BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Justified.

Sorry for forfeiting last round. I was sick. RebuttalsRound 4Pointing out when soldiers killed innocent civilians in the past doesn't justify the bombings. The difference between the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing from the Berlin bombing is, the Berlin bombing was necessary to end the war, the Germans were still able to fight and the Berlin bombings were a series of bombings. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were unnecessary, especially the bombing of Nagasaki and the bombings killed more civilians than soldiers. Round 5Lets look at the situation of the Japanese. All of their soldiers are already holed up in Japan, so they can't harm anymore civilians. The Allies already surrounded the Japanese and the Russians are attacking from the North. Defeat was inevitable for the Japanese. ConclusionPro failed to rebut the alternative I gave to end the war and most of his arguments lack support and justifications. Saying Nanking had 300,000 casualties and Pearl Harbor had thousands of casualties is not a good justification. Pro also lacks sources to support his arguments and his only source is not even related to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Justified.

Con forfeited, so normally I would say "I extend my arguments until Con provides more of theirs", but it's the final round, so I'm going to make my concluding statements. _______________________________________________________ The deadliest war in world history was coming to a close. Germany had been defeated upon Hitler's suicide, and Italy upon Mussolini's assassination. All the other axis countries had already switched to the Allies side or surrendered the fight altogether. That left one enemy keeping the war going: Japan. The Imperial Japanese forces were not about to give up. Maybe the emperor was, but the military leaders certainly were not. This same army had ended the lives of thousands in pointless attacks such as Pearl Harbor and Nanking, among many others. With a confident army causing massive casualties, how can we stop them? We can't just go "please stop" and expect them to go "ok sorry". That's not how war works. If it was, trillions of lives would be saved throughout the course of human history. So what's the answer? Unfortunately, it had to be force; the most justified and reasonable decision.
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Justified.

"Why should the US also kill innocent civillians?" It's just a tragic part of warfare. No matter what war it is, people will die. And that includes civillians. Even in the American Revolution, there was the Boston Massacre. In the American Civil War, there was Bleeding Kansas. I'm just using these as examples."Well they still surrendered after the bombs fell, didn't they?" They kind of had to."For months, its cities had been subjected to fire bombing on a vast scale. Its navy and most of its factories were in ruins. Fuel and food were scarce. They knew defeat was inevitable and the government was just planning on how surrender without humiliating themselves." Same situation with Nazi Germany. However, they only threw up their arms and gave up the fight (Green Day reference sorry) because Hitler killed himself. Consider the Bombing of Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Justified.

Rebuttals1. Casualties Caused by Japan (Pearl Harbor and Nanking) "Yes, the atomic bombings caused the deaths of many innocent Japanese civilians. However, have you considered the death tolls of attacks Japan executed, such as Pearl Harbor and Nanking? Let's take a look at the death tolls of these two attacks (Pearl Harbor was on the USA and Nanking was on China)"Yes, I have considered the death toll of attacks made by Japan. The real question us, why should the US also kill innocent civilians? We shouldn't use the immoral actions of the Japanese soldiers as an excuse to kill Japanese civilians. It like saying "That man killed my father, I will get revenge and kill him and all of his family and friends." Its the soldiers' fault, not the civilians. Don't drag the civilians into the pile of bodies.2. Surrender & Round 1 Rebuttals"Who's to say these attacks were to stop? I've heard that in Japanese culture, surrender is very frowned upon. So they were most likely not yet about to give up. "Well they still surrendered after the bombs fell, didn't they? Anyway, to rebut this argument, read my third argument in round one about the Japanese government seeking for peace.To add to this, Japan was already doomed. For months, its cities had been subjected to fire bombing on a vast scale. Its navy and most of its factories were in ruins. Fuel and food were scarce. They knew defeat was inevitable and the government was just planning on how surrender without humiliating themselves. [1] "People kept on dying and dying, all thanks to the actions of Japan. If the war wasn't stopped, these deaths would continue.Yes, the bombings killed so many innocent people. But they prevented the deaths of many more. ""Yes, bombing is a bit of an intense war strategy. Even though it ended so many lives, it prevented the end of so many more."Again, the Japanese government was about to surrender, when the bombs suddenly fell. [1]*I'm running out of time so I'll post my new set of arguments in round three. On to Pro.Sources[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au...
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Justified.

Casualties caused by Japan Yes, the atomic bombings caused the deaths of many innocent Japanese civillians. However, have you considered the death tolls of attacks Japan executed, such as Pearl Harbor and Nanking? Let's take a look at the death tolls of these two attacks (Pearl Harbor was on the USA and Nanking was on China): Pearl HarborAmerican Sailors: 2,008 dead, 710 woundedAmerican Soldiers and Airmen: 218 dead, 364 woundedAmerican Marines: 109 killed, 69 woundedAmerican Civillians: 68 killed, 35 woundedTotals: 2,403 Americans dead, 1,178 others wounded. Nanking50,000-300,000 innocent Chinese men, women, and children. These numbers are everyone killed, not even including the wounded totals. And how horrible is it? Soldiers raiding into your country, killing everyone, and raping the women (killing them too). I imagine they also did some destruction to some Chinese buildings in Nanking.___________________________________________________________________________________________If we add up the death totals of these two attacks, we get up to 302, 403 killed. And keep in mind that this total does NOT include all the deaths caused in other various attacks done by the Japanese army, or however many soldiers from other countries the Japanese killed during battle. The attacks on Pearl Harbor and Nanking together caused more casualties then the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. It is possible that more innocents died in Nanking then in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined._____________________________________________Who's to say these attacks were to stop? I've heard that in Japanese culture, surrender is very frowned upon. So they were most likely not yet about to give up. People kept on dying and dying, all thanks to the actions of Japan. If the war wasn't stopped, these deaths would continue. Yes, the bombings killed so many innocent people. But they prevented the deaths of many more.
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Justified.

Let's look at the casualties after the atomic bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Hiroshima - 135,000Nagasaki - 64,000[1]Arguments1. Militarily Unnecessary and AlternativesThe US could have been patient and used other alternatives as a way to end the war. Such alternatives are,modifying their unconditional surrender demand by guaranteeing the maintenance of the emperor, awaiting for the Soviets to enter the war, pursuing heavy conventional bombing of the cities amid the strangling naval blockade.The Nagasaki bombing was also very unnecessary. The American government ordered another strike three days after the Hiroshima bombing. The Japanese government did not have enough time to perceive what happened to Hiroshima and America though the silence from the Japanese was an act of arrogance - which lead to the Nagasaki bombing.2. Civilian CasualtiesThere were innocent civilians present and the American government knows it. The civilians shouldn't be responsible for the action of the Japanese Elites. Killing a civilian Japanese to save an American soldier is not moral. Again, there were other alternatives that could either increase or decrease the casualties but lessen the civilian casualties. Soldiers fight in the war, not civilians.3. The Emperor (and other government officials) Wanted PeaceMonths before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. Evidence now available about developments in the Japanese government most notably the emperor's then-secret decision shortly before the Nagasaki bombing to seek peace makes it clear that the second bomb could undoubtedly have been avoided. At least 35,000 Japanese and possibly almost twice that number, as well as several thousand Koreans, died unnecessarily in Nagasaki. [2]Sources[1] http://www.atomicarchive.com... [2] http://www.ihr.org...
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Justified.

First, let's look at the situations of both sides of the war near the end:The Allies Was basically beating the Axis so hard they couldn't even count to three. The Allies consisted of most of the world and the Axis was just a few countris. Major countries like the US, UK, and USSR were Allies. The Axis After Hitler's suicide, Mussolini's assassination, and many other Axis countries switching sides or completely surrendering, the Axis was left mainly at just Japan and it's immediate, forced allies. Japan was not about going to surrender (maybe the Emperor was, but the military was very confident), so how could this deadly and extremely destructive war finally be ended? That's right. Take out the last enemy: Japan.But why kill so many innocent Japanese civillians? You're probably asking this question. But I ask you, why did the Japanese military kill so many innocent civillians in America, China, Korea, and other countries? Yes, bombing is a bit of an intense war strategy. Even though it ended so many lives, it prevented the end of so many more.
The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Justified.

I believe that the US's decision of bombing the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. My opponent must argue against this, claiming that the bombings were not justified. 1st Round: Acceptance 2nd Round: Opening arguments 3rd Round: Second argument/First rebuttals 4th Round: Third argument/Second rebuttals 5th Round: Final rebuttals/Concluding statements I had a debate on this same topic a while back, but since I just came back after a ridiculously long hiatus, I'm using it again. Debate Requirements: Between the ages of 14 and 30, minimum of 15 completed debates and a maximum of 100, Five rounds, 72 Hours to argue, 9,000 Characters maximum in arguments.
Homosexual Marriage and Lifestyle: Detrimental and Not Necessarily About Equality.

Homosexual marriage and lifestyle is not detrimental towards society in any way whatsoever. Two people gaining recognition for loving each other does not detract from society in any way. Also, being true to yourself does quite the opposite hurting oneself. To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment." I'm very curious what the rational argument against homophobia is without use of religious text. Looking forward to it.
Homosexual Marriage and Lifestyle: Detrimental and Not Necessarily About Equality.

Hi, I'm new to this site, and this is my first debate. Unlike most of the debates I've seen regarding this subject, I am going to keep Biblical references out of my argument. My contention is that homosexual marriage is not necessarily about equality. Furthermore, there are statistics and reasonable arguments for how the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage negatively affects a society, as well as the homosexual as an individual. Round 1 - Opening Arguments Round 2 - Rebuttals Round 3 - Final Rebuttals and Closing Statement. Personal attacks of debaters is not acceptable. Proper spelling and clarity of writing are suggested for legitimacy. Due to my work schedule and job, I've given lee-way to the max on vote period and time to argue. Any direct Biblical quotes or verses are not allowed when making an argument.
The Creator of all things made a big bang, and thus created evolution.

Wow. Everything is clear now! Thanks for your deep incite. Your post is a clear case of meaning distortion. You are wresting away from the intended true meaning. I find it hard to believe that you think that I was talking about the movie. I will assume that you know what I was talking about. If so than the communication process was complete. This ‘game' that goes on with this site of trying to take things out of context ruins everything. I'm done with this site. This is stupid.
The Creator of all things made a big bang, and thus created evolution.

Thanks for making this debate exorb. Definitions: Evolution - a 2001 sci-fi/comedy film [1] The Creator of All Things - a Creator, God [2] Evolution was not created by "The Creator of All Things," it was created by a myriad of individuals including, but not limited to: *Don Jakoby *David Diamond *Davis Weissman *Jeff Apple None of these individuals, or any others involved in the creation of Evolution, are "The Creator of All Things" therefore the resolution is negated. [1] http://www.imdb.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Obama is ending work requirement in welfare

My opponent tries to hard to discredit the validity of my argument because I lacked citations from left-wing articles used basically as filler in my previous post. This a classic case of form over matter because his argument holds no water here. His argument is "Obama is ending work requirement in welfare." "The Obama Administration waiver allows states more flexibility in getting welfare recipients back to work, and to implement more effective strategies than those required by the federal government. This does not weaken the work requirements " it strengthens them. It also puts shifts more control over these programs to the states, which are often better suited to understand the needs of local residents." "flexibility" is the key word in my friends argument. Is it not reasonable to assume that flexibility in regard to the waiver could give state entities the ability to deem an individual or several individuals exemption from a work requirement on a case by case basis. Such vagueness gives birth to miss use, and could offer some explanation to the record 46 million Americans who are on food stamps today. Therefore, Obama is ending work requirement in welfare, in favor of state "flexibility" in regards to the distribution of TANF entitlements. I repeat: A waiver of section 402 is a waiver of the (a) work requirement for welfare.
Obama is ending work requirement in welfare

In 1996, President Clinton and a bipartisan Congress helped end welfare as we know it.The welfare reform law that President Clinton signed in 1996 changed the name of the federal welfare program to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It added a work component, requiring recipients to find employment within a proscribed time period. But on July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. Under Obama"s plan, you wouldn"t have to work and wouldn"t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check. Under the Obama regime, The Health and Human Services (HHS) Agency issued a memorandum on July 12th, 2012 TO:States administering the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program and other interested parties SUBJECT:Guidance concerning waiver and expenditure authority under Section 1115 Section 1115 allows for waiver of compliance with section 402 of the Social Security Act to the extent and for the period necessary to enable a state to carry out an approved project. The statute also provides authority for costs of such projects which would not otherwise be an allowable use of funds under Part A of Title IV to be regarded as an allowable use of funds, to the extent and for the period approved. As specified in statute, the purpose of Part A is to increase the flexibility of states in operating a program designed to: (1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan "[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407 A waiver of said section is a waiver of the (a) work requirement for welfare. Therefore, under Obama the department of HHS has called for a specific waiver of a work requirement established in the 1996 Act approved by Clinton.
Obama is ending work requirement in welfare

Recently, the Mitt Romney campaign has spent millions purchasing advertising that states that President Obama is ending the work requirement for welfare recipients.I feel that this is an inaccurate statement of fact, and I would like to debate the subject. I will adopt the position of "Con," since I want to challenge the premise. I ask that Pro defend Governor Mitt Romney's claim that President Obama has ended the work requirement for welfare recipients.I am willing to be fairly relaxed concerning any rules for this debate, and am willing to honor any agreements made in the comments section. My only real request of my partner is that we set aside the final round for summaries of our best arguments - as a convenience to readers who may wish to vote on our performances. I feel that such summaries allow readers to more easily digest our arguments quickly, and allows them to understand our emphasis.Pro may by DownloadNSave" href="../debates/Under-Obama-a-4000-tax-on-the-middle-class/1/">begin arguments at once, in R1, if they so choose; this is a short debate at only three rounds. I don't expect to need more than two rounds for my presentation.I present this debate in order that I may discuss, in the company of intelligent persons, a statement that I feel was an intentional attempt to deceive the (already gullible) American electorate.http://www.youtube.com...
Gay marriage should be legal in all states

Okay well first of all, homosexuals do not necessarily distract children from a learning environment. If you mean that if gays have kids, then I understand your point, however let me just say I have two dads and I have a good education. It doesn't distract me from my school work or affect my learning. Benefits Gays getting married could actually have some benefits. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage on May 17, 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. It could also affect the economy in a positive way. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.Rights Denying same-sex couples the right to marry also stigmatizes gays and lesbians as inferior, which may send a message that it is okay to discriminate against them. Homosexuals should have all the same basic rights as everyone else. I find it very unfair that they can't marry if they truely love eachother want the same benefits of marriage. Gay marriage is also protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. Common senseGays getting married will not cause World War III. It will not cause schools to start teaching about gay sex or anything having to do with homosexuals. Maybe religious people will find it unfair because it is ainst their beliefs, but religion has nothing to do with the matter when it comes to what's best for the economy, the peope and their rights.
Furries

So you are fine with furries as long and they're not gay in public. However if they are gay let them be gay it is how they want to live their lives. Sure their are some gay furries that are a bit to much "out there" but they are gay because they found someone they love that happens to me a male if they are male or female if they are female. Have you ever seen some who is gay in public? If so you know how they feel so why is it different for people who are in a furry costume and go to cons.
Furries

Furries are people who are using the first amendment of the bill of right which is Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press. People have said that furries should be killed and are not nice people. What they have done is make money for charity. The largest fundraising organizations to date (October 18, 2016) are $285,592 - Midwest FurFest, $271,199 - Anthrocon, $185,104 - Further Confusion,$156,492 - Eurofurence,$142,777 - Furry Weekend Atlanta,$142,237 - Mephit Furmeet.
Is infinity A Number (listable infinity)

Infinity or a number that is infinite has no end, that's like saying 1/3 of 10 is a number, but it is 3.333.... You could never truly say it, you can calculate it, but you can also calculate 1,000,000,000 (1 billion), that doesn't mean it's easy to count, it would take about 31 years or so to actually count 1 billion, assuming 1 number is counted per second. So something that is infinite never ends. adjective: infinite 1. limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate. Obviously as you have stated, you can have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with each of these number having an infinite amount of numbers going up to the next number. 1, 1.1, 1.2 etc etc etc. Each time you could add another 0. Infinity is not a number as it has no definitive value, we can give it the value though. So, in the end, it's a principle.
Is infinity A Number (listable infinity)

Its a very simple argument We all have heard it before people mindlessly saying Infinity is not a number, but with no basis. And with out stopping to think the repercussions of it. There are many different types of number, There are the standard "Real Numbers" which include Integers, natural numbers, whole numbers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, And then there are whole other sets which fall outside of the "Real Numbers" like infinitesimals, Imaginary numbers etc. Now infinity Is a broad term, There are many different types of infinities, but each type of infinity does have an exact specific value. All listable infinities are the exact same value. There are the same number of natural numbers as there are integers (natural numbers are all positive whole numbers, not including zero. Integers are all whole numbers) And not only is its value definite, its also comparable. As its more than any real number and less than an unlistable infinity.