BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dropping the atomic bombs during WW2

Do you really want to bet that there weren't over 200,000 civilians casualties in WW2? What difference does it make if it takes 2 bombs, or 2,000 bombs. Dead is dead. Also, the target wasn't a civilian one, it was a military one. We were bombing the Japanese 2nd army, and a war manufacturing area. The Japanese intentionally bombed American Civilian targets. Your argument of civilian loss of life has fallen. That comment makes no sense. Did you leave part out? Why would anything have happened to us for dropping the bomb. Whatever. Anyway, hating your opponent after they beat you is to be expected in most wars. Whether or not that hate stands is is what matters. It didn't stand, therefore, your point fails. The signing of the treaty did lead to WW1, however, there was nothing involving bombs there. The treaty shamed a proud people, and Hitler promised to restore they're pride. By the time they woke up, he was too powerful. They weren't angry over a bomb. Once again, your claim has fallen. Does it really matter if you have one bomb built or hundred? If we needed more, we'd just build more. The bomb has forever been a prevention of war between civilized countries both owning the technology. We are all afraid of a fallout. Your argument doesn't make a difference either way. More can always be built. Finally, it doesn't mater if you were talking about Iran, they still want to attack Israel, our ally. -----My Arguments----- Those weren't over 10 million dead. That was the estimated casualties of an invasion of Japan. The bombs, even using your numbers, killed roughly 200 thousand. Therefore, the bomb saved over 10 million lives. The bombs saved their lives. The leaflets warned of the complete destruction of the Japanese forces. My point stands. That's not a warning to be taken lightly. They could've, and should've, fled. My point stands. Columbus wasn't nuked because we were the only ones who could nuke. My point stands. we nuked a military target. How do you know burning was more common with nukes? Only 2 have ever been dropped. More data is needed to make that call. Hopefully that data will never arrive. The mutations could've occurred without the bombs. They happen naturally. The bombs just increased the amount of mutations. Also, the area is usable. It's unstable, but we can still do stuff with it. Finally, I wasn't referring to those differences. I was referring to the fact that death is death and property damage is property damage. My point stands.
Dropping the atomic bombs during WW2

-----Defending my arguments------ It is true that civilian loss of life occurs in every war but not to the the effect that they were with the atomic bombs. In Hiroshima 140,000 people were killed and 80,000 were killed in Nagasaki, way above the estimates you provide later but I will get to that eventually.(1) So yes, the civilian loss of life was very great. And that was on just two days. Two bombs. So my argument about civilian loss of life still stands. As for anti-americanism, one women said this in regards to the bombs: "I hate Americans, they dropped the bomb and they did nothing to America". Anti-americanism was still rampant, just because we aren't mortal enemies now doesn't mean that there everything wen't over well. For example, after WWI Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles which ultimately lead to huge resentment towards the Triple Entente and ultimately the rise of Hitler. Hatred was huge then but we are allies with Germany now, so your argument about being allies makes no sense thus my claim still stands. It is true that the Soviet Nuclear project did start during WWII but regardless, after we saw that Russia was making one we made more and so on and so forth. The first one was really the catalyst that started proliferation. It is also true that atomic bombs prevented the Cold War from escalating but as I have already shown the proliferation which started the Cold War was caused by the creation of such a device so my argument about proliferation still stands. I wasn't talking about Iraq, I was talking about Iran... -----Refutation----- I have no idea what argument my opponent is making. The over 10,000,000 people were dead according to his evidence. He said //The estimated casualties for America were 1,000,000 dead. The estimates for Japan were 10,000,000 dead.// thus we can see that the bombs didn't save that many, they just weren't the cause of those deaths. So this argument really doesn't work at all... The claim that we dropped leaflets is somewhat true. We did drop leaflets warning that an attack would happen but no mention of atomic bombs was made and since surviving a regular bombing run wasn't that unlikely that Japanese gave it minimal thought. So? Columbus Ohio was a big trading area yet it wasn't nuked. What's the difference? With normal bombs there a) isn't fallout and there is a smaller blast radius and less chance of people getting massively burned (of course you could but it was more common with nuclear bombs) and b) regular bombs didn't genetically mutate the citizens and make the area unusable for years on end. So your argument here doesn't work either. So in conclusion, my claims still stand whereas my opponents have been refuted. I wait to see what his next move shall be. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dropping the atomic bombs during WW2

There are a few reasons why dropping the atomic bombs was a bad thing. 1) They caused civilian loss of life which only increased anti-americanism and would just breed resentment. 2) Once other countries saw that we had the ability to use such weapons it lead to widespread nuclear proliferation in Russia which ultimately lead to the Cold War. The remnants of that proliferation can still be seen in our modern day struggles where there is the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons. So ultimately the use of the atomic bombs sparked anti-americanism and widespread nuclear proliferation.
Classic Rock is better than Pop

Many classic rock songs have curse words in them, too. Plus, what Classic Rock doesn't have in cursing, they make up for in suicidal, satanist, and other imagery (or should I put it, audiotry) that wouldn't be good in a minor's playlist. To end this last argument, Jimi Hendrix is one of the most influential figures in rock. He's also one of the most influential figures in drug culture.
Classic Rock is better than Pop

Not every pop song has a rap in it. In fact, most, if not, all of the pop songs I commonly listen to have rap in them at all. While yes, many pop songs are a bit repetitive and unoriginal, many classic rock songs are, too. They don't always include over computerized beats. In fact, the most computerization I hear in pop songs I listen to are from keyboards (piano keyboards), and there are MANY classic rock songs with keyboards being played in them. Just listen to 99 Luftballons by Nena and you'll see.
Classic Rock is better than Pop

I am defining Classic rock as any album oriented songs or albums from 1960-1990 I prefer classic rock over pop not only because I like the music but because I don't support the modern music requiring a computer or an overly computerized beat. I also hate that every single pop song has rap in it. None of the songs are very original and seem to be a cash grab by big music company's. And everything is about one of three things. Too much blatant drug or sexual references. Yeah classic rock songs have references like that but they're on the most part subtle. Plus I Hage the repetitive songs of today
Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Free Trade AGREEMENTS [between countries] are part of the Free trade value, correct? Can a government impose taxes? Do any countries of the current day use free trade? If so… State All Nations. Even if we aren't using economic sanctions, specifically, government still has the power to control trade, correct? If SOME countries are harmed by free trade, does this mean there is a negative potential for free trade? What if free trade has negative impacts on the environment, jobs, and/or, government funding? How does free trade achieve foreign policy objectives? How would government's control of trade cause harm to the trade realm, specifically? Also, how much is it [trade] affected? (I am looking for a statistic, or other example.) Do business owners/companies seek to obtain profit? Do business owners/companies try to evade/eliminate competition? If entrepreneurs seek to invest money to the most profitable industry will this not harm other industries as well? You state "By allowing both trade and tourism back into Cuba, we can undermine Castro's authority from below." How does that "undermine Castro's authority"…? How would removing economic sanctions eliminate socialism? What is the link there? Why would Cuba accept Democracy, out of nowhere, just because we lifted the embargos present? (Did any diplomat, preferably Castro himself, say this would be true?) A nation seeks to eliminate threats of other nations, correct?
there should be school on the weekends

I strongly oppose this measure. Weekends and holidays have an important role in stress relief - going to school every day for 6 months would result in a very high amount of stress, since students would always have school every day with no end in sight. This would mean that having a vacation would not be possible. Stress makes students less able to learn, and cutting out weekends would dramatically increase stress. Weekends give students something to look forward to, something within sight. I would not be surprised at all if suicide rates among students skyrocketed if this proposal were to pass.
there should be school on the weekends

Quebec's students could be attending school on weekends and holidays as early as next year, after proposed changes that radically alter the school calendar and the way the school year itself is calculated. Education Minister Michelle Courchesne wants to define the school year in a whole new way as of next fall. Currently students must attend school for 180 to 200 days over the year, but if Courchesne's proposal passes we will be counting hours, instead of days. Students at the secondary level, for example, would attend school between 900 and 1,000 hours each year. Protections for weekends and statutory holidays would also be abolished, allowing schools to organize educational activities during periods which until now have been set aside for family and extra-curricular involvement
This House Would Arm The Police

This house would arm the police, because it is necessary and vital for the police in such way that they can protect and defend themselves fromthe attacants. If we were under attack, who would protect us without army? The best defense is the offence! And it comes the same as the military, they are armed and because it is necessary, they don"t hurt innocent people and as I previously said it is just to get scared from the attacants, this way they protect us and nobody gets hurt.
This House Would Arm The Police

Yes, I do think that this might transmitt a message in a violent way, but don"t you think it is necessary for us the people, and for them as the police that they need something to defend with themselves? Imagine you been in a violent situation, and you can"t defend yourselve? The only way you can attack violence is by more violence, there"s no other way! And even though we should transmitt peace, it shall come after the war. It has always happened.
This House Would Arm The Police

But don't you think that the symbolism of having people armed that can easily be corrupted can result in a more harmful way?I believe that this lower crime rates you talk about are because the police is not as present and not as violent as police in other countries is.Yes there should be some protection for the people, but not in the way of a man wearing or holding a gun against you,that is not how civilization should work. Instead of arming the police we should inspire peace in a nonviolent way
High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.

First let me point out that my opponent only addressed one of my points that I made in Round 2. "True, there is a possibility that any person could "go postal", but that's just it, anybody COULD. A police officer COULD become angry and shoot the person they just put in the back of their car, a secret service agent COULD become angry and shoot the president while he's sitting at his desk, and an armed teacher COULD go crazy and shoot their students, but the real question is WOULD they." -Under the right set of circumstances they would, yes. "The people chosen for these positions are not people who would go nuts and start killing people, if they were, if it was even thought that they may be, they would not be accepted for the job. It is the same with teachers. If there was the slightest thought of a person being a danger to the students or anyone in any form or fashion during their employment at the school, they would not be chosen for the job." -Your comparison of police officers and secret service agents is a little off-kilter. Police are there specifically to deal with the public at large, not to teach children. The secret service has a specific role, and it is not teaching children, either. I only need to raise the issue of accidental police shootings/beatings and the failure of the secret service to stop the JFK assassination and the shooting of Ronald Reagan. If someone has a motive to do harm and a psychological commitment to achieve their goal, no amount of deterrence, even certain death, is going to stop them. And again, you cannot say in advance what a particular person is capable of or will do, regardless of their current mental status. So why open the possibility of such a thing happening in the first place? More guns in schools, no matter who has them, does not mean more safety. I wouldn't be comfortable at school knowing anyone had a gun, whether they be teachers or not. Also, the screening process and training for police officers and secret service agents is somewhat more rigorous than that of a teacher with a concealed carry license. In the end, we must ask ourselves if we want a kind of cold war where teachers and students carry guns, or do we want to try and solve the problems that lead to violence in schools in the first place? There may always be a certain level of violence in schools, but I would be in favor of solving the underlying issues - poverty, amorality, the low value that is placed on life in general in our society, and the availability of guns in the first place. Until these things are dealt with or resolved, having teachers carry guns will be an unsafe and unsuccessful deterrent. Thank you for the debate. (And as annoying as it is to say this, please vote on the arguments and not the positions.)
High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.

True, there is a possibility that any person could "go postal", but that's just it, anybody COULD. A police officer COULD become angry and shoot the person they just put in the back of their car, a secret service agent COULD become angry and shoot the president while he's sitting at his desk, and an armed teacher COULD go crazy and shoot their students, but the real question is WOULD they. The people chosen for these positions are not people who would go nuts and start killing people, if they were, if it was even thought that they may be, they would not be accepted for the job. It is the same with teachers. If there was the slightest thought of a person being a danger to the students or anyone in any form or fashion during their employment at the school, they would not be chosen for the job. We have armed police officers because them being armed creates a safer environment for them and everyone else present, including the convict. Our President has armed secret service agents because them being armed creates the safest possible environment for him. Our schools also then, should be able to have that extra security by giving teachers with a concealed weapon license the option to carry a weapon to give protection for our future police officers, presidents, and teachers.
High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.

"It won't be an irresponsible, trigger happy, murderer who is handling these weapons, they will be educated, responsible, educators who have an extra security for the worst of situations." -How do you know this? Teachers are only as human as anyone, and you nor anyone else can accurately predict the mindsets/motives/circumstances of these teachers. The possibility of one "going postal," as it were, is always there. In fact, the possibility would be significantly raised if guns were at their immediate disposal. "If teachers were allowed to carry weapons inside the school, there would be no doubt that there would still be students that would have them as well, but there would probably be less if they knew that if they pulled a gun, there will be teachers that would defend the other students, as well as themselves." -When a kid goes to school with a gun and a purpose for that gun, similar to Columbine, I doubt that teachers having guns would be much of a deterrent. First, do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim? Second, they probably expect to kill themselves or die in another way in any case, so they wouldn't be too worried. Compare to the psychology of a suicide bomber. Third, the students would know that their teachers might have a gun. New strategy: before killing bullies, jocks, preps, or other stereotypes, kill the teacher first. Problem solved! Your argument literally boils down to "more guns equal more safety," and this is simply not the case. As I said, all it would do is induce an arms race.
High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.

True, the teachers could sneak a gun into the school, but they shouldn't have to. They should be allowed to have them there, and i'm not talking about all the teachers, only the ones with a concealed weapon license. In order to obtain this license, you have to pay(in Dallas at least), a $200 charge for the class, be a minimal age of 21, and be responsible enough to handle a gun. It won't be an irresponsible, trigger happy, murderer who is handling these weapons, they will be educated, responsible, educators who have an extra security for the worst of situations. If teachers were allowed to carry weapons inside the school, there would be no doubt that there would still be students that would have them as well, but there would probably be less if they knew that if they pulled a gun, there will be teachers that would defend the other students, as well as themselves. It wouldn't create a "wild west" scenario, it would create an area of increased safety precautions to make a better learning environment for students
High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.

High school teachers are just as able as students or anyone else to be armed inside the school. If a student can sneak a gun into a school undetected, then a teacher with more experience and access to the school should have no problem. If we are debating the "should," though, my position will be that no one should be able to be armed with any weapon of any kind. The presence of any weapons presents the possibility for direct and extreme violence, and this should be avoided at all costs, especially in schools. On a practical note, all that this would do is start an arms race, in the most literal sense of the phrase. Turning the schools into a police state or Wild West-style saloon is not the answer to the problems of violence that we face today.
April Public Forum Debate

Are you serious? I got back in time to post this round. okay then, scratch my note, unless you interpreted it to mean that you shouldn't debate anymore. If so scratch my arguments here. Otherwise I'll continue. We extend my interpretation of the limits of the debate. Any mitigation is within the limits, and anything that even slightly meets the goal of the bills;s framers is successful, whether that goal mitigates or not. Second, extend the argument that consumer spending increases. I have not been arguing that this increase will necessarily mitigate, and it doesn't have to. The stimulus must mitigate, but not necessarily through these goals. next, my argument that budgets cannot be so rigid that businesses will not increase spending a dime is extended. Businesses must have a flexible budget, otherwise they would fails everytime the unexpected occurs. There will be at least a small increase. That goal is met. Fourth, although this may create another housing bubble, it will last for the next year, and even if it bursts, the burst will come to late to be relevant to our debate. Finally, my opponnent has never addressed my mitgation argument. Giving money to those impacted most will certainly mitigate the impact of the economic slowdowns. PRO: why vote 1.
April Public Forum Debate

First, as for the argument over the limits of this debate. I will again say this: The resolution only applies to the next year. If benefits come later or negatives come later, it doesn't matter. Although the stimulus may be short-sighted, the resolution is as well. Secondly, his claim that I failed to refute his argument about the scope of the resolution fails. He did not refute the definitions of Merriam-Webster, and the phrase over the next year. I agree with his arguments about creating a new housing bubble, budget deficit increases, etc., but my opponent has yet to prove that these negatives will occur within the allotted time frame as required by the resolution. The long-term of the stimulus is irrelevant, as the resolution only focuses on fairly short term impacts. Now onto the goals and the direct mitigation. Goal One: Even if I was fallacious in stating that an 11% increase in consumer spending will translate to an equivalent profit increase, the fact is consumer spending increase. Not by much, but it increases. It meets that goal. That is all I have to prove, I don't even have to prove that that increase will help, I simply must prove that that increase will occur. Ben Bernanke may have made a bad goal, but we are simply reviewing the completion of goals in order to determine success. Mitigation is addressed differently. Goal Two: Businesses have planned for capital equipment increases. This is something that is done in economic slowdowns. The tax allowances will let them buy more equipment, which will in turn lead to more spending. Budgets are not carved in stone, if they were, businesses could not survive unexpected outcomes. They will be able to take advantage of the allowance. Goal Three: I know this creates a new housing bubble, but, the increase will last at least a year, and as stated by Robert Lever, could help reduce defaults at least in the short term. So, even if this new bubble leads to a second Great Depression that starts in 2010, the goal still is upheld. Mitigation: This my opponent fails to refute. Since mitgating means lessening the impact, putting money in the hands of those who will be impacted the most is going to mitgate the effects of economic slowdowns. People will be more able to outlast the economic slowdowns with $600 more dollars in their pocket. Less debt and more savings will do nothing but help these families over the next year. This is the mitgation. Unless my opponent proves the economy will worsen for this, I do not have to prove GDP increases, economic growth, etc. I must lessen the impacts of the slowdowns. Why vote PRO: 1. The goals of the package are upheld 2. The impact of the slowdowns is lessened 3. Negative impacts will be postponed until this resolution is null and void. Note: This will be my last round, so if you please, bno abuse becuase of it. If you wish we can debate again.