BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should america take more extreme measures to win the war

welcome to all whom read this. i was not very clear about the topic in my last one, so im opening another one, to give the topic the discussion i feel it deserves. this topic is about whether or not america should take more extreme measures to win the wars it goes into in order to lessen the loss of soldiers. to be clear, killing the guy who is shooting at you is NOT an extreme measure. killing that one guy with a sniper bullet to stop him from bombing a town, is NOT an extreme measure. being shot at and firing into a crowd of people whom have nothing to do with it, in an attempt to kill the guy shooting at you, IS an extreme measure. leveling a third of a city and killing 1000 civilians to get try to destroy the factory IS an extreme measure. as I've said in my other one. America cannot take these "extreme measures." because of the fact that it will eventually lead to Americas down fall. There is a reason as to why America isn't already doing so. Remember world War 2? Remember the destruction? Remember how many cities were reduced to rubble? How many lives were lost because our bombers missed their target? there are many reasons as to why these actions should not be taken. One Major reason is the fact that, taking more extreme measures, make America look bad. And that is something we want to avoid. We already look bad enough to the rest of the world, we don't need to make that image worse. Doing these actions will irreparably damage Americas image and influence with the rest of the world. another reason is the fact that taking such extreme measures will not lessen the fighting at all. It will infact increase the number of casualties on both sides. Take Iraq for example, they have had so many die already, and that is WITH us holding back. How do you think they would react if those casualties were triple that because we were not holding back? Do you think they would want to cooperate to the point they have? Or turn to terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda for help in driving us out? We would give them a reason to keep fighting us, and a reason to call for help, thus dragging out the war far longer. We would give them a reason to continue attacking us and events like 9/11 will happen agian. further more currently there are 4,186 US casualties in Iraq since the start of the war. there are from around 90,000 to 100,000 Civilian casualties due to the war. also keep in mind that it was WE who started the war not them. furthermore keep in mind here that there are over 90,000 dead and that is with us holding back and not going all out. if we were to go all out and not hold back the casualties would be significantly higher on both sides. tho, agian, more so for the civilians then us. ( source: http://www.globalsecurity.org... and http://www.iraqbodycount.org... ) also i would like to mention the fact that america would be charged with War crimes. for a definition of warcrimes visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
should america take more extreme measures to win the war

ok first i would like to state, that there are not even 10 billion people on the planet for the "high rated criminal to kill". moreover there has NEVER been a situation where killing one man, would save billions. there has never been a situation close to that. to save a few thousand yes. agian, this is not about killing the few to save the many, its about killing the many to save the few. people think that the US needs to stop restricting our soldiers. and stop being cautious. meaning there will be no stopping point. ill give you an example of my own: "you see a guy whom you think might have a bomb, because he is running towards the embassy. hes running through a large crowd of innocent people. you open fire, killing everyone in the crowd. 200 dead... and it turns out that the guy wasnt a terrorist, it turns out he was delivering a package, and was only running because he was late." that could have been avoided with restrictions. and THAT is why we have restrictions on our soldiers. as i stated above, there are only at most 4,300 US casualties in the war in Iraq. there are over 90,000 civilian casualties. some people think that the 4,000 that have died, died because they were having to hold back when civilians are around. this is not true. they died because they are in a war. they all sign up with the knowledge they may die. if america were to take more extreme measures it would lead to the downfall of america as a world power.
"Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

I will be refuting the pro and therefore taking the con side in this debate. I would like to analyze your first point: First, may I have a date, article title, or link to those sources cited? Next, I will analyze the NY Times statistic: 85% of funds are spent on tv/radio ads This doesn't say they are misleading, just simply that money is spent here. This is simply the easiest way to reach Americans https://www.msu.edu... Second the 95% statistic from ABC: These ads are misleading, not untrue. This would be the fault of the Americans In regards to the Gingrich issue: http://www.politifact.com... Take note of where it said that super PACs are not official and don't need to conform to rules. I believe the point you are trying to make is with official advertisements. These are simply not official In regards to the spend more to win argument, we should take a look at the recent presidential election. http://m.adage.com... On to the second point: This entire point is invalid simply because corruption is an opinion, and this can be seen with the US's opinion of Kim Jong Un in North Korea. It is almost split 50/50 whether Americans believe he is corrupt or not
"Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

I stand in affirmation of the resolved, "Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process." Contention 1: Misinformation in advertisements and the correlation of spending and winning. According to the New York Times roughly 85 percent of campaign money is spent on television and radio advertisements, and according to ABC news roughly 94 percent of political television and radio ads are misleading to potential voters. For example last February, Restore Our Future, the pro-Mitt Romney Super PAC, pushed an ad portraying Newt Gingrich as a supporter of China's one-child policy.(Which he opposed) Candidates spending $1.5 million, won in their office 61% of the time according to a study done by Americans for Campaign Reform. According to the same study less than 1% of challengers and 5% of open seat candidates spending $700,000 or less won election. So this proves that there is indeed a direct correlation between winning your campaign and campaign spending. Contention 2: Corruption of politicians. Then and Now There are specific factors contributing to modern corruption, but I just want to point out for the sake of perspective that I am not saying that we have never had political corruption before modern times. For example Bill Clinton lied in the 90′s. Nixon had his Watergate scandal in the 70′s. But I am saying that the corruption has drastically increased. The corruption to which I am referring is the phenomenon of money in politics. Just recently on the "Corruption Report Card" no state received an A yet again, the least corrupt state was New Jersey scoring an 87 percent. This "Report Card" is an easy way for the average person to understand just how corrupt a state is the lower the corruption the higher the grade. No state has received an A since 2009 which was taken a few months before the repeal of Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commissions.
It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of other.....

In round one niether of us will present an arguement but we will start in Round 2. This debate must be done in LD style. If you don't know what LD is then you shouldn't take this debate. The full resolution is this: Resolved: It is morally permissable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of multiple other innocent people.
Dark matter is a hindrance to scientific advancement

CONCLUSIONMy opponent forfeited 4 roudns. BOP was fully on Pro to back up their claim that Dark Matter is a hindrance to scientific advancement. The only "argument" they provided was actually about black holes. Then they concluded that since we can't see those "magic particles" meaning dark matter, then it probably doesn't exist. I showed how scientists discovered the existence of dark matter. We cannot see dark matter. So how do we know whether dark matter exists or not? The answer is through its gravitational effects on its environment. If there is a gravitation, then we conclude that there is matter. But if the observable matter is not sufficient to count for the observed gravitation, then we conclude that there is also matter that we cannot observe. We don't know what that is, but we know that there is something. Since it is invisible, we called it as dark matter. The materials I provided in round 1 under "On Pro's Opening Statements" refute all the arguments Pro provided. Since they forfeited all rounds and didn't provide anything else, then there is nothing for me to do as Con.
Dark matter is a hindrance to scientific advancement

When astronomers observe the universe, their models do not match what they see. For example, astronomers predicted a very large and dense object in the middle of our galaxy, the Milky Way -- since the countless solar systems are being attracted. However, when we looked towards the center of the Milky Way... we saw nothing. So what happens next? Bright minds, instead of seriously questioning their understanding of the universe, declare that they can't possibly be wrong (ego through the roof) so therefore, there must exist magical, exotic, invisible, undetectable, fairytale particles called dark matter to explain away the data. How about this: consider that your models might be WRONG and there are no MAGICAL particles.
None of these debates are "real debates", just self-appointed guffaws without sense of self-discipli

There are philosophical debates... Are you that dense? Keep on copying and pasting nonsense and thinking you even read it word by word, rather than nitpicking what you want because you cannot express your own thoughts without regurgitating information from other places as you do not have the brain capacity to formulate information into something grander than what you are provided alone! Sources are not important, especially when you're discussing with a genius that will blow every single primal aspect of you out of the water, whether you realize it or not. I am more intelligent than you'll ever be, hence why I know sources confuse the brain with bias and old information that was written at X date, when all thoughts being formed then should be accurate to the date during the discussion and only should the past be brought up in order to reflect the present rather than to bring something into the present as all things now, are more important than what was then! You sound like a monkey wearing a monocle with the way you question the semantics of the argument. "Well, if X does not fit X, then X is incoherent and formally unjustified.", yes I can speak monkey just like you. Maybe you should be more poetic, meaningful and start thinking with your brain and personality, rather than your machine and pyschopathy. There's no such thing as a real debate - why? This Universe is an unfinished design - there can be no personal answers, which means by basing your conclusions off of sources built on literal-thinking as you literally think yourself, you are destroying the fundamentals of philosophy and the power of questioning, why? You cannot seem to fathom the possibility that you know nothing and your ego needs to die once and for all, so self-humility can finally take your arrogant place and accept that this Universe > You; these ideas > You; these possibilities > You; your feelings mean nothing to the facts; your emotions mean nothing to the universal evidence. Get your head out of your existential butt hole, and wake up you primate. You're still in the red sound wave - why don't you start travelling across the sound waves to reach ascension, or are you too much of a parrot to do that for yourself? I thought so, Parrot.
None of these debates are "real debates", just self-appointed guffaws without sense of self-discipli

If you call a resolution copying and pasting definitions and then making redundant examples like "If X doesn't mean Y to me, then X has nothing to do with Y - to me...", then you really need stop microwaving that brain of yourself; the UV lights have finally managed to mutate your brain cells to the point everything you say is equivalent to a Frankenstein's creature speaking. You do not have a genius IQ - you're not even close to genius. You don't use your brain - you just recycle pointless information on the internet as if you were making some sort of position when you are not making anything out of these petty examples you made out of the work of a tautology. Geniuses do not resort to tautologies - nor do they respond with nothing except their own accusations; a real genius would have explained themselves in a better way instead of sounding like every other mindless politician. Also, IQ is the lowest form of measurement for intelligence - you can't measure genius! Most geniuses of our time didn't even have that high of an IQ, so perhaps you should get your priorities straight instead of nitpicking everything and then saying "I have a genius IQ, even though I do everything that a genius does not do".
The Bible is Historically Accurate, and can be counted as a historically accurate document.

My opponent makes a number of unfounded claims.He claims archeology has uncovered artifacts that confirm the Bible. This remains unsubstantiated.Pro continues by saying that the works of Josephus confirm a lot of events in the Bible. Josephus lived in the 1st century. I see no reason to consider him a respected historian.Next my opponent makes an extremely big claim:"No information that is widely accepted and validated that is contradictory to the Bible has been presented."This is false. There are so many examples that could be given to demonstrate this, but in this round I will only use one very simple one. Genesis 1:1. There is no evidence that a Garden of Eden or an Adam and an Eve ever existed. There is, however, evidence that humans were not just magically created out of dust. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by a massive body of evidence [1]. The theory of evolution is contradictory to the way creation is described in the Bible. Science has shown us that the Earth was not created in six days, as well as showing us that humans were not created directly by God, but rather evolved over time.My opponent's last claim is as unsubstantiated as the rest. Here is a list of things for my opponent to prove happened in order for the Bible to be taken as a historically accurate source:1. Prove that God exists.2.Prove the world was created in six days and that snakes could talk, the Garden of Eden existed, and Adam and Eve existed.3. Prove that a flood happened that destroyed humanity except for Noah.4. Prove that God made everyone speak different languages because of the Tower of Babel.5. Prove that God impregnated Sarah at 90 years old.6. Prove that God caused the Ten Plagues.7. Prove that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai and the Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years.That's enough for now. Of course there are many more if he gets finished with these.A note on my opponent's references: Please note how vague they are.Source:http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
The Bible is Historically Accurate, and can be counted as a historically accurate document.

We can accept the Bible as Accurate History. Archeology has uncovered many artifcats that confirm events described in the Bible. The worsk of Josephus (a respected historian) coincide and confirm a lot of the Bible's historical events. No information that is widely accepted and validated that is contradictory to the Bible has been presented. The Bible was also written by the all-knowing Creator of the Universe, He doesn't make mistakes. References: The Works of Josephus Archeology Study Bible Notes Genesis
The Bible is Historically Accurate, and can be counted as a historically accurate document.

I am not sure if I even need to say anything in this conclusion, but I will anyway because I like saying things.1. My opponent claims the Bible is written by God, yet he provides no reasoning behind this.2. If the Bible is to be used as a historically accurate document, we must have proof that the document is true. I gave my opponent seven things that would need to be proven as true in order for us to accept the Bible as historically accurate. He did not even attempt to answer any of them.3. Pro claims I have not presented any arguments showing the Bible as untrue. Even though this was unnecessary, I pointed out that the theory of evolution, which is accepted by virtually all scientists and is supported by a lot of evidence, contrasts with the way creation is described in the Bible. Pro dropped this point. My opponent claims that I am taking things out of context and not looking at the whole picture. He provides no examples of this from the debate. I did not take things out of context, so this unfounded accusation is entirely false, and perhaps should cost him the conduct point.As I have previously said, I brought up numerous points, yet almost all of them went unchallenged.Vote Con!!
The Bible is Historically Accurate, and can be counted as a historically accurate document.

My opponent has asked me to extend my reasons why Josephus should not be considered a respected historian. First of all, the burden is not on me to prove that Josephus is not respected, is is on the person using his writings as evidence. Pro claims he is largely accepted by scholars across the world without any evidence for that fact.Even though it is not my burden to begin with, I will explain why Josephus should not be considered a respected historian on Biblical matters. Josephus lived in the 1st century, so he did not have access to the modern tools of archeology or science to properly research Biblical matters. Until my opponent presents a source proving Josephus's world wide respect as a historian, his work cannot be considered a good historical record.My opponent describes the archaeological record of one biblical event. I could challenge this evidence because Pro has still not responded to the other, more more important, events I challenged him to prove in R2. I do need to make some brief clarifications on those: In number one, I realized that Noah and his family all survived, and on number 5, I realize that God did not impregnate Sarah, but rather allowed her to become pregnant at age 90.Regardless, my challenge went unchallenged, it was not even touched on.The resolution is negated.
The US should establish a higher Progressive Tax

About: What were debating Quite simply, we will be debating that the US should use a progressive tax rather then a 10-15% flat tax. My opponent can decide what rate. I will accept a expierienced debater from the comments. A progressive tax will be defined as...Progressive TaxA progressive tax is a tax where the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. The term "progressive" refers to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that the average tax rate is less than the highest marginal tax rate.A flat tax will be defined simply as a constant rate, for all social groups, of all incomes. All arguments will be accepted during the course of the debate. In the case that an argument is made final round, and the opponent doesn't have a chance to refute it, it should still be counted. Rules: Debate Regulations{1} First round is acceptance.{2} Arguments made where the flat tax is not 10-15% are not allowed.{3} Refuting the others argument can be forfeited, to increase your argument space, but this warrants no additional point loss.{4} Asking people to vote through use of personal message on DDO or elsewhere will be a rule violation. You may communicate through profile or forum though, as long as the request for a vote is just that, a request to vote.Voting: Doctrine for Judges{1} RFD's must be within the designated voting place. A one comment extension is allowed, but it must be brief and organized. This is not meant to burden voters, but its frustrating keeping track of large RFD's.{2} The Source Point's will take the place of the S&G point, to prevent strategic voting.{3} Bad S&G is bad conduct. With that said, terrible grammar will be a conduct violation.{4} To keep the integrity of the debate honest, voters may not argue theirs or others RFD's in the comments. The same rule goes for the debaters.RFD justification should be the job solely of the moderators.
It should automatically count as a loss if someone forfeits one round

Sure I agree with the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye thing, but that is a live debate, being recorded and watched by thousands, but this here on DDO it a area of which debates could be going on at anytime, they're not "live" with people up on stage debating with a side of answering questions on most cases it is people sitting at home, you said "It should automatically count as a loss if someone forfeits one round" The key thing there is the "one round", not all rounds one round. You are not addressing this you are talking about a forfeit for all rounds, not one. Also I'd like to bring up the fact that this site is made for people to have time to walk away from a debate with argument periods reaching that of 3 days (72 hours), and if one needs more time I believe that they should have it in such; forfeiting one round. Mostly all of us have at-least forfeit one round and we always will; there is a nice thing called life, you should try it. You say that what I've been saying was for you, when the things I read are against you I've made may points on why/what I think or do think on the statement "It should automatically count as a loss if someone forfeits one round" when you keep spewing the same non-sense. Now Taylor boy I am sorry to put you down again........... But you all first come first serve.
It should automatically count as a loss if someone forfeits one round

As you said, Lucas, This system is already happening and you never said anything against me, you just said that the voters od DDO are already doing this. So it is hard to tell if you agree with me or if you are against me. All I wanted to say was that if someone forfeited a debate, it would either not count on their record and the debate would be discontinued or it would count as a loss. Think about this, if you were having a debate at a debate club or at an event, (EX: Bill Nye and Ken Ham) If one of them would just hear the other statement, then walk off stage, come back after an hour or two and decide to say their argument, do you think that the people would just let him do it and have a say in the debate?