BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Israel should use preemptive military strikes against Iran, to take out their nuclear program.

Economic sanctions have worked in the past, such as in North Korea. For a developing nation, any economic pressure will have a large effect. Now, while current sanctions have been put in place by the United States, the UN Security council has also debated putting in sanctions on Iran. France in particular has a history of antagonism toward Iran, as France supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. The UN (which represents a great deal of europe) has already demonstrated an Anti-Iran stance. Now, because of the situation after the Iraqi invasion, the UN and even most citizens of the United States are favoring a more diplomatic approach. People have seen what can happen when proper diplomatic methods are not established and exhausted (no WMD's found in Iraq), and with so much support for diplomatic approach, there would be little support to be gained by Israel for preemptive strikes. This is contrary to what you stated about no countries supporting Israel. To further see this from precedence, we can look toward the situation with the United States. Before the invasion of Iraq, we had an abundance of support for the War on Terror. There was also a lot of Anti-Saddam feeling in Europe. However, as soon as we jumped the gun without fully pursuing diplomatic solutions, support for the United States fell dramatically. A preemptive strike toward Iran from Israel clearly could not gain favor with Europe. The WMD situation, or lack thereof, in Iraq showed that Saddam Hussein was simpling bluffing in order to put himself in a position of strength. Current signs show that Ahmadinejad is also severely exaggerating his capabilities. According to a recent US intellegence report, there is substantial evidence that Iran stopped it's Nuke program 4 years ago. While this is unproven, there is evidence that Iran's technology in Uranium enrichment is not even close to weapons-grade. This is the same ploy that Saddam Hussein employed by boasting about nukes he didn't have. This tactic was also used by Kim Jung Il, when he prematurely tested a "nuke" and having a failure. Iran has many motives to appear strong to other countries, and therefore it's threats toward Israel, while clearly provacative, should not be cause for Israel to launch a Preemptive attack. You stated that Iran has no ground access to reinvade Israel, making it sound like victory would be assured for Israel. However, like I mentioned before, Israel has it's own internal struggles to worry about rather than a possible war with Iran. A preemptive attack would be essentially, a declaration of war. Like you said, the United states has its hands tied in Iraq, however, Israel currently also has it's military forces tied up, WITHIN Israel. The simple statement that Israel has an advantage, of a stronger air force, does not justify an attack on Iran.
Israel should use preemptive military strikes against Iran, to take out their nuclear program.

1. When have economic sanctions worked. The economic sanctions on Iran will not work because they are not UN sanctions, therefore countries such as France, rely on Iran's oil won't stop trading with them. 2. Iran has no direct ground access to Israel. Iran has a large ground based military, but their air force is tiny compared to Israel's. Iraq and Iran are military enemies, so they can't travel by ground through Iraq. Turkey and The US are allies, (the US supports Israel) so the Iranian Military can't travel through Turkey. The Saudis would not allow them to go through because they are Sunni and Iran is Shi'ite. Jordan isn't an option because they have no military, except for what Israel supplies them with. Iran could possibly smuggle more weapons through to Hamas or the Hezzbollah, but then again that would just increase the power of one of the fronts. Therefore you see that there is no real way for Iran to intensely combat Israel, because there are very few countries who would risk giving or give Iran access to Israel. 3. In fact Israel would not lose its back from western nations, it would probably gain more. Although the US does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons they will not attack Iran because they are fighting in Iraq, where they are being shamed, they are fighting in Afghanistan, and have military bases in other countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. They can't afford this for both monetary reasons and international relations. Therefore the US, the main supporter of Israel, would give them even more support. Other countries who are enemies of Iran will also give Israel support, because they are afraid that Iran will attack them with the weapons. No country that already supports Israel (they probably oppose Iran's nuclear program) will stop supporting them. 4. The conflict that exists in Jerusalem can be fueled, but an attack on Iran won't necessarily trigger that. Any country who helped fuel these attacks would be internationally criticized because the attacks are not against Muslims or Christians. Fatah and Hamas can only make a certain amount of money to fuel these attacks, and eventually they will die down. 5. Israel must take out the threat before it is possible. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, they won't hesitate to attack. Israel must stop this threat.
Israel should use preemptive military strikes against Iran, to take out their nuclear program.

Thank you for starting this debate. There are a few concerns I would like to address in my opening statement: The middle East is an extremely delicate region. The Western world's 3 largest religions all view Jeruselem as their holy city. Therefore any rash actions could only fuel the wide spread conflict that exists there today. If Israel were to launch preemptive strikes against Iran, it would not result in a clear victory for Israel. In fact, defeat is more likely. Iran currently has the largest and best equipped army in the region, nukes non-withstanding. Israel on the other hand, has its hands busy with Palestine, and Lebanon. Israel army would be too diverted for a war on three fronts. While Iran's comments toward Israel were unjustified, a rash decision on Israel's part could cause it to lose backing of Western nations. Israel recently came under fire from these nations because of "preemptive strikes" on Hezbollah. Having Israel follow this rash strategy may cause many countries to refuse to back Israel. Since Western nations donate billions of dollars to aid Israel, and the UN has peace keeping troops in the region, Israel should not risk loosing these critical allies. Also, Irans comments were extremely rash. However, Iran is already under Economic sanctions and extreme pressure from western nations. Israel does not need to make a military stand in order to punish Iran.
Israel should use preemptive military strikes against Iran, to take out their nuclear program.

Israel is under a direct threat from Iran. Iran will stop at nothing to "wipe israel off the map", as stated by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's government is under influence from particularly violent iatolas and imams, who would love to see other Muslims gain palestine. For these reasons, Israel must take Iran's nuclear program out of the picture for their own safety.
Should God be taken completely out of school

While I don't know the reason my opponent forfeiting the previous round, I would like to make one last point and state that Religion is important in the world and it is the foundation of what a person believes and what their morals are, so the way the country is going (away for God) shows that it has been getting worse. when the time was the majority was religious. Look it up for yourselves and you will find that the country did much better when it was God based and not self based.
Should God be taken completely out of school

First off there is no reason to be offended about being taught about different religions, I am a Christian and yet when I'm in school and I'm in Biology class learning about evolution, I don't get offended AND IT'S FORCED! so there's no reason to get offended if its being taught, you don't have to take the class, its the individual students choice on weather to take the class or not. Just wanted to point that out and the fact the people are trying to completely take God out of school is wrong. Some schools have been punishing kids for praying before they eat in lunch or even talking about the topic of God. That it abolishing their individual rights, kids have the right to talk about what they want to talk about and they also have the right to choose what they want to learn about, so by God being banned from school is taking away from our rights and just isn't fair on any level. If you don't want to hear about God don't listen to the conversation or don't take the class, Or if you do, listen and join in the conversation and take a class if one is available, which there should be. Thank you for reading this I look forward to your response.
Should God be taken completely out of school

Thank you for your response and your thoughts. In your opening you stated kids will not just randomly walk into a church too learn about other religions. If kids or students are not interested in different religions then what would make a student take a class on religions. In addition religions should be taught with someone with faith, if one teacher taught all different beliefs it would detract from the religion themselves. I would also like to address your objections to my 3 points made in round 2 1. While the management of public funds sometimes may not be perfect, we do have to agree their is limited number of teachers and limited amount of funds and to add another subject would take resources that could be used somewhere else. 2. I live in a world where religion is dying out and people are judged by their actions. In your example of a Muslim being more likely to be promoted if boss was Muslim this is discrimination and should not be tolerated in the work place. With electing the president I am worried more about their political views and hope they do not truly believe in their religious dogmas. So religion as a whole is not something that I see as needed to succeed in society. 3. My main point was that a class on theology would have to cover many religions. I live in a mostly Christian city and if the teachings of Mohammad where taught in our schools the community would be outraged. Thank you for your time and look forward to your response.
Should God be taken completely out of school

In response to your opening statement. While I agree knowledge of any kind should not be denied children that want to learn there are other and superior ways of obtaining theology information then a public school. Most churches and mosque have an open door policy and if additional information is needed most religious leaders will share their knowledge with someone that wants to learn. In addition theology classes are taught in college for those who would like to enter into a religious profession. The reasons I do not believe theology should be thought in public schools are. 1. Public schools have limited resources and if theology is added it would require resources to be taken away from an already taxed system. 2. I believe high school is to prepare students for college and or real life. While I understand that religion plays an important part in many lives today, this is not a required skill for most professions. 3. If theology was added to school all major religions would have to be taught for it to be considered a class. While this sounds good to the more enlightened of us, imagine a teacher sharing the teachings of Mohamed to a class of American teenagers and what there parents would say.
Should God be taken completely out of school

I wish good luck to my opponent and look forward to the rest of this debate. While I agree with you that kids in school should not be forced on religion, I believe that the kids that actually care about their religion or those who want to know about religions should have the choices of classes that they want. A lot of kids would jump at the chance to have a class like this, but kids that don't want the type of classes have the choice on weather to take the class or not. people today such as myself are interested in different religions and how each one of them works, and if I were to have a theology class I would have enjoyed it very much. And even though kids today aren't involved in religion like they should be, there's still that group of kids who take there or other people's religions very seriously. Some kids today when they get older, want to have a job in theology or be a cultural religion teacher. So a class in school, even if it is a public school, should be open to the students that want a class of that nature. It would help prepare them for this aspect of life and for those who want a profession in any kind of religion could benefit from this type of class. Thank you for reading and I look forward to my opponents response.
Should God be taken completely out of school

While a lot of people today want God taken completely out of the picture when it comes to school, there are also those who believe that God needs to be put back into the school. Some schools across America have not aloud students to say, speak or mention religion because some people get upset about it. while other school, such as some public schools have started to offer theology classes for Christianity and many other religions. Now I personally believe that school has been separated from God for to long and that is should be taught in even public schools. (Try to keep round 1 short, state your points and then go into more details as rounds progress)
Is School Truly Needed

As Issac Asimov said "Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is." now my opponent claims success comes from school. to that I must ask what success? the definition my opponent implies gives hint at the "white picket fence" sort, which in this day of economic rescission is bordering on fallacy.well my definition of success if to effect the world around you in a significant way through any means necessary and/or possible. but the problem with school nowadays is that it fails to promote critical thinking and creative thought and even goes as far as to discourage such mental skills. and such mental skills are the true key to success, not money, not any house or car. and one definitely doesn't need any formal school to develop critical questioning abilities.
Is School Truly Needed

Do you think that school is important and truly needed? School is needed because without school there wouldn't be any professional doctors or nothing and wouldn"t anybody know anything. School has been around for years and it helps people with their career on what they want to be in life. School helps people become something in life and build a better future. Yes, school is needed because education is the most important thing, without your education you wouldn"t be able to become successful in life, and your education helps you build a better life. However, many other people may say school isn"t important or truly needed. They may feel that way because they think school is dumb, so they just drop out. People feel that just because they can get a job without having their education, for example, like at fast food restaurants or other places they can just succeed in life off of that. Many people also say education isn"t needed because they think by selling drugs and living off of someone else they can make a living off of that, and not have to go school and get an education. On the other hand, education is the most important thing. It"s important because you need your education to become something in life. Without your education you wouldn"t be able to get a good job and make a lot of money. If you don"t make money you won"t be able to pay bills. Therefore with that being said you wouldn"t be able to get a house or a car, and you wouldn"t make it nowhere in life. Also without your education you wouldn"t be able to become successful in life. But with your education you would be able to become successful in life. You also would be able to follow you dreams, because lots of people want to become doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, and more. Also education helps you build a better life. It helps you build a better life because with your education you can get a good job and make money get a house, and a car. Therefore school is truly needed because your education is the most important thing, without your education you wouldn"t become successful in life, and your education helps you build a better life. But, some people may say school isn"t needed, will school is needed. With school you can get an education and follow your dreams and become successful in life. With that in mind you would be able to get a job, a house, and a car. So, in conclusion school is truly needed, because it helps you build a better life.
Hillary Clinton winning the democratic nomination would give republicans the best chance of winning.

My sources, among others are: Last Weeks Time "Cover: This Space Availible" www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/obamaelectability103 - 88k - I will congratualte you in your last post (short and to the point, but arguemntitive as well). As for your allegations, I now respond You state that when I talk about the nomination, I am not making much sense. But considering that 24% of Dems consider that electabilty is the number one issue, and are pushing Clinton in the polls show you that I am not alone in the Con assertion in the Democratic Caucus. You assert also that the Republicans easily be able to unite their divided caucus together against Clinton if she wins the nomination. This is entirly true. Yet is not that the point of the partisan system? They will eaisily ally agianst Obama as well and his poor orgonization structure will make him hapless before the GOP War mahcine, as Clinton herself pointed out in one of primary NH primary speeches. National Security is also a big issue that will play in the negative for Obama, for many of the fringe supporters that came into the GOP camp following 9/11 are more likly to stay there, for whether it is baseless or not, Obama is perceived as weak. Dems already have the economic issues in the bag, they need someone more aggressive in foreign policY (poll-reading Clinton) to lead the way.
Hillary Clinton winning the democratic nomination would give republicans the best chance of winning.

You say "CBC"s the National and Time Magazine the polls show Clinton with javing a lead on her GOP counterparts, and Obama looking like he is trailing behind and going to have a far closer race with anyo of them." But I don't know when this took place. I don't know when they said that, they may have said that back in may of 2007 for all I know. But I do know that Democrats told the International Herald Tribune that they feel that Obama has the best chance at defeating the republican candidates. My source is http://www.iht.com... I say you have to give me your source before I believe yours is better than mine. Note when mine took place. 2008. so as of recently, Democrats feel that Obama gives them the best chance of winning the presidency. In your argument, you continually stress that Hillary will beat Obama. That doesn't show anything. We aren't arguing who will win the presidential nomination from the democratic side. So all of those arguments are moot points. They are worthless in this round. Stick to proving that Hillary doesn't give the republicans the best chance to win. And you do some of that. Just not enough. You made one argument in your last speech that I already answered. You have not answered how I said that Clinton will unite the republicans against her, and you have not argued my point about Obama being the kind of guy who republicans can vote for. Both of these prove my point, and you haven't done anything about them.
Hillary Clinton winning the democratic nomination would give republicans the best chance of winning.

"Who got second in Iowa, and then who got third in Iowa. In case you don't want to, Obama got first, and Hillary got THIRD" Yes she got third. However Edwards and Richardson are not going to lasting much longer and this will turn into a two way race soon enough. Mr. Middle Class Edwards scored well in Iowa, but remember that Iowa does not represent the entire United States. Clinton however is still leading in most other states. According to CBC"s the National and Time Magazine the polls show Clinton with javing a lead on her GOP counterparts, and Obama looking like he is trailing behind and going to have a far closer race with anyo of them. "Slick Willy's era was the calm before the storm. He got lucky, and the next president, got screwed." Yoour statements surrounding this are actually quite rational. The first Clinton even ran the occasional surplus, had successful wars in Europe going on, and governed in a time of relative prosperity. People admire good records, and when times are good polticians get the credit. When thye are bad they recieve the blame. It doens't matter if they deserve them or not, its just the way it goes. People seem to associate good times with good politicains, which is to a point, a decent notion. Voters are not always as smart as you presume. In times of crisis, isn't this the most approriate time for them to expereince nolstagia. One of the major issues that the Democrats are struggling with addressing seems to be natioanl security. GOP get a lot of their support on these issues, and Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and apathy (comapred to ther candiadtes, including Clinton) for this issue will deter many potnetial swing voters. Polls show the Democrats genrally have supoort on the economic issues, this is not a difficulty they are going to be having with the elctorate. People are prepared for change, and the minor diffrence betneewn the Democrats do not really costitute a big gap. Experience and leader strenght will however make the difference.
Hillary Clinton winning the democratic nomination would give republicans the best chance of winning.

For the simplicity's sake, I am going to assume that if Clinton fails to get the nomination, Obama will (barring scandal and/or assassination). Obama is a very inspirational speaker and talks very often about how come "United" is in your country's name and how come bipartisanship should be a goal to work for. However what a poltician says and what (s)he does are not always the same thing, and his policies/views hardly can be considered "moderate". Most importanlty of all he is inexpereiced (not a word that applies to Clinton) and will fare very badly with this lack, especially if he is going head to head with a GOP vetern like McCain. Than again people know the name Clinton, they know that her views storngly resemble her husbands and most importanlty of all people remeber that times were prosperous in the 90's and woulnd't mind seeing a return there to. Also many people in the US are sexist and will vote for Clinton becuase they want to see a woman become president, not another white guy like McCain or Obama (okay maybe most people dub him black, but the point remains that there are more women in the United States than ethnic minrities). Clinton also has a far better organizational structure, more politcal connections that will yield finer bureaucrats than Obama ever could hope to have and people know this. According to most polls, they show Clinton will have a far easier time winning against the GOP candidates than will the mulatto. Your turn Cooper.
Hillary Clinton winning the democratic nomination would give republicans the best chance of winning.

Republicans now are willing to vote against their own party. With everything going on in our government now, republicans feel no loyalty. There is a lot of confusion as to who is going to get the republican nomination for president, and this shows a division between the republicans. If Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination, this will unite the republicans against a common enemy. I'm not saying that this means the republicans will win, it will just give them the best chance at winning.