BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dropping the Atom Bomb on Japan was unnecessary to end WWII

I The Japanese were prepared to surrender The Japanese had sent out feelers to negotiate terms of surrender, one being that they be allowed to keep their emperor. These gestures were rejected as America wanted nothing short of complete, unconditional surrender, no matter how many more people were to die. "Japan's Prime Minister Suzuki spelled out the problem of "unconditional surrender" well for doves and hawks alike when he publicly announced on June 9, 1945, "Should the emperor system be abolished, they [the Japanese people] would lose all reason for existence. 'Unconditional surrender', therefore, means death to the hundred million: it leaves us no choice but to go on fighting to the last man." "1 The real Irony is that the Americans ended up allowing Japan to keep its emperor after surrender. II Russia entering the war The Japanese knew that the Russians invading Manchuria was the end of their war. Russia invaded manchuria the same morning that the second nuclear bomb was dropped. The japanese saw this news, that of the Russians opening another front, as the final straw, not the second nuclear bomb. After all, America had been leveling Japanese cities for weeks through conventional bombs, so to the Japanese command another city was just another city. Whether it was by one plane and one bomb or a hundred planes and a thousand bombs. III Top brass, 5 star Generals and Fleet Admirals disagreed with using the bomb These were the top military commanders in the country and the vast majority of them disagreed with our use of the atomic bomb in the manner in which it used it. Those opposed being George C. Marshall 2 Douglas MacArthur 3 Dwight D. Eisenhower 4 Henry H. Arnold 5 Ernest J. King 5 Chester W. Nimitz 5 William D Leahy 6 IV Invasion of the mainland was unnecessary The universal argument for using the war was the U.S. lives that would be lost during an invasion. This, however, is a false dichotomy. Ernest J. King, Commander in chief of the U.S Fleet and chief of Naval Operations, said that "The President in giving his approval for these [atomic] attacks appeared to believe that many thousands of American troops would be killed in invading Japan, and in this he was entirely correct; but King felt, as he had pointed out many times, that the dilemma was an unnecessary one, for had we been willing to wait, the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials." 5 Sources 1 http://www.spectacle.org...... 2 Microfilm 1108, RG 77, Harrison-Bundy Files, file 100, Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, Thursday, 31 May 1945, National Archives 3 Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71 4 Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 5 http://www.colorado.edu...... 6 William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
Homosexuals should be eliminated from the world

Homosexuals should be eliminated from the world because 1."They eat da poo poo like ice cream"said Pastor Martin Ssempa from Uganda. 2.They insert their penis into each others anus, which is a crime against bible. 3.They are the source of aids. Sources:"Homosexuality in Uganda" Pastor Martin Ssempa, Blackfrica, Uganda, 2005. http://www.youtube.com...
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

Well what we need to look at is the objective of Obama's plan. The troops that are being sent to Afghanistan will not be withdrawn immediately following the 18 month time period. As soon as that 18 month period is up, Obama needs to reacquire the ground situation. So if we look too see how incompetent the army is most of the troops will be in Afghanistan a lot longer than 18 months. The British General David Richard who has served in Afghanistan states that the war could last as long as 40 years. So what we can see here is that if we favor the lives of our troops Obama's plan is not the the best interest for the United States.
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

What you must see is Obama's plan is not in the best interest because the Afghan army is corrupt and training them will be near impossible. First off we need to look at the past, one of the objectives of the war on terrorism was to successfully train an Afghan security force enabling the United States to leave as soon as possible. Although the U.S. has officially trained 94,000 Afghan soldiers, there's no signs of an effective Afghan security force capable of fighting the Taliban. Also the Desertion rates are high; an estimated 1 in 4 soldiers trained last year deserted the army. Drug usage is rampant throughout the army, and police force. Corruption is a huge problem too, the soldiers and police are all underpaid, so they rarely if not at all feel guilty about accepting bribes. Too note how widespread the problem is lets look towards the 2009 election, where Hamid Karzai, the current president committed election fraud. Now if we look at the deadline Obama's set there is no way an entire country can change its mindset in just 18 months. Now we need to look at the opportunity costs of Obama's plan. According to David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Afghanistan is a costly distraction for the president, and the military. Every minute the president is focused on Afghanistan and every dollar we spend there is a withdraw from some other account, some higher priority." Rothkopf lists nine priorities that are more important than Afghanistan in the Middle East alone. This seemingly endless war will waste the lives of the Americans sent there along with an estimated 2 billion dollars a year. Now ask yourselves, is it in the best interest of the American people to be devoting so much in terms of resources, to train an army that is so incompetent? With all of this money, it could be spent elsewhere for example the 9 other higher priorities in the Middle East alone. Or better improve our own infrastructure and education systems? Is is in the best interest of the citizens to be fighting an endless war; or to be allowing that money to be better spent elsewhere?
The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

I affirm: The meaning, or purpose, as defined by my opponent, can NOT be to reproduce. Reproduction: "the act or process of reproducing" http://dictionary.reference.com... The reason for there to be life being to make more life makes as much sense as saying that the government exists to be bigger or that the purpose of the NRA is to have more members. -The purpose of the NRA is to promote the rights to carry and use firearms. While the NRA must have a high amount of members, this is not their purpose. -The purpose of government is to protect a people. While the government has to exist to do this, existence is not its purpose. The logic that to continue one's existence could potentially be a purpose is based in fallacy. Further, not all things have to have a purpose. For this reason, the logic that "I don't know what it is, so it must be this" doesn't work. It is fallacious besides that observation anyways. I await my opponent's response.
The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

wjmelements recently did a debate of this resolution, and it was not a very fulfilling one for me as a reader. So I challenge wjmelements to debate this topic again. Definitions Meaning: The end, purpose, or significance of something. http://dictionary.reference.com... There are a few arguments I am going to make, but I'll start by saying that to say that the meaning of life is DEFINITELY not reproduction seems over-assumptive. Since my opponent is PRO, I will allow him to go first before I post my formal contentions.
The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

He then tries to assert that something's purpose being to never end is logical. -First, I'd like to point out how far my opponent had to go to get this point across (an entirely hypothetical situation involving an entirely hypothetical program). -Second, I'd like to show that its purpose then would be to satisfy my opponent's want for a program that has such a purpose. ----------------------------------------------- "My opponent's argument can only be absolutely correct when every single possible thing has been proven to not be able to be its own meaning. " My opponent tries here to shove a ridiculous burden of proof on me. This is quite silly, as he proudly grabbed it in the first round. He does this because he cannot come up with a counterexample to the logic that proves his case faulty. ----------------------------------------------- My opponent responds to the claim that "a reason cannot be circulatory" by showing that his definition does not contain the word "reason". However, the word "purpose" has already been defined: "The word purpose is defined as: -the reason for which something exists or is done . http://dictionary.reference.com... " His claim that "reason implies causality" is false in that purpose implies causality as well. ------------------------------------------------- My opponent clarified his point regarding banks. He argues that banks must acquire money to acquire money (duh). This is no different than other companies. The wealth that banks aquire (interest) is different and entirely separate from the money they receive in the first place (principle). . http://www.uncg.edu... ------------------------------------------------- My opponent then argues that a company's purpose is to make money and that they must do this to survive. However, surviving is clearly not their purpose. My opponent is using false logic (this might have to do with the fact that it is late at night). A NECESSITY is separable from a CHARACTERISTIC. Further, a NECESSITY is separable from PURPOSE. While a necessity is necessary to continue to exist, and existence is necessary to achieve purpose, the necessity is not the purpose. Simply put, gaining money in the form of income is a necessity, but the purpose it to get profit. The two are distinguishable. ------------------------------------------------- CONCLUSION: My opponent has cited three examples, which turn out to not prove my logic false. My opponent has not shown my logic to be false, because reasoning cannot be circulatory; therefore, a reason cannot be circulatory; therefore, a purpose cannot be circulatory. This affirms the resolution thoroughly. The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.
The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

"My opponent says that my analogies are flawed in that there is a part of the whole that is not false and then leaves his argument there. However, he gives those examples later, both computer programs. While a CHARACTERISTIC of these programs is that they do such things but their PURPOSE is clearly to counter my claim. Instead, they verified it." 1. In this case, their purpose way to counter my opponent's claim. However, if I had wanted a program that never ends (which hypothetically I may have), I would use the second program. Its purpose would be to never end. 2. If we assume that the purpose of those programs was not to make themselves, it still does not prove my opponent correct. My opponent's argument can only be absolutely correct when every single possible thing has been proven to not be able to be its own meaning. "A reason cannot be circulatory." Ah, I understand now. This is an interesting point. To respond effectively, I am going to return to the definition of "meaning". Meaning: The end, purpose, or significance of something. This definition says nothing about "reason". End, purpose and significance are all ideas separate from the concept of "reason". Reason implies causality, while end and significance do not. Purpose does in a way imply causality, but is still not exactly "reason". A better statement would be "A meaning cannot be circulatory", but this statement is not obviously true. End: Life has no apparent end. Sure, everything could die, but that wouldn't really be a meaning. Evolution has no real goal or end[1], and so life has no meaning through an end. Unless, that is, we are talking about life on a more local level. Life can end once it reproduces. Purpose: This is much more complicated, and the entire rest of the debate is about this. Significance: What makes life significant? This is fairly opinionated, but I think that reproduction is very significant. Life is rare, and no other type of material reproduces itself. Reproduction is very significant indeed. "you kind of argued my point here" I was arguing that banks run by acquiring money. This is necessary for their survival. And you stated yourself that "All companies strive to make money. This is their purpose." Which leads me to another interesting argument. In order to survive, all companies (not just banks) need to make money. They collapse otherwise. And by my opponent's own definition, the purpose of a company is to make money. So monetary gain is both a purpose and a necessity. I have thusly refuted my opponent's case case by giving an example of a necessity that is also a purpose. Therefore, it is possible for reproduction to be both a necessity for life and the purpose. *** I have given three counter-examples, one of which came from my opponent's own definition. These alone are reason enough to vote CON. Additionally, I have shown why my opponent's logic is flawed and have defended my own case. Vote CON! [1] http://www.talkorigins.org...
The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

----------------------------------------------- My opponent says that my analogies are flawed in that there is a part of the whole that is not false and then leaves his argument there. However, he gives those examples later, both computer programs. While a CHARACTERISTIC of these programs is that they do such things but their PURPOSE is clearly to counter my claim. Instead, they verified it. I am still waiting for a counterexample. .. ------------------------------------------------- "Why can the meaning of life not also be a necessity of life? " How many times must we go over this? The purpose of life cannot be to make more life. A reason cannot be circulatory (IE: "Why can't we wear hats in school? " "Because it's against the rules. " (Actual conversation with an education bureaucrat [teacher] today). ------------------------------------------------- My opponent concedes that all characteristics of life are circulatory, and then claims that his argument stands. .. -------------------------------------------------- " 'All companies strive to make money. This is their purpose. ' What about companies that make money by handling money, such as banks? " . .. you kind of argued my point here. .. -------------------------------------------------- I now await a bunch of counterexamples to my claim that "Characteristics are never purposes" and plently of examples on how something's purpose can be to exist.
The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

First, my opponent claims that analagous logic is faulty and irrelevant. However, my analogies showed that the existence and the continuance of existence cannot be purposes. This continues with all things that do have purpose. Nothing's purpose is to reproduce. Second, my opponent claims that the logical fallacy, that something can exist just to exist, that the purpose of life can be to make more life, makes perfect sense. However, as I have shown through analagy, this is logically impossible. Third, my opponent argues that live's purpose could be reproduction because all living things reproduce (by definition). To refute this, I would like to identify the general characteristics of life: (. http://www.una.edu...) 1. Reproduction 2. Aquiring of Energy 3. Carbon-based Chemicals 4. Response to Environmental Stimuli 5. Capacity to Mutate 6. Reductionism My opponent's argument that 'life has always and only been reproducing'; therefore, 'the meaning of life is reproduction' is false in that life has been doing many other characteristics as well as reproduction. The acquiring of energy is not the meaning of life for the same reason that reproduction cannot be the meaning of life: subsistence is necessary; however the meaning of life cannot be subsistence. A basic argument against this claim is that a characteristic is not a purpose. The word purpose is defined as: -the reason for which something exists or is done . http://dictionary.reference.com... Note the way that it doesn't say, "the way that something exists or is done". Following my opponent's logic: While a chracteristic can help something achieve its purpose, as existing helps the government function, expanding helps a company make money, and growing helps the NRA "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis" (. http://www.nra.org...), these characteristics are not purposes. Again, another logical analagy: All companies strive to make money. This is their purpose. All companies have to employ people to do so. This is their characteristic. While subsistence helps, it is not a purpose, and purposes are not characteristics. I await rebuttal.
The meaning of life is definitely not reproduction.

"The reason for there to be life being to make more life makes as much sense as saying that the government exists to be bigger or that the purpose of the NRA is to have more members. " This is an argument by analogy, and proves nothing. My opponent goes on to explain the logic behind why the purpose of life cannot be to make more life, which is acceptable and I will rebut next. But this argument by analogy should be rejected outright. "The logic that to continue one's existence could potentially be a purpose is based in fallacy. " Why not? It is not a very good purpose, and hence we do not see many examples of it, but it is a purpose nonetheless. "Further, not all things have to have a purpose. " While true, this is irrelevant. My opponent must prove that the meaning of life is definitely not reproduction, which can be done by proving that there is no meaning of life. But saying that it's POSSIBLE that there is no meaning of life is not the same as proving that there is no meaning of life. *** Now I will explain why the meaning of life is probably reproduction. Note that I only have the burden of proof to show that the meaning of life COULD be reproduction. Think back to the origins of life, back when all creatures were very primitive. Some life was able to sustain itself, and did so. Some life was not, and died out. Why? The life that sustained itself had purpose, and that purpose was to reproduce. Ever since then, life has continued. It has changed and developed over time, but there has been one constant: it always reproduces. Reproduction is the one thing that life has always been doing. If the meaning of life is to, say, have a tail, then the vast majority of life is a failure. If the meaning of life is to have a tail, then by natural selection, all life should have a tail.
Consensual Necrophilia

Case 1: It would dillute society I know many people in America are highly against censorship of any kind, but sometimes it is needed. Why do we have laws restricting what people can say on the radio, or what images can pop up when searching google? To protect the minds of children of course. While I recognize the necessity of making them develop free thought, but up until a certain age, their minds are not ready for some horrors. Necrophillia is certainly one of them. Should we allow more evil into the world, to please the 40 men sick enough to sack their dead wife? This is neccesary censorship. http://censorship.laws.com...Case 2: The neccesity is few and far betweenThe great French thinker, Charles de Montesquieu, once said a line that has engraved itself forever into history....."Useless laws weaken the necessary ones"What is this quote really saying. It is telling us that laws that exist without use, only serve to over burden the legal system, and lessen the effectiveness and respect of the courts. I have not seen a census, nor do I believe one exists, but I will take an educated guess and say only about 600 people in the US are openly Necrophiliacs. By my oppponents proposal, the courts require the other person to give consent after death, which lowers the number of people in my educated guess to around 0-1. I have also deducted that 3 things would likely happen if this law were to be taken into consideration seriously....- A media frenzy.- A fierce congresional debate, allocated with government budget money.- A rise of bigots or hate groups taking vocal or even violent stances on the issue. The southern poverty center has already recognized many southern-christian hate groups, which will likely be in protest of this law.If my opponent has been following, then I hope s/he can now see that the process of implementing the law will be of more consequence then the one person who it benefits.http://en.wikiquote.org...http://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.splcenter.org...http://www.splcenter.org...http://www.splcenter.org...Case 3: The Court System may be exploitedOh no, my other three cases were deleted. Damn! White Flame, you must forgive me, but this error happens sometimes when I press review. I apoligize, and request that I may put them into my next round?