BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

Oh, right-wingers can be sometimes a little bit too jingoistic. Funny how liberal = anti-American in these people's minds. Oh well. You know, after you mentioned your family history, it brought to light mine. Now I'm three quarters German, and most of my family actually fought in the Nazi army before my maternal grandparents came to America. My paternal grandfather was German as well, but he was in America since before Hitler. So he fought in the Pacific, repairing submarines. I do not doubt that if an invasion had taken place, my grandfather would have been given a gun and told to storm a beach. And so probably neither of us would be here to debate this.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

If I learned anything about living abroad it's that your environment shapes your view of the world more then anything.....it works from the pro-american and anti-american points....I've been accused of both being pro-american while abroad and anti-american when I returned. Which am I....an American patriot who cares about doing the right thing for the world not just my country(s)(I'm Japanese and American)Also, if you're interested my Grandfather was a B-17 pilot who was being trained to fly B-29's when the war ended...he didn't want to fly over the pacific, I was confused why he was so afraid when he flew over the Atlantic. lol. While my grandmother on my Japanese side was evacuated because of the bombings. There are no hard feelings but I am interested in finding out what is actually right about the bombing. I guess I have a semi-unbiased outlook on Japanese-American relations and stuff. But it's not like I wasn't guilty of using emotional language either...lol I respect you but some of the comments have been criminal....this is from my other debate. http://www.debate.org...
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

A good debate as well, congratulations, now it's up to the voters to decide. I suppose I do have a very pro-American outlook on things. .. so I could tone it down a little bit. Trust me, I have struggled myself with this argument, and I probably would have thought differently had it been the Japanese who dropped atomic bombs on San Francisco and LA. But then again, that's not what we were debating!
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

If what you say is true.....You win. Good debate. I enjoyed it and you have succeeded in changing my opinion. Although I will always have doubts about the action as I believe should be the case with anyone if 150,000 people are killed in two events. I enjoyed this and I will vote for you in the voting period. Also, let's stay away from the overly pro-American outlook buddy. lol If you want me to continue debating please say so....I've thoroughly enjoyed the debate and I will continue to try and work myself out of the corner if you want to.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

I am curious as to whether or not you actually read the Strategic Bombing Survey or just cut and pasted the quote that appears on Wikipedia. Because the Strategic Bombing Survey also says: "There is no doubt that the bomb was the most important influence among the people of these areas in making them tkink that defeat was inevitable." All those who had doubted that it was necessary for Japan to put up the white flag. Might I remind you that a compromise peace without dropping the atomic bomb would have left many of the Japanese ready to continue the struggle. The Strategic Bombing report also states that it was only a minority of the leaders in Japan that wanted to effect a surrender. The Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and War Ministers were all wanting to continue fighting. They were even considering "liquidation" of the anti-war members. Also take into consideration the fact that had the Japanese eventually surrendered by the end of the year, it would not have happened had we pulled back and just parked our ships outside the home islands. We would need to have continued to bomb them. The report also says that the atomic bomb broke the deadlock within the Japanese government and allowed them to "avoid further useless slaughter and destruction". That means that even in the Japanese view, the bomb saved lives. In terms of the burden of proof, I think we need to keep in mind that hindsight is 20/20. If you were in a situation where you were at war with a nation and you needed to elicit defeat as quickly as possible, the atomic bomb would be the best option. Or strategic bombings, which you also decry.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

Wow, five rounds is quite a lot, but I suspect we won't have much trouble filling all of the rounds. First, just saying that the Japanese and Germans were different doesn't count as a valid point. You have to justify why they were different. And yes, they were different, but that doesn't mean that we should have taken a risk and trusted that Japan would not attack us again if we just let bygones be bygones. Do you honestly think that had the United States and Japan come to a compromise peace, that they would have let us dismantle the military-political stranglehold that had its grip on the Emperor? You say that because there were no negotiations, we could never have known what the Japanese would have offered. But let me tell you, that when you are at war, you need to get yourself in the best possible position you can. Fighting a world war is not about getting a little bit closer and saying "Peace now? Peace now?" then taking a little bit more ground and going "Peace now? Peace now?" with the hopes of having a wonderful, friendly armistice between the two nations. No! We were in a World War and needed to drive them into the ground. Also, it is hard to distinguish between different parts of a nation when you are at war with the whole nation. Bombing the Japanese civilians is not like watching someone kill your brother and then shooting someone else. Japan was one unit. Japan was Japan. The civilians and the government were not different parties in this case. When you have a nation that prides itself on producing young boys who pilot their planes in American aircraft carriers, you cannot negotiate with them because they do not want to surrender. You have to show them that we have the ability to destroy them. And it's not like this was unprovoked or an attack without warning. If I'm not mistaken, when you bring your nation into war, you kind of have to expect this is going to happen. What were we going to do? Say, "Hey everybody, we're gonna drop an atomic bomb on your city, so how about everybody leaves and then we'll do this thang." No. We were at war. And war sucks. But war is war. Listen, you make some good points. Perhaps Japan would have surrendered. But we didn't know that they would. The only way for the United States to be certain that Japan would surrender and we would have complete control over the Post-War government was threaten annihilation and actually light the fuse by dropping two A-Bombs. At this point in history, perhaps dropping the bomb would be a poor idea. But in the context of World War II, a war that had cost 60 million lives already, people did not want to sit around and wait for the Japanese to surrender. We were weary, the world was weary, and the world wanted peace. The atomic bomb was the best way to guarantee peace. You can try to make the same appeal you have been making with "But people died!" but it's not going to work. The bomb was horrible. The bombings were horrible. But that is war.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb against Japan in World War 2 was Unjustified (Cont.)

I saw your debate about the US decline....and I agree with you. Also, what you say about the Bush issue is so true. I lived in Swaziland, Africa and what you say is so true. My best friend said "all americans suck!" in a half jest, half serious way and that is very close to their opinion.
People under 16 should ride the bus for free

You do have very good points, but children should be getting 90 minutes of exercise everyday. Kids can't get 90 minutes of exercise by just doing Physical education. It is true that it is their problem but we can also help them with their problem. Even in Physical education, many students who don't like Phys. Ed make excuses or just don't come to school. It is true that some kids can't afford the bus but that's when carpooling comes in. If kids need to go to soccer practice, they can carpool with other team mates which makes it environmentally friendly as well. Your last point is also very true but in reality, the government probably wouldn't really want to spend money on the damages that the children made and will probably want to ban children under 16 to go on the bus for free. Salaries would be hard to pay for if they had to spend money on the damages and other things.
People under 16 should ride the bus for free

I do agree with most of your points, but if they don't get their exercise, it is their problems. People who are under sixteen are all in school, at least they should be. So, they have Physical education, that way there is really nothing to worry about. There is some kids that can't afford the bus, so there is another great thing. The government is supposed to help fund the city, so really they should have the solution to this. They (the government) should have money stored up for more service in cities and it count for the salaries for the people who work for the bus lines.
People under 16 should ride the bus for free

I think that people under 16 should not ride the bus for free. Children these days are so lazy and need to get some exercise. If children under 16 ride the bus for free, there is no way that kids will be willing to walk somewhere instead of riding the bus. Another reason why children under 16 should not ride the bus for free is that they will take advantage of it. A lot of children under 16 don't ride the city bus with their friends just for fun. But, if they can ride it for free, they could wreck the bus and it could cost the city more money to fix those damages. Also, many children don't earn allowance. I did a survey in a grade 7/8 class (12-14 years of age) and not even one quarter of the class gets allowance. That means that even of they go on the bus, their parents probably pay for it either way which means that it is already free for the children. Finally, the last point I wanted to mention is that it will be taking the money from the people who work for the bus lines. Pretty much all of the prices are raising like crazy these days. The people who work for the bus lines will not get as much salary as they used to. If people under 16 don't pay to go on the bus, they are pretty much taking the money away that the people that work for bus lines deserve. I have presented my arguments.
People under 16 should ride the bus for free

Kids and teens already have everything they deserve. They go to school so they already have free bus transportation there. They don't need to do the groceries because that's what their parents/guardians probably do. And, last but not least, I think that if kids go to the mall together, they could always get picked up by a friend's parent's/guardian's car or in their own parent's/guardian's car. I think that children are perfectly fine without having free city bus transportation. It saves not only money but children can also get more exercise as well. This is why I think people under 16 should not ride the bus for free.
Should Kanye West change his name to Jesus Christ

I will argue that Kanye West should indeed change his name to Jesus Christ, and I think this purely from a moralistic perspective. If you come from the perspective that humans should have the liberty to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, then you should believe that Kayne should indeed change his name to Jesus Christ. He is his own person, and if he wants to do this, he should do this. If you disregard my argument about individual liberty, then you can take it from a different angle and still arrive at my conclusion. It's evident that Kanye's success and his brand is based around his "bad boy" and "cool" mentality. Kanye doesn't smile in press shots because he says "it wouldn't look as cool" (1). His grumpy face makes him seem tough, and it helps his brand. Many people would consider him changing his name to Jesus Christ as an act of blasphemy, and blasphemy is sometimes considered a sin. This would only make him seem like more of a "bad boy", and he'd only gain in popular. That completes my argument. The idea is that Kanye should do what Kanye wants to do, and also, changing his name would help his brand. Thank you for debating with me. (1) http://www.huhmagazine.co.uk...
Gay And lesbian Marriage is right.

Now while I find it very hard that he can beat me if he does post. Cause he would have to post some amazing sh*t that defends what I said to him,make up for the past rounds,rebuttal,and post for his.And also I've been nice...but it could happen. But until then,I'm again not gonna post and be a d*ck. Just uh,go on with your day and as your leaving,put your mouse on vote Con and click. Thanks!
Gay And lesbian Marriage is right.

Hello there,I'm gonna instigate this round,of course,as you see. I take the the position against Gay and Lesbian marriage. I know Gay's and Lesbian's,and they are quite nice people. I know some that are not so nice. But I'm making the argument that it's not right. Accept of course if you wanna have a nice little debate. I want a nice debate of course,but I don't mind some joking around and some easy going-ness. But I do want a real debate. If you're a troll or not serious,please stay away. I'm not trying to offend anyone,so wanna put that out there. if you don't like this argument,this simply don't keep track of it and ignore it. Simple stuff folks. Of course this round is gonna be acceptance,but from there on anything. Just say what you wanna,and defend and rebuttal. If you used any sites,please don't plagiarize and actually source your sites. Thank you,and God bless. Have a happy Debate. Also,check out my other debate on the same matter. If you see it,then you'll see why I started up this one. Of course vote for me. But if you agree with her,then vote for her on the part where it says who you agree with. I will report any votes that are unfair,so make sure to say why you voted,and make sure it's fair. http://www.debate.org...
school uniforms

my opponent makes the claim that having identical clothes will help when people go out on excursions but my school uses high tech id badges so as to monitor where the students are and when they are there at all times. my opponent also makes the case that the teacher will not know what is going on is a red herring or also known as a way to distract people. this thing with the teacher not knowing what is going on has nothing to do with uniforms but to do with that teacher should be fired for not paying attention to the students needs which by the way is their job. Now on a more serious note bullying is a real thing that real people deal with. when people feel that they are being overwhelmed by everyday school life then get a parent or get an adult that you trust so that they can solve the problem. another thing is you can talk to that person to solve the problem. it is not usually just because of what you are wearing or how you look it is usually a much deeper problem than that. that person may be dealing with serious emotional problems so telling an adult is usually the best thing.
school uniforms

School uniforms are a necessity in everyday life as, it helps people not to be classed by how good their clothes look, or if they are poor, rich etc. Nobody want's to be judged by how they look as it would be degrading to that person if they are then compared to one of the richest people in school. Not having school uniforms would also create distrust among the students as they would all be split up into groups based on how much money they have and how 'good' they look, the school would basically be divided into sections. This would make it harder for teacher also as they would not be able to keep track of everything that is going on. School uniforms also makes it easier for the school to keep track of it's students when you go on excursions, if you are all in different clothes it would make it harder for teachers to find out who are the students and who are the children walking past them on the road! This is all I have time for at the moment!
school uniforms

if schools decide that students should have uniforms then they are the problem. students get bullied over their clothes sure but the teachers stop and report it. All over the United States of America students are being taught to express their individuality by teachers, not to follow the crowd, but now they are double talking meaning that they say one thing and then say the exact opposite the next. That is also called being a hypocrite. Anyone who agrees with the teachers is saying that students should be like little robots in the perfect world, but guess what its not a perfect world so get over it. Students are human beings that deserve to be able to express themselves. They have the same rights as others.
school uniforms

Your school may use high tech ID badges but not every school does due to the amount of money that would be required to run a system like that in a public school with more than 1000 students, as this would make this system a whole lot harder to keep track of and run. By all of the students having the same uniform on excursions the teacher is able to easily identify their students in a crowd rather than looking at a little red 'blot' on a tablet or device. And as for this "not paying attention to the students needs which by the way is their job. ", this is just stupid as if your teacher have to look at their devices to keep track of you, that means all of your students can run off doing their own thing, which means your teacher is not paying attention to the students needs which by the way is their job. "Now on a more serious note bullying is a real thing that real people deal with. when people feel that they are being overwhelmed by everyday school life then get a parent or get an adult that you trust so that they can solve the problem. " I agree that bullying is a big point but if you just have ID badges and no school unifrom, you are setting your students up to fail, as the poor kid would be bringing "cheap" clothes and the rich people would bully them and Ostracize them from the rest of the school. Think if you were that poor kid would you like to be in that position? "another thing is you can talk to that person to solve the problem. it is not usually just because of what you are wearing or how you look it is usually a much deeper problem than that. that person may be dealing with serious emotional problems so telling an adult is usually the best thing. " This makes sense for Public school's maybe if they have school unifrom, as then it is more about how they feel towards you personally and then they are bringing emotions into it, but in cases of schools without Uniforms they pay you otu because of the way you look which then in turn show how much money your family has. This would make people more self-centered and they would grow up and think this is the way life is and they would be doing that to other people. School unifroms also set people up for when they get jobs as being in a high end or a low end job most of them require there workers to wear specific unifroms which is what you learn when you are in school.
Kids should not play neopets it is a bad influence on them

Thank you. My opponent said began by making a long statement about games of luck and chance in Neopets. First of all, I must say that my opponent has argued too subjectively. He speaks of himself not wanting his kids to be influenced by this or that. Where are studies showing that this game influences children in a negative way? Where are they? I see none in this debate. Furthermore, my point is not weak. When I say that children would easily be able to find a site of gambling, I mean that if they are desiring gambling very much, they will easily find other sites and play e.g. Poker. Neopets offers some games of luck and chance but it is no big deal, and I will tell why. My friend Mohammad[1] said that it can actually be good for children to play games of luck and chance. He explained that when they try them and realize that even without playing for real money, they can still lose a lot, e.g. time, patience, good feelings, maybe friends, etc. They eventually realize that games of luck and chance are bad because they do not get much out of them, except bad things. This clearly indicates that they may actually not want to gamble for real if they play games of luck and chance in their earlier lives. I can also use myself as an example - When I was younger, I used to play some games of luck and chance. I never thought of playing for real money. Moreover, as I sometimes lost only because other people were lucky with chances, I strayed more and more away from these games. Today, I have little interest in most of them, and I despise gambling. Therefore I say that games of luck and chance can indeed "help" children with staying away from real gambling. o Animal fighting My opponent has offered no studies proving or indicating that virtual animal fight can lead to children wanting animals to fight for real. Is there a survey showing that children believe that pets should fight? Is there such a thing? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is clear: My opponent has offered no evidence for that. Moreover, the incident of a child killing his own brother is saddening, but this happened on a PlayStation 2 game that is depicting clear violence.[2] That is with use of gunfire, too. Neopets shows nothing similar to that. It only describes the fight and there is nothing violent at all. o Communication The communication part is good. It is one of two lesser evils. The Internet is filled with thousands of chat sites and games with chat. If kids play Neopets, they easily learn how to cope with different people talking to them. If Neopets is bad for chatting, then the whole Internet is. All in all, my opponent provided no real evidence for his claims, but mostly his own opinion. I see no surveys or studies. I thank him anyway. -- References -- [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...