BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. was justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Unfortunately, in a haphazard presentation of emotional arguments, personal opinion and contextually-poor poetry, my opponent shambles on to make bold assumptions unfounded in evidence and poorly construed generalizations. Also, this is perhaps the shortest opening Round I have ever seen. My opponent was given the burden of proof as per the debate's rules and has not fulfilled any of it. His two questions also show a poor grasp of history. 1. Why didn't it blast some other country instead of Japan? If it had, would that have been okay then, in your opinion? And they didn't blast some other country to end the world war, because Japan was the country engaged in the world war. I refer you to (. http://www.time.com...): "Japan was deploying up to 2 million soldiers and additional millions of "auxiliaries" who were clearly prepared to defend their homeland to the death. It was easy to believe estimates that an invasion would result in as many as a million American casualties, plus many more Japanese. The Bomb offered the chance of ending the war and saving lives. " 2. Firstly, Japan didn't make an attempt to attack Pearl Harbor, they did attack Pearl Harbor. And my opponent obviously has never heard Truman's speech on why they attacked Japan. He said it was to save lives and end the war. It was not retaliation for an attack on Pearl Harbor. (. http://www.time.com...) Oh, and my opponent's claim that the U. S. nearly blew up the 'whole of Japan' is preposterous. There are 144 cities in Japan. Not two. I will not be presenting any further arguments, because it was my opponent's BOP as per the debate's rules. He previously accepted this debate and forfeited after three days, but then immediately accepted it again when I posted it and presents me with this poorly thought out, poorly worded argument--if it can be called that--in less than two short paragraphs. There is no substantial material, not a single sighted source, and so many fallacies that I'm curious if my opponent has ever debated before. I will not waste my time writing an unnecessary debate if my opponent won't show me that he is to be taken seriously. If it continues in this vein, please just vote Pro and give Con his well deserved loss. (If you feel I am being harsh, just realize that this is the second time I posted this debate after my opponent refused to respond to any of my messages regarding the status of this debate. (He ended up forfeiting. ) This is a debate I have prepared and thought through thoroughly. The minute I repost it, my opponent accepts and with that accepts the BOP, only to present this poor excuse, of an opening debate. )
The U.S. was justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

My opponent clearly states, as understood by his allegations, that U.S was justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but i being strongly against the topic will soon illustrate the cons of the catastrophe. I say, who has given anyone the permission to devour the bounties of nature along with its most precious jewel- the population- which has completely transformed the global attire?God? Absolutely not. We know how devastating catastrophe resulted. People begged safety from the various developed nations of the world. In fact, the Japanese , even now are bearing the effects of the same. My heart melts down at an instant when I witness the pathetic ruins of Hiroshima. This just throws light on the disregardful attitude of U.S. and its straight forward spirit to conquer the world and grip it. Its not that the attack was made to end the world war as my opponent will try to emphasise. So it is obvious that U.S. was not at all justified in its move which resulted in great destruction and thereby an abrupt end to life and property. Well now on to questioning session: 1) If U.S. wanted to end the world war why didn't it did blast some other country, other than Japan, just because Japan attacked U.S.? 2) Just because Japan made an attempt to attack was it justified to destroy almost the whole of Japan?
The U.S. was justified in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Definitions: Justified: 1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. 2. To declare free of blame; absolve (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The bombing of Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki refers to the nuclear attack carried out by the U. S. in 1945 at the end of the second world war. I, as Pro, will be arguing that the U. S. was justified in their nuclear attack against the two Japanese cities. Con will be arguing that the U. S. was not justified in the nuclear attack and will have the BOP to explain why, during a time of war, the attacks were unjustifiable. 1R. Acceptance and opening arguments by Con. 2R. Rebuttal and Pro's oppening arguments, followed by Con's rebuttal and defense (or continued arguments. ) 3R. Closing arguments, defense, and rebuttal.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE BUSH LEAVE OFFICE

MY OPPONENT SAY THAT BUSH IS NOT TOTTALLY TO BLAME.....BUT BUSH HAS MORE POWER.SO EVEN IF THEY VOTED FOR THE WAR...I BELIVE THAT EVEN IF THEY GOVERMENT WANTED SOMETHING TO HAPPEN...THEN OUR 'O SO LOYAL PRESIDENT WOULD VOTE AGAINT IT'.SO YOU REALLY HAVE NO ARGUMENT..THEY ONLY UP STANDING ARGUMENT IS THAT BUSH IS NOT RESONABILE FOR TROOPS GOING TO IRAQ.......JUST ASK THE MANY MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE DIDED.....CANT RIGHT...AND AFTER ABOUT A YEAR WHEN HE SEEN THAT NO REAL RESULTS WAS GOING THOUGH THEN HE SHOULD HAVE PULLED OUR TROOPS OUT....SO THAT SHOWS YOU HOW MUCH HE REALLY CARES......
WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE BUSH LEAVE OFFICE

I'm not entirely sure what my opponent is trying to say. Bush is the only reason the country is the way it is today? Not a single other person holds even the slightest responsibility? Not our congressmen and women that voted to start the war. Not Dick Cheney who, in between pheasant safaris, was determined at all costs to invade Iraq. Not the die-hard Bush supporters that comprise his final percentage points. Not the countless members of the Bush administration that backed, perhaps even proposed, his political atrocities. Not even his speech writers. That's utter ridiculousness. President Bush is simply a figure head- and a poor one at that. The American people can not logically blame all of our issues on a single representative. The American political system is governed by checks and balances. The legislative checks the executive, the judicial checks the legislative, the executive vacations in Texas, then realizes he's being questioned and returns to Washington to confer with his advisers. Any negative affect that President Bush has had on the country is not only his fault, it is the fault of the entire government for letting it get through. And now my opponent is saying that America will have more problems when Bush leaves; however, their entire opening argument was based on the opinion that every single problem would vanish when Bush left office. The Bush administration is the worst in American history. Never before has a president hindered the country to this extent in every prominent and even rather elusive foreign and domestic issue. However, this does not mean that America's problems rest entirely on Bush's shoulders, nor does it mean that they will disappear when Bush leaves office. My opponent is only bringing up examples of what the Bush administration has caused throughout its nearly eight year reign. They have not provided any examples of how it is only Bush's fault, or how all of America's problems will magically vanish. The following links provide support for my own arguments. Cheney's role in the invasion of Iraq: http://archive.newsmax.com... Issues facing the next president: http://archive.newsmax.com... And there's certainly more if you do a little googling.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE BUSH LEAVE OFFICE

i agree..but i can almost sure u that when bush leaves not all but some of the many problems have will go away...and i can a sure you that bush his self is the reason why things are the way they are..like the fact that we were told that our troops would be home a long time ago...but the fact that their not says lot about our president and how much he really cares and i think that once bush leaves office their will be more hard times coming across america bush has mad our economy the pits..to the point were half the children in Pennsylvania don't have health insurance...so the problems that we face today is because of bush..and their will be much more when he leaves office.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE BUSH LEAVE OFFICE

As much as I despise our current administration, I fail to believe that all of America's problems will simply disappear when President Bush finally departs from the oval office. Depending on who is the next president, America may or may not be on the road to correction. Our future leader is going to face countless challenges to restore the country. Gas prices have skyrocketed, we're fighting an seemingly endless war, foreign relations are nearing the point of hopelessness, we're experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and to top it all off, we're openly violating the Geneva Convention (http://baltimorechronicle.com...). It certainly is apparent as to why there is such an Anti-Bush stigma circulating around the nation. However, his looming end does not spell salvation for the American people. Though it would be nice to assume a simple solution, we must be practical. When Bush leaves Washington, he will not be able to do as much harm, but we can not look to his absence for ultimate deliverance. Restoring America's former glory will be a challenge, and should be treated as such.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN ONCE BUSH LEAVE OFFICE

i believe that once bush leaves office that is many things will be reveled..i say that the many things that america all want to know the answer to will come out in the open..i reason why many of our faithful americans went over to iraq and died..everyone in america thought the war would only last about 6 month's to a year. but look how many it went on...why gas has gone up to about 3.24 in the last year. why world new and other resource say that by the way economy is gone, if u don't have lot of money saved up, you are 2 pay checks away from being out on the streets....and there no reason for that...why on almost every loan that has went out is know about more then half interest rate...and many more things that no one know the answer to....it will all be out when he leaves office
support for the American downfall

why is it that the American people are sitting blind, allowing our nation to be destroyed. the obama administration's spending is ridiculous, and the health care reform they are trying to ram down our throats will only make things worse. don't get me wrong, something needs to be done with the health care industry, but allowing the government to take it over will not solve anything. since when is the government out to help anyone except themselves. i honestly don't understand why people are letting this happen. do we really want to be a socialist country, later leading to a communist nation. no, this isn't some conservative rampage, i'm just tired of obama and his pets, listen to special interest groups instead of the American people who gave him his job!
support for the American downfall

1. You still don't make any argument why the amount of money that is being spent is bad. I say that it is actually very beneficial. Almost all economists and history show that deficit spending is a very effective strategy to help end recessions. 2. I admit that I had not looked at the poll numbers in a few months, and it looks like they have changed some. But the numbers in support range from roughly 38% to 47%, and the numbers against from 49% to 56%. This is far from the American people overwhelmingly opposing the health care legislation. I would also argue that it is not politicians responsibility to do whatever the poll numbers say at that time, but to do whatever they believe is best for the country and is most moral (this is a question that goes back to the founding of the country, and would make a great debate on its own). And until you can point out specific problems with the legislation then there is no reason to assume that it is bad and should not be passed. 3. You never answered the question as to how Obama/congress' policies benefit the politicians. If they don't benefit the politicians, then how can the policies be selfishly motivated? I can appreciate being cynical, but if you really believe that every single politician only cares about themselves and never does anything to help the country, then I would say you're more in the realm of paranoia. 4. Unless by "far left liberals" you mean the most extreme 3% of the population, then no, liberals have no intent of giving the government complete control (note* no-one in congress is in this 3%). If that is what you thought, then I am happy to be the one to let you know that you have nothing to worry about. No one in congress is attempting to make the US a communist nation. 5. Social programs are necessary. Everyone in the country doesn't have equal opportunity. You've had to work really hard to put yourself through med school, while someone from a wealthier family may have all of their school paid for. Not to mention people with physical and mental handicaps which prevent them from having well paying jobs. Additionally, your belief that people will "abuse the system can sit on their butt and receive government aid" is unfounded. People don't use government aid to get by simply because they are lazy (except for a few very rare and extreme cases where mistakes were made). This is because people aren't given enough money to live comfortably, and the system is set up so that only people with legitimate reason are supposed to get welfare. We still haven't actually gone into any specific merits or problems with the policies, and you can't really arrive at an informed decision without doing this. If you would like to debate each of these issues more specifically I would love to. Until then, this really isn't anything more than complaining.
support for the American downfall

My action to stop watching fox news would not put an end to the corruption in washington. I agree, spending money isn't a bad thing. But having a president who has spent more money in his first year than most presidents have spent in their entire term, isn't a good thing. I'm not against Obama, just his policies. It doesn't matter what news station you watch or what you read, the government is tempting to overhaul the health care industry. When the president is more interested in listening to special interest groups like seiu and acorn than the American people, the nation is in trouble. Only about 40% of people support Obamacare, and that is from a liberal poll. Hilarycare had more support in the 90's and the congress basically ignored the proposal. By their actions, most of the members of congress are implying that we aren't smart enough to make our own decisions, and this is very insulting. So therefore most of them won't listen to anything that opposes the proposed Obamacare. The republicans proposed a bill and the democrats ignored it, so much for being fair. I'm not saying it was perfect, but they shouldn't have the attitude that they are the only smart ones to come up with anything. Since when does the government help people with the sole purpose of helping? There is always something in it for them. That is exactly what they are doing again. The more the American people sit silent, the more freedom we lose because silence implies acceptance. Not to achieve personal power? Seriously? Really? This nation has come to the point of a power struggle. Abraham Lincoln set out to help people, Bush, and Obama, not so much. if they were public programs that would be fine, but they aren't, they are social, which, if given enough power, leads to socialism. You cannot tell me that the extremely far left liberals have no intent of giving the government complete control, which is communism. Communism has never in the history of life ever been a good thing. It requires everyone to live an equal lifestyle. Equal opportunities for everyone is a right as a human being. I'm sorry but I'm not willing to work my butt off and put myself through med school and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just so they people who abuse the system can sit on their butt and receive government aid.
support for the American downfall

1. The Obama administration's spending is actually saving thousands of jobs, spending money isn't bad. I realize that I make no argument to back this up, but neither do you. And debating the spending is an issue to be discussed all on its own. 2. The government is not taking over the health care industry, that is simply false. Just because you see someone on TV say something doesn't mean its true. Once again if you want to go into the actual facts and arguments about this, then that's a debate of its own. Also if you agree that something needs to be done about health care, but don't like the proposed reform, then you should suggest some other reform, instead of just complaining. 3. The government is not out to "help themselves". That is just stupid. The existence of corruption within the government does not mean that every single person in it is greedy and selfish. The primary reason that people go into politics is to help people, not to achieve personal power. Also, how would this health care reform even benefit Obama and all of the congressman exactly? 4. Having public programs does not make America socialist. Nor is there any reason whatsoever, besides paranoia, to believe that this would lead communism. Not a single person in congress has the goal of turning America into a socialist or communist nation. Also, there is nothing evil about communism, lets not try to resurrect McCarthyism. It is a system designed to try to help people, its just that it doesn't work in practice on a large scale. 5. The majority of the American people are in favor of the health care reform. If your argument is that the government should do what Americans want, then you should be attacking the people blocking the reform. Conclusion: You make absolutely no argument as to why what the Obama administration is doing is bad, only that it is. You need to stop watching Fox News.
Rap battle 3

My opponent wastes his time By not enacting his own rules Recall objectives by this fool Now he shirks them, that's not fine You think you are above the rules That digression is alright for you You're nothing but a worthless tool Looks like you've lost, oh poo! Now to sweep this carcass from my house Now to clean the mess it has aroused Now to claim the win like Jerry mouse As Tom the cat will stay in flames un-doused Bro I've stuck to the very topic you set So now you've lost for being so inept
Rap battle 3

My opponent tries to change the topic into 'winner' Sorry you are not allowed to make a new objective I only asked that you present some torture styles here Pro side shirked this duty making new initiatives Upon a careful scan of this fail fan Decisions have been made by this young man To not attempt to copy that fail rap Now let me see how I'll destroy this chap. Since my style is thus far accepted (that the fan will copy is expected) I'll continue doing what I've done And torture my opponent. Have fun! Young and tender, thin and small Inexperienced weakling doll Shiny pins will pierce your gall Take my words like harsh gun-fall Straight in your ears I'll drive this rhythm's sound By blasting frequent waves of hertz around You'll scream along with bleeding ears oh joy! With brains of jelly you'll be like a toy. I laugh in glee as, blindly, you fall down And spill your noodles like a clumsy clown And down the tiles juices fill the drain Ah! THe pleasure, pleasure at your pain Then from the open head some balls will roll Those white and pearly sockets out they'll loll And chase your former noodles down the hall No longer wise without those eyes. Poor doll! Now torture me in lines I hope you'll rhyme 'Cause even though it takes a lot of time THe effort makes your rap much more than crap So range your thoughts for some terrific rap.
Rap battle 3

As pro has mentioned to the general public I must inflict this torture in my words. Forgive the gore you are about to find So begone unless your mind can hazard The image of a masochistic mind. In words I'll wrought great horrors to destroy and glut your stomach with disgusting joy You'll languish and rejoice to my fell lines. You've been warned so do not blame this writer For the details you will now encounter. With the back end of my rusty hammer To my hands I'll take your head real careful You'll stare at me in fear; I'll be mirthful "Mercy!" screams this head in pointless panic With a doctor's careful steady hand I'll bury softly in your skin the claw. The head and hair will get a costless shave From the front and down the back: No flaw. Then with miner's mighty swing I'll drive A flying pick of pain straight through the brain And then with forceful pulls I'll upwards pry Your lofty skull plate is the ending prize If Pro feels these to be appropriate I'll continue this descriptive style. If not I hope that you will demonstrate I'll mime the pro sides torturing style.
Rap battle 3

You have the laughter But I am the batter It is when I swing That it will mean a thing This is my first time so I will try to rhyme There will be three rap rounds There will be no out of bounds If you are confused I will not be amused Just give a comment And I will try to charm it My opponent is beginner Who I hope is not the winner I am hghppjfan, Rapping easy as can Now it is your turn I hope you take this burn Use your words to express And make them to possess
Evolution is not a viable origin model

That was not forfeit defense i did not see your argument until now i apologize. Getting right into it then, you said "I will refute it quickly; the oceans in the last 50 years, as shown in a paper by Science, have been measured in parts to have increased salinity. In other parts, over the same period, salinity decrease". As shown in paper by science? What is science? Who is science? Can i trust this science? I need more proof to accept that argument. Also your statement "I will also say that if evolution wasn't viable, the scientific community would have recognized that by now and done away with evolution or modified it to fix any problems. The reason it is viable is because there have not been any holes found in it, and the reason none of the creationist holes count as proof against evolution is that they are often not founded in sound science, like the salt claim. There simply is no real scientific disprove of evolution and no alternative." I would argue that the scientific community would not do away with it because there have been holes found in it i gave you one and technically you haven't dis-proven it yet because you gave me no solid evidence I'm wrong. Also you can't give me one piece of evidence showing an organism in between two species. Not ONE has been found (or will be) if you can give me one in evidence of an between species fossil or living organism you win.