BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war

No people don't need it to have unbiased opinions but if a soldier sees a Taliban units execute a children and the news wont show the gruesome scene then he goes home and here's people saying that we should leave the Taliban alone and let them do whatever but he can't say what he saw unless he wants to be slapped with treason don't you think that would hurt that soldier. second It was politicians who said no more flamethrowers a weapon that could have won us the war it was politicians who said let you be fired at before you shoot because of the want for a lack of collateral damage also yes but their was a decline in their use because of politicians and civilians saying burning down a village was inhuman. Third they would give them weapons because we are going in their to attack them the Russians want Americans killed so they give Laos weapons to defend themselves from the Americans and more Americans would die it don't madder how friendly you two were before when the bombs start falling you need to shoot back. Fourth collateral damage will happen they gave their lives unknowingly for their country and for the greater good more people would have been lost if we told about it those civilians would have been taking captive and probably executed we made sure they didn't suffer. Fifth their are 9 major things that can win a war one of which is moral when your country hates you for protecting them when you see your best friends get killed to come home and be spat on then see people protesting the funerals its just a bit of a moral crusher. http://books.google.com...
modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war

"millions of them stealing weapons and giving them to the enemy" You still haven't provided any example of this happening and I still doubt that this was a reason why we lost the war in Vietnam.... Getting an idea of the war is possible, but your point of them not getting the full emotion of the war is true. But do people need to understand the full emotion of the war to have an unbiased opinion of it? The answer is no. "If politicians would back off and let the commanders do their job" Congressmen cant do sh#t about how things are fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc. they can only express their approval or disapproval of it. Really the only people who can control what goes where are the president and his secretaries of the air force, navy, armed forces, etc. And often there are times when ALL of these people have served in the military..... "Banning the use of flamethrowers for humanity caused by politicians"................ Um flamethrowers were never actually banned by any politician or human rights group...... In fact The US military only removed flamethrowers from their arsenals in 1978 and the Vietnam War ended in 1975........... http://en.wikipedia.org... Flamethrowers were not banned by politicians, in fact even today there are still countries that use flamethrowers in their military's "Russians would have given Laos and Cambodia weapons" We do not know if they would have given weapons to either of these countries because at the time they were not communist countries. As for your suggestion that this could have happened and the Russians would have seen it coming.... Laos had long had good relations with the US before the war started and even when Vietnam broke out they were still allies, so why would the Russians give weapons to a country that had long had good ties to the United States? http://olive-drab.com... "By keeping it secret we saved millions of lives" Had the public found out sooner than we could have saved our own soldiers's lives and perhaps 90% of the civilians who died as a result of US bombings in both Cambodia AND Laos..... You still havent explained how hippie protests OR politicians can directly impact the results of war.....
modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war

I would first like to point out that sure saying it maybe not but when their are millions of them some stealing your weapons and giving them to the enemy and others rioting causing a need for troops at home to stop these riots causing problems. second yes they can have unbiased opinions but normally they are and then they still don't get the full emotion plus those cameras only recorded part of the war the strategic point of view was not ever in their maybe if the politicians would back off and let the commanders do their job things would go better. third yes the Japs did the same thing in WW2 but we went in their with flame throwers and made a mess out of their forces but with troops being pulled home to deal with the riots in Nam and the banning of the use of flamethrowers for humanity caused by politicians we lost terribly plus if we had told the people about Cambodia and Laos helping the NVA the Russians would have given the countries weapons to fight our attack that they would have known was coming by keeping it secret we saved millions of lives.
modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war

One speaking an opinion is fine if you can keep it like that but people can't they have to keep proving something that has been defeated like evaluation and then when it's war things like the hippie movements happen and ruin the whole thing. Second yes but many are bias just trying to prove their side unless you talk to someone who was their your probably getting some bias opinions. Also yes it was miles away but their were so many hippie demonstrations and extremists stealing our supplies and on some occasions sending it to the enemy that we were being defeated if we didn't have to control our own people we could have found the tunnels and wiped out the enemy. And yes we bombed Cambodia and Laos who cares they were helping the NVA north Vietnamese army. Plus Nixon had to keep secrets or it would have just turned more Americans. Three also I agree everyone is entitled to their opinion but they shouldn't go around trying to convince others of it when they don't know a lot about it themselves.
modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war

We agree everyone has an opinion but does everyone not have the right to speak it? I believe that those who do have an opinion should speak because 3 things could happen. 1) They dont know what they are talking about, their point of view is easily dismissed, no harm done. 2) They only state something we already know, it just reinforces your own opinion and the truth as well. 3) The person may something wise, insightful, or something you did not know about which may influence your own opinion. All three ways there is no harm done.One picture doesnt tell the whole story, very true but does anyone ever see just one picture?Television, computers, newspapers, radio, etc. These days if something happens in Iraq people can hear about it like 7 different times. I myself have 3 news apps on my iphone so if something DOES go down, I can see the conservative side of the story on fox, and the liberal side on MSNBC. With so much media out there everyone can get plenty of news regarding a war often without realizing it. Vietnam was winnable, they were outgunned, outnumbered, out matched, but the reason we lost was because hippies turned it into a bloodbath???This was freaking Vietnam. The war was thousands of miles away from US soil on enemy turf, and the viet kong (north Vietnamese troops) fought purely through guerrilla warfare with elaborate tunnel systems and traps that were designed to mutilate rather than kill troops. Public opinion of the war began to wane when Americans realized that the war was far from winnable.Public support for Vietnam waned for a number of reasons. One was the discovery that the US government had authorized bombings in Cambodia and Laos without informing the public. Nixons impeachment told Americans that the government often kept secrets from the public, that fueled universal anti-government sentiment which then translated into anti-war protests. By the time the anti-war protests had come around, the war in Vietnam was already lost.Anti-war protests did not cost us the battle, landmines, guns, rifles, booby traps, and an elaborate tunnel system did that for us. As for politicians, they did not cost us the war either, they were the ones who had the courage and balls to pull us out of the conflict before we lost more troops to the futile conflict. Hippies and corrupt politicians did not cost us the Vietnam War, or any war for that matter, and to suggest the only reason that we did lose in Vietnam was because of hippies and politicians who saw the conflict for what it was (useless and futile) then you are very poorly mistaken.... Everyone has the right to protest any military conflict because everyone is entitled to their own opinion...... The idea that they should not because their actions directly lead to shifts in the battlefield is a fantasy......
modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war

I will agree every person has a right to their opinion that dose not mean they should speak it and pictures speak 1000 words but they still cant show the true situation or the way things are going in the whole war a picture shows a soldier dieing in a ambush and everyone thinks the war is going bad when really that could have been the only casualty of the attack for our side and the enemy could have been in a blood bath. Even if the civilians have insight that isn't the whole thing that is happening back to my first example. as far as making things worse look at Vietnam that was a winnable war we had them out gunned out positioned out numbered out matched but because of hippie demonstrations and politics the war turned to a blood bath. I don't know about you but I think that's worse.
modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war

Because of modern television, reporting, and many technologies that provide millions of people insight into what happens during a war, everyone has the right to form their own opinion regarding that particular war. Ever since photography became widespread in newspapers during the American Civil War people have been able to see what goes on in the front lines of a war. People may protest a war based on if they believe that the reason we went to war in the first place was not justified. The ongoing war in Iraq had received much criticism because we invaded believing that Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction, but now through technology people have learned that there were no such weapons and that the reports were lies. you stereotype politicians and people as people who sit behind desks, talk about it, and make things worse. How biased is your view of politicians? anyone who has ever got on a computer or turned on a tv or even talked with a friend on the phone has some insight into what goes on in the distant battlefields. Are people not entitled to their own opinions either? There is nothing wrong with people who believe that wars should never be fought under any circumstances, they have their own views and ideologies and they are entitled to their own opinions. Also how do such opinions "make things worse" as you said? How have people who are against war made things worse? and if they have made something worse then what is it exactly that they made worse?
government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels

I'd like to remind Pro that the economy is not a being per se, so it can't hurt itself. The economy is the result of interactions between humans like you and me, so the ones who can hurt it are you and me. Also I'd like to point out again that electric cars are no longer a product only made for the rich, they're in the financial reach of almost everyone. New factories and expansion of production, like the Tesla battery plant (http://www.teslamotors.com...), will reduce costs further. Also the EPA predicts a further decline in battery costs over the next years (http://energy.gov... + other sources). No, government involvement is not the best bet. First, it creates artificial demand, meaning that the gov subsidizes the cars but these subsidizes, the demand they try to reflect, are by far not the real consumer demand. Secondly, the money for this involvement, whether it's subsidizes or the drafting of new laws, requires money, which normally comes from the tax payers. What leads me to my third point: "the point we're debating it has to do with whether it's the best efficiency or not" ... we are debating the efficiency behind it and I argue that the market is more efficient than the government. In the market, sales revenues flow to the company's finance department and then to e.g. R&D (what makes the cars cheaper and better in the end, as side note). When government intervenes you have to send all the monetary flows through bureaucracy, legal affairs, middlemen and in the end a large part of the money is eaten up by those processes. Demand and infrastructure are not correlated in my eyes. Take a look at Tesla and their Supercharger stations (http://www.teslamotors.com...): I doubt that every station is already used now. It looks like if Tesla builds the infrastructure to raise demand, therefore you can't argue "no demand cause no infrastruction". Again, there's not "no" demand for alternative fuels, just lesser than for non-renewable, at least at the moment. "so yes, we would be forcing an artificial demand by driving down costs to consumers and suppliers. but that is a good thing,"... No, it's not. Who pays for the reduced costs if the government intervenes? I've answered this question before. The market is the most efficient body per se, the government is just a major player in it. The government may influence the demand and supply, but the better way is if these factors are driven by consumers. "con points out that nonrenewables are cheaper. yes, they are, but that doesn't mean we should just allow things to played out as is until that is no longer the case, in a free market way" .. The market will notice increase in prices once we can't rely on these resources anymore, and it will look for alternatives. Yes, it'll take longer until the market switches compared to gov intervention. But market makes the better decision, as it represents >300 mio people, whereas gov represents, in the last resort, 1 person. Also I ask Pro to put a little more sources and explanations into his arguments, it's hard to find a response if I don't even know how you come to that conclusions.
government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels

Pro obviously ignores the fact that there already are many alternative fuel cars on the market, e.g. CNG or E85 (http://www.afdc.energy.gov...). Yes, it wil take longer, because it's harder for a market of 300 mio + consumers and countless companies to adjust to a new standard. It's bigger, therefore it'll take longer to catch up speed, but the transition will last, whereas gov intervention may not have a lasting effect. Everyone can choose how much he spends on gasoline. Take a look at (http://www.fueleconomy.gov..., Family+Sedans, Large+Sedans, Upscale+Sedans, Luxury+Sedans, Hatchbacks, Coupes, Convertibles, Sports/Sporty+Cars, Station+Wagons&srchtyp=newDslCars) and you'll see that you can get a Volkswagen Passat for 21,000$, less than most pick-ups, running on diesel and thereby only costing you 1,650$ per year (no maintenance, just fuel costs). Or you get a Mitsubishi iMIEV for 23,000$ which only costs 550$ per year in "fuel" (http://www.fueleconomy.gov...). Your argument that people can't choose how much to spend on fuel is therefore invalid. Every investor knows that a high return only comes with a high risk, they know those things go together, and you should remember that. They mostly don't even look for low-risk adventures. Yes, only because investors jump on every train doesn't mean whatever they ignore isn't good for the country. And I also admit that investment into alternative fuels is in decline... but my idea is that the R&D became cheaper and that they're now focusing on production, a sector that could cost less over the long term. Electric vehicles are already on the rise with more than 100% growth rates in some years (http://www.zsw-bw.de...) --> USA is the largest player, just as a side-note ;) . At this growth rate I fail to see why we need even more government intervention. "people dont buy electric cars cause they dont have fueling stations everywhere like gasoline stations." 1) Take a look at these numbers (http://electricdrive.org...) and then think again. 2) I posted this link before, but obviously you don't wanna believe what I say and therefore don't click on the links. Anyways, now really take a look at this: http://www.teslamotors.com... If you scroll down to the timeline you'll see that by 2015 all of USA will be covered with Tesla Superchargers. Tesla now released its plans so they could cooperate with other manufacturers so more cars can use the same chargers. You argument is therefore invalid again, I suppose you just lack the research. To the first paragraph of my second post.... not sure what you don't understand, but I basically say that electric cars and their components get cheaper.
government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels

con admits that it will take longer for a transition to occur without government intervention. so how does he address all the money that the poor and middle class will be wasting on gasoline, when they could be spending less on somehting else? the only reason a transition isn't happening faster, is because there's not a low enough risk, soon enough, high enough, return for a private investor to do it. that they dont do it doesn't mean it's not in the best interest of the country, and it doesn't mean that it's the least efficient way to have gov intervene. please address teh question, and the argument i make. in fact, if the variables are in society's favor to transition, it would make sense to intervene. yes it does cost money to intervene, that's implied. but i'm arguing that it is worth it, as just mentioned. i dont know how you would say demand and infrastructure are not correlated. people dont buy electric cars cause they dont have fueling stations everywhere like gasoline stations. etc etc. that tesla builds a small infrastructure, they are helping build a small demand, and it doesn't negate the idea that the two ideas are correclated. merely merely asserts that the market is 'the most efficient body per se'. i'm trying to challenge that conventional wisdom. again by things i just mentioned. and past posts. i also have to ask con to put a little more explanation into his arguemnts. especially in regards to things related to the first paragraph of this post.
Star Trek vs Star Wars (Ultimate Nerd Showdown)

My opponent has decided to withdraw from reason and rather take to the stage for comedic theatrics in the hopes that you wouldn't see his shortcomings. Please don't let this sway your vote. I'm not going to continue arguing the same things we've been going back and forth on, it's getting tired and repititive and quite frankly, I don't see a point as you are going to vote for the series that you feel closest to. So, in the interest in time, I present you with this: Vote Pro if you believe without a doubt that Star Trek is better than Star Wars and any other piece of Science Fiction out there including classics such as Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, etc as my opponent obviously cannot see beyond the fact that there are other pieces of Sci Fi out there beyond Star Wars and Star Trek. Vote Con if you do not live in a cave and realize that Science Fiction has been around for hundreds of years and debating the merits of Star Wars and Star Trek is irrelevant. Like I said before, one series is only better to oneself when it was introduced at a young, impressionable age. Star Trek is not better than Star Wars and Star Wars is not better than Star Trek. Take the high road, vote con. Don't forget, who ever loses this debate must appear on the weekly web series, NERDLOCKER!, and admit their defeat dressed in the garb argued by the other. Check out www.nerdlocker.com for the results!
Atheism and Theism are not the same.

0=nothing like 0 bananas information is nothing, 0, and matter is 1 you can never show me 0 bananas you can never show me a thought, try opening a head and find a thought, or a mind belief is doubt, as imagination is false, I can at best believe what my neighbor is doing, and I know I am reading these words on my screen, my eyes are true, only now is matter god is information, so any belief is theism, therefore atheism is theism as atheism is disbelief and disbelief is belief, and belief is always false as I don't know is true
Atheism and Theism are not the same.

Thank you, Con.Rebuttals:"atheism and theism, are not things, they are beliefs, they are nothing"Thing: "a thought or statement" (13th definition) [1]Thought: "a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion" (2nd definition) [2]I think that god is not real. I have an idea of evolution. Therefore, I have an idea of atheism, which is a thing because a thing is considered a thought."belief=Be lie, as I don't know is true"As I said before, Belief: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true. (in my past citations) Belief=Being sure that something is true.Which is the opposite of your statement. Also, you can't just seperate two words and expect they mean it.."belief is doubt, and know is certain, know=physical experience of now. I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen"Really? Because the definition of belief above says "being sure" not being doubtful..."just answer the question, if you say that I am holding a rock in my hand, you are a theist and I am your god"Well, this is not true because I am agnostic, and god is not real... I can debate with you if you want."science has many theist worshippers thinking they are atheists, but atheism has nothing to do with science, unless you disbelieve science"Really? Atheism has to do with the Big Bang Theory, and evolution, if you want to take a look at this picture: http://i.telegraph.co.uk...It basically says we did not originate from a entity or super power being, we actually originated from apes adapting and evolving to their environment, which kind of includes science. Or how about the Big Bang theory picture? (http://cdn.krishna.org...)Is that not science? What is science to you?Science: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." (definition 2) [3]We seem to know about evolution involving the world, through experiments on apes and observing their bone structure which looks a lot like humans, except some bones are a little bigger, and some are different shapes, but we have an overall same amount of bones.(http://www.ivyroses.com...) Definitions:Theism: "belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism). (definition 2)" [4]Athesim: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." [5]Oppose: "to use or take as being opposite or contrary." (definition 7) [6]We went over the opposite definition, which means the complete difference of something, so these two are COMPLETELY different.I think I have won this debate, considering my opponent really didn't prove much, but I stated how the two are opposites, and opposites mean completely different. Thank you.Cites:[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[5]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[6]- http://dictionary.reference.com...