. Nostrodamus wrote fairly accurate predictions, he predicted Princess Diana's death and even named Princess Diana. How much more accurate could he get? The fact is that science has a limited scope and cannot transcend that, humans certainly do not get all knowledge from empirical means, there is a priori and innate knowledge. I thank nonprophet for this debate, it was a fun experience
All Psychics are Frauds

My opponent is trying to shift the burden of proof here.There is no evidence that psychics are real. The burden of proof is on those who claim they are real psychics. Even if a person has convinced themselves that they are psychic, doesn't prove they really are.People like Nostradamus wrote vague things down and others have interpreted them as a prediction coming true. If I predict that there will be a war in the future, odds are I'd be right. That doesn't mean I'm a psychic.Anyone who claims to be a psychic, yet can't show scientific demonstrable evidence that back up that claim, is in fact, a fraud. Whether they use that claim for financial gains or not is irrelevant. Thank you or the debate.
All Psychics are Frauds

I thank nonprophet for starting this debate, and I accept. 1. The Issues:(1.1) My opponent has to show that all psychics are frauds, which means he either has to debunk each psychic in history, or the very practice of being psychic, if I can show any reasonable doubt to parapsychology being a reasonable science I win. (1.2) As my opponent has made the claim the onus rests upon him. (1.3) Since my opponent has tried to show that the individual techniques psychics use are fraud, this puts him in a precarious position because he has not defunked all such phenomenon.2. Not all forms of Parapsychology Defunked:(2.1) While nonprophet has shown some techniques he no where proves that these people use these techniques. He provides no conclusive evidence that all psychics use only these techniques, in this he makes a positive claim, namely that these are the only techniques used. (2.2) While his list covers most techniques it does not cover those people like Nostrodamus or Emmanuel Swedenborg who did not do this for money but wrote it in their journals. They saw visions and predicted the future to a high degree, especially Nostrodamus. (2.3) This raises the third point that fraud is a person who "intentionally lies, or engages in deceitful or unfair behaviour". This means that those psychics who are actualy convinced of their powers are not psychics, thus leaving a loophole in the "all psychics are frauds" resolution3. Not convinced:(3.1) Nonprophet actually concedes when he says that the scientific community has not proved psychics because that means that the psychic community has not disproved psychics. While this means that we cannot say psychics are real (I am not saying this) we can just as rightly not say that psychics are frauds. Sources:[1]https://wildflowerpara.wordpress.com...[2]http://mindhacks.com...[3]http://news.discovery.com...[4]http://parapsychologylab.com...Ajab