BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing

Con states that the atomic bombs were terrorist attacks without stating why that is a bad thing. Such language choice is an appeal to emotion. Con then does the same by using the phrase "war crimes" without giving any reason for why "war crimes" should not be done. History is written by the winner, and crimes are defined by the winner. Dr. Leo Szilard makes a statement to point out our hypocrisy. Yes, it is true, we are hypocritical. That is not a reason that we should not have taken the actions that we did.Pro states that I didnt give reason to why, but he has done same.It was a common disconnect between military leaders of the USA and realities of the Japanese mindset. Every military leader recognized that Japan was defeated militarily, based on the info that was present at the time. However, the American idea of "defeated" is not the same as the Japanese idea of "defeated." It was seen in many of the islands that the US took in the pacific that the Japanese would fight until the death, even when they were defeated by western standards. There is no reason to believe that there would be any difference with the Japanese in the homeland.Pro has yet tp prove what the differences are. The only difference is that they will fight for "face".On to reasons why the bomb dropping was the best option. We need to look at what the other options were. Continued fire bombings would only kill more civilians. The Japanese military had seen numerous fire bombings and were not swayed by the loss of life. Therefore, this tactic would only kill more people without ending the war. That makes it an inferior option. A land invasion was estimated to cost over 100,000 American lives, which many estimates being over 200,000. This would most likely have been higher, since the Japanese had accurately predicted the route of the American invasion and laid out counter plans with Operation Ketsugō. This explicitly states that kamikaze pilots were to target transport ships, rather than destroyers. This would greatly increase deaths over the US predictions. It should be noted that 200,000 US deaths is already close to the level of deaths from the atomic bombs, adding Japanese deaths, it would go far beyond that. So a ground invasion would result in more death. The last option is letting the Russians do what Russians do best, walk in and kill with no regard for their own lives. While this would result is no American deaths, it would almost certainly result in more total deaths because of the Russian fighting style and occupation style.I would try to find a way to stop the fighting without them losing face.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing

Because Pro is saying the nukes were needed, he has to prove it was the BEST/reasonable solution in the making Japan stop fighting. For starters. It was a Terrorist attack 1.ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates violence or threats of violence, esp., in pursuit of politcal goals 2.ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½person who terrorizes or frightens others with violence http://m.dictionary.com...... A war crime "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1] Gary D. Solish (2010) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law "Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?" Dr. Leo Szilard 3. Furthermore using atomic weapons was military unnecessary. "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Dwight D. Eisenhower. "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Report this Argument
America's Foreign Policy Is Weak

Hello friend. Thank you for accepting the debate. I look forward to discussing this matter alongside you. Admittedly, I may have been somewhat vague as to my meaning of "foreign policy". By this, I was referring to how our country (that being the United States of America) interacts economically with other nations, in particular, foreign aid to those in need. Please, don't mistake me: I love this country and am a proud citizen. However, when looking at the percentage of our budget allocated to supporting impoverished or needing countries, it becomes clear that our current economic policies fail to address the ever-rising problem that is foreign poverty. As stated beforehand, the Foreign Policy Agenda states that it is our goal as one of the most powerful nations on earth to "build and sustain a more democratic, secure and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." Now, while it is true that America does indeed provide frequent aid, may I direct your attention towards the United Nations Aid pact which transpired in 1970? It was decided that as a part of this pact, a number of countries (including the EU and the United States) would increase the total percentage of budget spend on foreign aid to 0.56% by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015. I will provide a link to the entire documentation below. http://www.un-documents.net... From budget reports dating back as far as 2010, it can be seen that we as a country have consistently failed to come near the 0.7% goal, resulting in numerous billions of dollars meant for foreign assistance going elsewhere. At the risk of sounding condescending, it's not as though we cannot afford to increase these statistics either. In 2014 alone, an entire fifth of the budget, 18% of our total GDP was spent on defense and the military. I am a proud supporter of our military, however, this does not deduct from the fact that we have no excuse for failing, time and time again to meet our foreign aid goals. Furthermore, if one were to look at budget reports a second time, military expenditure has been on the rise for the past several years, meaning ultimately, our much needed increase to foreign aid takes a back seat. This is completely unacceptable. Surely, we have a duty, and obligation as such a worldly figurehead to ensure that no country suffers because of our negligence. In short, our foreign policy is failing in it's promises, meaning that poverty and disaster stricken countries are left in a continual state of suffering simply because of our oversights. We must lead the way and increase our efforts, not only for our sake, but for the sake of the international community, and the world in its entirety.
America's Foreign Policy Is Weak

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community." What a let down this policy has been. Hello, and welcome. If you wish to accept this debate, please state your acceptance in the first round, and I will then expand in the second. Happy debating.
Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)

Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted-Suicide should be universally legalized in the United States.DefinitionPhysician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS): The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. [1][1] http://www.medterms.com..."Rules"First round is for acceptance only.Last round is for rebuttals/cloing statements only.Obvious other things (no ad hom, etc)If you have any questions or clarifications or whatever, please say so in the comments. Thanks!
The greatest threat to the United States is crab people

Oh yeah I forgot to mention, I define Crab people as the chinese. The chinese are the greatest threat to the United States due to their massive rise in economic power, along with their rapidly modernizing military, their growing influence in worldly affairs, their ability to spy on the US and hack into US security, and other things as well. I now will cede the rest of this round to the con to explain why he thinks that crab people / the chinese are not the greatest threat to the US and what he thinks is a bigger threat to the US then crab people / the chinese
Female Students should be punished for "inappropriate clothing choices".

Based on the following reasons, females should be punished when wearing inappropriate clothing. Inappropriate clothing disrupts students from doing their work and by punishing students for inappropriate attire it helps teach naive students how to dress in a formal environment. Note: these arguments still stand as Con has failed to rebut these points successfully due to her forfeiture in the third round. I would normally rebut on Con's points in round 3 but as she has forfeited I can think of no another way to extend this argument.
Female Students should be punished for "inappropriate clothing choices".

I'm not stating that "Boys will be boys and that is a good enough reason to let them look at the female body. " My point I'm trying to convey is that boys can control themselves but they deserve some free will in their decisions. Whether to look at a female because of her body is all up to their hormonal changes present in the males body. You cannot simply teach males to not admire opposite sexes because it goes against male students mentality. A similar analogy can be stated that females cannot help but admire someone who is of the opposite sex and is fairly muscular. Regardless of what my opponent says we can assume what she is trying to state here is that "men should be courteous towards women by looking down when they dress inappropriately. " which is simply not pragmatic. As my opponent said 'Girls cannot control the way the males think" from this quote we can officially state that if male students look at female students lustfully the fault is to be placed on no-one because my opponent just stated that male behaviour cannot be controlled. Thus it is safe to assume that the fault lies with the Female dressed inappropriately. "Girls would be absolutely fine with a shirtless guy (if that even happened), because they don't have that urge to look at the boys like the the boys will have to look at the girls (hormonal wise). " I admit that shirtless guys at school would be anything short of hilarious but it is a valid analogy. As for females not looking at shirtless men I would firmly deny that statement. If males can look lustfully at women what is stopping women from looking lustfully back at men? "if I so chose, because the males would look upon my body and I would "distract them. " Yet in public eye, this would be the same, but it is the girls decision a to how she wants to look and is portrayed by others. " An opaque argument to be stated in my opinion. My argument is stating that school's teach women how to dress in a formal environment, yet Con is stating that in public the female would receive a similar result? Please stick to your topic that females should be punished at school for dressing inappropriately. As this is irrelevant to the topic, her rebuttal shall be discarded.
Female Students should be punished for "inappropriate clothing choices".

As misjudged in the first argument, I am assuming we are in a PUBLIC school environment. Examples of breaking these rules would be of tops with thinner straps, shorts above the knee, and other minor things. "When the "female" is pulled out of class for inappropriate clothing, her class time could easily be made up in her own time if she took her studies seriously. As for male "benefit" , the blame here can not rest on males looking at women. It is a natural hormone that is in our body that is particularly potent at teenage years. By asking men not to look at women in revealing clothing is similar to women not looking at a shirtless man." The female should not have to make up her studies on her own time, as she should not have to be pulled out of class in the first place. As for the natural hormone excuse, basically my opponent is telling me "Boys will be boys and that is a good enough reason to let them look at the female body." Boys do have hormonal spikes at this age, yes, but that should not be the females problem. I mentioned that this is creating a sort of guilt over the girls feelings for the reason of way the males think, and I believe that especially matters now. Girls cannot control the way the males think, but the men can at least control how they handle themselves. As for the women not looking at shirtless men, there aren't any shirtless boys in the school anyway, so I am confused as to how that even matters. Girls would be absolutely fine with a shirtless guy (if that even happened), because they don't have that urge to look at the boys like the the boys will have to look at the girls (hormonal wise). "As school is a learning environment it is important to teach young boys and girls common sense. When walking in public areas, it is discouraged by the public if someone dresses inappropriately, this can lead to misleading first impressions when talking to somebody else. " My opponent is yet blind to the fact that girls dress this way in public, and in a fashionable way, not a sluttish manner. I, being a female, have many clothing pieces fitted suitable for the public eye that wouldn't be as a bad first impression, however I would not be able to wear them in a school, if I so chose, because the males would look upon my body and I would "distract them." Yet in public eye, this would be the same, but it is the girls decision a to how she wants to look and is portrayed by others. "If the female student is sent to the office we can assume that her outfit is fairly outrageous and has produced a fairly noticeable change in a formal learning environment." The also blinding fact is that females are sent to the office for non-outrageous things more than the other end of the stick, also taking away from their studies and pride (again, within the male benefit). Arguments "Boys will be boys" is a weak argument and isn't a good enough excuse for anything. If we used this excuse, this could result in a female not getting justice for sexual misconduct.
Female Students should be punished for "inappropriate clothing choices".

Female students should not have to change their clothing or be punished for having clothing that is considered socially acceptable. Telling a girl that she has to go to "The Office" and such, is telling her she must change her appearance to not distract the males from their educational environment. However... is this not effecting the girls educational environment? Are you not just telling her she has to pull away from her studies to change clothing for the male benefit? You are telling her that the male educational environment is more important than her own... otherwise, stating that the men are more entitled to an education than her. Why does the girl have to be taught to respect her body, other than teaching male students to respect the opposite sex and teach them to look away? Instead of making a girl feel insecure by having her only wearing certain things (creating a sort of guilt of themselves for the way guys think), we should teach male students/faculty not to over-sexualize female body parts. Who said that shoulders and thighs are sexual objects? The Scientific definition of "sex organs" involve the genital areas only. It is the male-mind that is deciding that these rules need to be enforced in order to contain a healthy learning environment... for themselves? Are tighter pants and smaller sleeves really lowering boys' test scores? Why cannot we tell boys to simply look at something else? If you give it thought, the argument being made by school administrators is not that different from the arguments made by those who accuse rape victims of asking to be assaulted by dressing a certain way... PLEASE NOTE: The term I used earlier, and what I would like to make a point of, is "Socially Acceptable". By that, I DO NOT MEAN that schools should not have dress codes, as this would result in many students (boy and girl) coming to school nude or in a completely sluttish manner. My point of this, is that Schools should not punish girls for wearing clothes that show off features that would "distract the male peers".
World Cup Debate - Round Robin: Gender neutrality in elementary and preschools

It is my pleasure to debate with him, as I have not yet had the opportunity to do so and look forward to it greatly. I wish him luck in this and his other debates, and look forward to seeing how he plans to tackle this case. With that, I will go ahead and present the policy that upholds the above resolution: The state of California will institute a policy requiring that all public elementary and pre-schools schools (up to the 5th grade) be required to remain gender neutral in both teaching styles and in their facilities. Gender neutrality: "[Gender neutrality] describes the idea that policies, language, and other social institutions should avoid distinguishing roles according to people's sex or gender, in order to avoid discrimination arising from the impression that there are social roles for which one gender is more suited than the other. " In other words, this policy will require that public schools avoid distinguishing between sex or gender on school grounds. This will manifest in requiring that all bathrooms on school grounds be made unisex, that schools not reenforce gender stereotypes by directing their color choices, toy uses, or behavior in the classroom. These will still be available to students, but at their selection. Any and all role models presented are not depicted as specific to a given gender or sex. Teachers will be told to avoid the use of gender-specific pronouns. Emotionally, boys and girls would be handled the same. The burden of proof lies on both of us, though as it is I who supports a change from the status quo and the institution of a new policy, it is chiefly my burden to show that a significant and likely advantage exists that substantially outweighs any harms presented by Con, whether based on likelihood, impact or both. The debate will be 4 rounds, 8,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments.
Corporations need more government regulation.

I only have one side to make. Most people would argue that Corporations own large parts of Government. The US Government, States Governments, and even Governments overseas. Why? Because only government can legally create a monopoly, control prices, hinder competition, and garner favors. So why would anyone think that giving governments more power would make things better? Giving government more power only gives the corporations who control it more power. There is a false idea that the major corporations, the ones you are referring to, hate any regulations. That's not true. The hate regulations that interfere with profit. However, no matter how costly regulations may be, they are no match for the largest and most powerful regulation in the world: competition. You see, Mega Corporations love regulations that prevent competition. How does this work? Take the new Affordable Care Act or ACA/Obamacare. It was sold to the public that it would protect people from the evil and greedy insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. The ACA is hundreds of pages long. Guess who wrote it. Politicians? Doctors? Consumer advocates? Nope. The insurance companies themselves. Think about it. The Federal Government mandated that EVERYONE purchase healthcare. What company wouldn't want to control that power? Environmental laws? Written by the very companies who violate it. Why? Why would an Oil Company support a law that would force them to pay millions if not BILLIONS in fines? Because they know only they could and survive. Small and even moderately large corporations would go bankrupt, or refuse to take the risk. That's the biggest problem. Regulations prevent people from taking risks and creating new companies. I understand the fear of removing all regulations. The Fear that Exxon or General Electric would start creating even more massive environmental disasters than they already are. My main point is that if the Government had not gotten involved long ago, corporations like Exxon and General Electric would not be as large as it is today. So what do we do? We need to remove all regulations that hinder start up companies. ALL of them. Throw competition into the market. Scary sounding of moving from 6 Oil Companies, to hundreds. But we need to realize that these hundred oil companies would be 1/1000th the size of Exxon or BP. Individually they would be insignificant. But together, they would give the major oil companies a run for their money. Environmental Regulations? Keep them the same as it is. Anyone, not just corporations, need to be responsible for damaging property they don't own. Start removing power over businesses from the Federal Govenrment. You stated that BP was caught lying to Congress. Nothing happened? Why? Because companies like BP own Congress. Why would you want to give Congress more power? http://bastiat.mises.org... http://archive.mises.org...