BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Challenge me.

I am pro for the resolution. Resolved, the United States use of the nuclear bomb in Japan was justified. My first contention is necessity, we were left with the options of sending American soldiers to seize the Japanese mainland or using firepower and technology to end the war quickly with fewer American lives lost. Second contention moral high ground. Our decision to bomb the Japanese was only put into action after repeated pleas to their government asking them to surrender and warning them that we had the capability end the war by force if we chose to do so. Third contention the need for unconditional surrender. The Japanese government and military had already shown that they were willing to perpetrate merciless atrocities and that they where not beyond attacking countries in the name of empire. The United States could not allow Japan to exist as it was before and during world war two.
Challenge me.

Thanks for your response. My opponent argues that, "my opponent is asserting that American lives are more important than any other lives." This is not what I was saying, I was making the point that in time of war a government has a responsibility to protect its own citizens. If we were simply talking about an invasion of an innocent nation then obviously we were not justified. However, we must remember that we were indeed at war with Japan and that we had been initially attacked by them without military provocation. The Pearl Harbor attacks made it very clear that war with Japan was necessary and inevitable. My opponent also argues against the use of nuclear firepower, "What's to say American soldiers couldn't have used firepower and technology to end the war quickly without using nukes?" My question is why does it matter that a bomb war used rather than a bullet. The obvious answer is that with a bomb no American lives were lost, if we had invaded Japan both American and Japanese soldiers would have died. Firebombing resulted in far more deaths than the nuclear bombing did. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties during one bombing of one city. That's nearly as many as where killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki in just one raid. That was the beauty of the nuclear bomb, it would scare Japan into surrender without having to kill as many people. 1(It was estimated at the time that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would result in more that 500,000 deaths,) that's more than double the people were killed in the bombings. This completely negates my opponents contention C. The comparison by my opponent of the war to a debate is deeply flawed. "Take an example: What if I were to say to my opponent, "I'm going to kill you if you don't concede this debate!!!" Pretend I repeat it several times. Unfortunately, my opponent decides to keep debating. Would I suddenly be justified in killing him? Am I really taking a moral high ground?" What the United States did was offer Japan a chance to end the war with no more lives lost Japanese or American. This was a noble goal but when the Japanese refused we had no choice but to end the war. If my opponent were to switch Debating with Killing American Soldiers then the scenario would fit. My opponent also questions the justification of America's war in Iraq, I would say that war in Iraq was a good preemtive measure that may have prevent even more tragedy down the road. In relation to Japan we attacked a country that had already bombed us, taken over several countries and was joined with two other nations set on world domination. I think that our reasons for retaliation were very solid. If the United States ever begins acting towards itself as Japan did towards us then a second Civil war would be the necessary repercussion. 1 http://www.history.army.mil...
The medical model of mental illness is flawed

My opponent has forfeited this round which is disappointing. I was hoping to be able to respond to con's claims for a robust dialogue. I will take this time to address a couple more things regarding psychiatry and the medical model: 1) Genetics There have been advancements in genetics where real genetic disorders can affect behavior. However, psychiatrists and their practice are not impacted by this nor does the typical psychiatrist search out a genetic physical cause for distress, they simply look to the DSM. 2) Behavior is not a disease Psychiatric diagnosis is used as a weapon to cast out behavior that is undesirable by society. DSM diagnoses have nothing to do with medical science otherwise homosexuality would not have been removed as a psychiatric diagnosis. Diseases are malfunctions of the body not behaviors. Psychiatry tries to say that mental illness is like a real disease however, we don't deprive people of liberty based on real illnesses. When have you heard a judge say "I sentence you to treatment for you diabetes!"? Psychiatric hospitalization is worse that prison in the sense that in prison you are not punished longer because of how you see the world and yourself, it is fixed. In a psychiatric hospital the opposite is true. I will still welcome comment from con and would like to respond. My arguments against the medical model of mental illness are valid and sound and I respectfully submit that you should declare pro the winner. Thank you.
The medical model of mental illness is flawed

This debate will be four rounds. Round one will be acceptance and a statement of my claim only. Round two will be argument and definitions(if needed). Round three rebuttal and round four conclusion statements with no new argument. My claim is that while emotional and/or mental troubles are very real the medical model of mental illness is flawed as there is not sufficient research or data to prove that mental illnesses are mainly or exclusively biological in nature. Good Luck!! I look forward to the discussion.
Pro-Choice

Pro Life, while involving other subjects such as euthanasia, human cloning, etc. is used mostly in relation to abortion and fetal rights issues. I maintain that fetuses and embryos are, in fact, human beings and therefore have a right to life. Any action that destroys an embryo or fetus kills a human being and is ethically and morally wrong. This murder should not be mitigated by any perceived benefits to others such as ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. Such anticipated benefits come at the expense of the life of another human being. Human life, in any shape or form should retain the same rights as any other life. In the case of a fetus, it should be afforded more protection since it is not yet at the stage where it can defend itself. Similarly, children are afforded more protection than adults. Legal abortion denies the fetus due process protections that a criminal case requires before the imposition of the death penalty. Abortion is a form of infanticide! It is incomprehensible that a person may be pro-choice and against abortion at the same time. That would be like mixing oil with water. The Bible makes no specific mention of abortion, although it does mention unborn life several times. For example, Luke 1:44 cites Elizabeth exclaiming to Mary: "Behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb (John the Baptist) leaped for joy." Jeremiah 1:4-5, retelling God's appointment of Jeremiah to the prophet-hood, says: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Such passages reveal the personhood of an embryo/fetus. The Roman Catholic Church, as well as other Christian religions in conjunction with a majority of scientists believe that human life is sacred, and begins at conception and, therefore, abortion is the equivalent of murder. Hinduism teaches that a fetus is a living, conscious person deserving of protection. The Hindu believe that there are 16 Samskaarams or Sanskaar during the life of an individual (soul) which starts at pre-birth at Garbhadhaan (Conception). This would mean that the Hindu believe life to begin at conception. Many disciplines of philosophy support Pro Life. An example is the natural law theory, which emphasizes the primacy of the right-to-life as being the most fundamental human right. Biologically speaking, the zygote created at fertilization possesses a unique genome of human DNA, a unique blood type, and all of the other essential biological manifestations of a living organism. This constitutes membership in the human specie and personhood whereby we could conclude that the deliberate harming of human embryos and fetuses is a form of genocide. Abortion, therefore, in any form is murder!
Public Schooling is better than Home Schooling

I would like to start off by thanking you for accepting. My first reason is that there are more curriculum opportunities in public schooling. My second reason is that you are able to learn in a group setting and that you are able work well with others. My third reason is that you can gain the social skills needed in public schooling rather than home schooling. I will start off with my first reason. There are usually more curriculum opportunities in public schooling. Classes range from just regular Math and English to jewellery making and social media marketing. My second reason is that you are able to learn in a group setting so that you learn how to work well with others. When you the student grows older and gets a job they are going to need to know how to work in a group setting with others. My third reason is that you can gain the social skills needed. When being home schooled you don't learn how to act in a social environment and be what some people call to be "socially acceptable". Go for it Con!
Public Schooling is better than Home Schooling

I accept. I would like to thank my opponent for giving me this opportunity to debate her on this topic. I shall argue that public-schooling is not necessarily better than home-schooling. Since no definitions were provided, I shall give a few.Public schooling: Attending "a school that gets money from and is controlled by a local government" (1)Home schooling: "to teach school subjects to one's children at home" (2)Better: "more attractive, favorable, or commendable, more advantageous or effective, improved in accuracy or performance" (3)Over to Pro!Sources:(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Gay Marraige

Alright what i am basically saying is that beastiality could be a byproduct of gay marriges because we would allow as a human race would decreases mod more. absolutely humans are just that human. But you must also look at it in the sense that humans are also "animals". now dont take this in the wrong sense but in the animal kingdom humans are at the top of the food chain and in the animal kingdom there are no other animals that engage in homosexuality behavior. When the Pharisees questioned Him about divorce, notice what Matthew 19:4-6 says, ï¿½€œ4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause (that they are male and female) shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together (a man and a wife), let not man put asunder. On divorce He said, from the beginning it was not so. Jesus went back to the Creators design for marriage and it: 1. Participants (male and female) 2. Practicality (leave father and mother) 3. Purpose (the two shall be one flesh) 4. Prohibition (do not put asunder what God joined together) 5. Principle (as His Will was for it to be as in the beginning) see jesus did talk about homosexuals. wow i cant believe you just said that and excuse my sarcasim please but have you ever heard of A.I.D.S.. <"Also, what does it matter to you whether or not they get married? Are you afraid it will lessen the definition of marriage for you and your future wife? What about people who don't believe in God, but still want to be married? I know lots of people who are married and are not Christian. What about other religions or lack of? Can they get married? Or is marriage only for people who believe in God? Has marriage not become something more along the lines of representing your love for someone else? To show the world you are "taken" and only want this person for the rest of your life? Can gay people not do this too? What if they, too, just want to show the world their devotion to another? They shouldn't just because they are gay? Why? We let everyone else do it. All races, (most) all ages, all backgrounds, different religions, different countries... why not gay people?"> alright so i will answer these in order yes marriage was gods idea and i believe the only way to get truely married is in the way that the bible says so. marriage is not just apiece of paper. and i believe that the only true marrges are those that have been married the way the bible states they should be married. (this shoul answer a couple of the questions) thank you for reading.
Gay Marraige

I do not know about you, but the concept of bestiality is not at all relevant unless you are comparing human beings to animals. Basically I was saying that all humans are just that, human. You can't argue that... right? And it would be somewhat offensive to a homosexual to be compared to a dog, don't you think? I don't compare you (as a male) to anything other than a human just because it is different than me. Also, if you would like to strictly go off what the old testament says regarding homosexuality, then be my guest. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in his teachings. Not one time. The old testament was written many years ago to help guide people on what was right during that time period. You cannot read what the Bible says literally. You will be misguided in many directions if that is the case. If we LITERALLY did everything the Bible said, we would end up spanking infants and never allow women to do muchin this world. Times change, teachings change. A human being is still God's gift... gay or not. Incest is not relevant either. If you speak to a homosexual, they are not going to tell you they want to sleep with their sibling. Incest (between a man and woman) can lead to birth defects eventually, but homosexuality cannot. This leads me to my next point. The human race is not going to end. We as a society are too smart to let our population dwindle. There are many homosexual couples who want children. They might not be able to procreate themselves, but there are other options....adoption, artificial insemination (which are brought about by heterosexual people). The argument that the human race will "die out" is not valid due to the fact that China is already limited on how many children they are allowed to have, plus, here in America we have many orphans without homes too. Further, I'm not arguing that the human population will die off due to gay marriages. Just if they should be allowed to get married. Married or not, gay people will still not procreate. So I'm asking if they should be unable to procreate with a marriage certificate or without one. Also, what does it matter to you whether or not they get married? Are you afraid it will lessen the definition of marriage for you and your future wife? What about people who don't believe in God, but still want to be married? I know lots of people who are married and are not Christian. What about other religions or lack of? Can they get married? Or is marriage only for people who believe in God? Has marriage not become something more along the lines of representing your love for someone else? To show the world you are "taken" and only want this person for the rest of your life? Can gay people not do this too? What if they, too, just want to show the world their devotion to another? They shouldn't just because they are gay? Why? We let everyone else do it. All races, (most) all ages, all backgrounds, different religions, different countries... why not gay people?
Gay Marraige

If we loosen up the concept of marriage to include people of the same sex, that will open up for further changes. People will want to marry members of the immediate family, animals and minors. This is a slippery slope and onewill obviousley lead to another. And it is perfectly reasonable to equate same sex marriage with incest and bestiality. you t about the bibe and the bible describes homosexuality as a CURSE. Heterosexual and homosexual relations are fundamentally different. The union between a man and a woman is a fertile one, while homosexual relationships can't without help lead to children. This is no small difference; the future of the entire human race depends on it. Now this may to be a small thing but it is dot because if we allow gay marrige then what stops the number of gays to get married and this would put a detramental yielding of the human race.
Gay Marraige

Gay people are just that, people. And all people living anywhere have basic human rights. And don't you believe that all people should have the right to love, no matter who? Some people feel like marriage between people from the same sex disrupts the "holy matrimony" of what marriage represents. They feel that gay people are nothing but promiscuous and have the common goal of refuting what the Bible says regarding marriage. However, if you look at statistics from the past few years, the holy matrimony of marriage is broken on the heterosexual side as well. Heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as homosexuals. So what is the problem with gays getting married? Is it just what the Bible says? Or is it just because it is foreign to society? Gay people should be allowed the same rights as everyone else, including marriage. We have been taught in school not to discriminate, so why should our laws and marriage be any different.
Flag Burning. Decision to Address This Issue upon the Majority view of people to support it.

Ah, but, as clearly shown, I didn't state 'responsibility for patriotism' but responsibility for respecting the symbols of freedom and Democratic ideals of the Forefathers of any country. This is where you steer wrong. How can one feel patriotic by desecrating the very thing that they should stand for? "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a LIVING THING." ~ http://www.homeofheroes.com... Would you burn a living thing? Would you burn your most valuable possession? The only way one can truly feel patriotic when burning a flag is when it is being respectfully retired, with ceremony and due process. My opponent states that flag burning is not 'inherently disrespectful'. I am, obviously, of a different opinion. The flag represents that which thousands have fought and died for. A free nation, a symbol of peace and integrity. Yet, with the flick of a lighter, such representation can be snuffed out and turned into a charred, disgracious mess. Yes, it is exercising one's rights to burn a flag, but is it a respectful way? No. Is it a patriotic way? No. Often, people can find more effective and respectful ways to protest than to burn a Patriotic and National Emblem. I did state that, by burning the flag, one seems to be wishing for the disintegration of a free, responsible, moral and hardiness of society. I agree, people burn the flag in order to attract attention as they demonstrate against legislation or a Government process, but, while doing this, they indicate disrespect against society and that same Government. My opponent claims that, while indicating their disrespect for our patriotic symbols, the protester is, at the same time expressing pride in our freedoms and patriotism. How is this? Rather, it seems that the person is abusing his/her rights by desecrating the flag. Even if the rights are not being abused (which is the legal response), the protester is willing to sacrifice such important symbolic objects in order to publicize what could very well be an insignificant protest. Oftentimes, the flag burner is not expressing patriotism, but a lack thereof, though they realize that they are exercising their rights. I agree, our rights are important, and the Freedom of Expression does include this matter, but does our respect truly have to be sacrificed in order to protest? I sincerely doubt it. My apologies about the abruptness and possible lack of thorough rebuttal in this argument, but I must depart. Mistimed this post severely. : ) "Initially the pledge was written: "I Pledge Allegiance to MY FLAG and to the Republic for which it stands......." ~ http://www.homeofheroes.com... "Red represents the blood spilled protecting our home. Red: Signifies bravery. Red is for the blood of the patriots and those that fight for our country." ~ http://wiki.answers.com...
Flag Burning. Decision to Address This Issue upon the Majority view of people to support it.

I'll begin by addressing Con's first point: the idea that flag burning somehow neglects a responsibility. I completely negate the idea that patriotism is an obligation. Patriotism is neither a right nor a responsibility. Moreover, one can still feel patriotic even if they burn a flag. In fact, some people burn flags to actually demonstrate patriotism. For instance, flag burning represents freedom of speech and expression, so burning it would merely be an exercise of one's rights. Our flag represents a country that is diverse and tolerant of all points of view, and celebrates the freedom to protest civilly (non-violently) and against censorship by tyrannical oppression. To say that we can't burn the flag would be damaging what the flag stands for and represents (freedom). My opponent's second point suggests that by burning the flag, it implies that we want to live in a communist or socialist nation. That is an absurd suggestion; one has nothing to do with the other. Burning a flag in protest or for any rhyme or reason is a right that all people have. Things should only be illegal if they infringe upon the rights of another person. Burning a flag doesn't do that at all. While some people may be offended, it's not the government's job to legislate against offending someone. If that were the case, we'd all be in jail. To deny or restrict this freedom of demonstration would be oppressive and more of an authoritarian nature in symbology than burning a flag is. We live in a democracy where free speech is both fundamental and celebrated as a form of liberty and democratic process. As such, we can not prohibit people from expressing their view in this way. When people burn a flag, they usually do so to draw attention to their cause; typically a hostile reaction to some political action or endeavor. In that way, flag burning actually does serve a significant protest in contrast of Con's proposal that it does not accomplish anything. I would also argue that flag burning is not inherently disrespectful, even though some people might interpret it that way or be offended by the act. In fact, it's a symbolic act used as a tool to express patriotism (or pride in one's freedoms) by being able to demonstrate against the actions or behavior of the government. When an individual does this, they are unlikely to endanger national security or public safety. As such, prohibition on flag burning is unjustifiable so long as the flag is the property of the individual, and done on public property or the property of the individual (or a consenting party).