BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Veterans should be respected because they gave their life for our freedom.

My assertion against this idea is based on two main points; The first is that respect is the result of honour; and murder cannot be by definition honourable. Soldiers are paid to murder and initiate force against others therefore should not be respected for their actions. The second is that during the 20th century, our freedom both financially and 'freedom of action' has been reduced dramatically. This has been acted through: Oppressive border controls, Crippling inflation and a fiat currency, and financial serfdom through price fixing and the removal of the free market.
Veterans should be respected because they gave their life for our freedom.

We do not respect our soldiers for allegedly "murdering" enemy gunman, we respect our soldiers because they have made the ultimate commitment to their country, a commitment that many of us would not or could not make. In the US 1% of the population is taking 100% of the bullets in overseas distant foreign conflicts, and when they return home they are returning in some cases to worse conditions then when they left. In some cases they return home to find that their spouses want a divorce, are cheating on them, want to take the kids, the bank has foreclosed on their home, the company they use to work at no longer has a job for them, etc. Soldiers make a tremendous sacrifice for their country and often they are not adequately rewarded for their sacrifices. "murder by definition is not honorable" - I agree that murder is not honorable, but is what soldiers do murder? "they are paid to murder and initiate force against others" - that is a very biased perception of what they do compared to what their true actions are. Also how much money do you think troops make? its not a very large amount its roughly $200 to $325 a month which gives them a salary of $2400 to $3900 a month. They receive government benefits to things such as medical bills, education grants, insurance, etc. so much of what they really need is paid for, but they are not living like kings. There are rules of engagement that all soldiers must follow. Some of which include 1) Do not fire on others unless they fire on you first 2) Soldiers often protect unarmed civilians by using their own bodies as shields to protect the individuals and move them to safety. 3) Soldiers are under command to wiser superior officers who must authorize any use of lethal force. 4) Troops are deployed to areas with very specific objectives in mind, they do not merely go to an area and cause trouble if none is to be found. 5) Soldiers objectives are organized so that the protection of civilians are superior to the killing of enemy soldiers http://www.wnd.com... If a soldier is fired upon by an enemy gunman then the soldier, under the rules of engagement, may do what is necessary to protect civilians, themselves, or their fellow soldiers. Under such circumstances then the soldiers actions could easily classified as self defense, not cold blooded murder like you imply. As for your second argument you argue that soldiers should not be respected because our financial freedoms and other freedoms have been abused because of border controls, inflation, and the combination of price fixing and the removal of the free market. How does ANY of those things justify why soldiers should not be given respect for serving their country? (often they serve more than once) Soldiers deserve to be respected because of the sacrifices they make for our country and for their service they have already given to our nation.
9/11 re-shaped America

Ladies and Gentlemen viewing this debate, I do not think it is necessary to remind you what must be considered when voting on a debate. However, just for save measure I will briefly summarize a few things that we must take into consideration. 1. We cannot consider our personal opinion or presuppositions upon reading the premise and where the Pro and Con side. We must consider only what is presented in the debate itself 2. We must take the debate at face value. Voters (like the debaters) bear no burden of assumption and must not try to follow the debate to where it may logically conclude. As stated before, we must consider only what is stated plainly in the debate. That being said, I point out that my opponent has given us no substantial reason to vote for him at all. In his third and final round when he clearly had the opportunity to refute, deny or alter my proposed definition of reshaped (which I defined via the Merriam-Webster dictionary) he instead only replied with an open ended question, citing a thesaurus. It is obviously not my duty to interpret my opponent"s meaning when viewing his premise. It is his duty to define that during the course of the debate, which he clearly failed to do. If my opponent wished to argue that 9/11 changed America, he simply should have chosen a less ambiguous term when presenting his premise. Instead, however, he did not and proceeded to not even directly counter my definition. He only asked if I was aware of different interpretations of what he may or may not have meant. My opponent has presented no compelling arguments, while I (taking his premise literally and defining it as one would expect) defended my case with fact. America has not been reshaped and my definition has not been countered.
9/11 re-shaped America

Re-shaped: verb. to give a new form or shape to (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). If you wish to legitimately argue that the attacks on 9/11/2001 changed the shape of this nation in any way, I will be happy to produce maps from before and after the attacks during my final round. America remains geographically unaltered, and in fact possesses no new territory from any linked proceeding conflict. Also, I am compelled to point out that American did not "join the war on terrorism" as you state. America joined WWII after Pearl Harbor was attacked. No preexisting war with the Middle East was being fought on a global scale, thus it cannot be argued that America joined any type of war. Rather, America instigated a war on an international level against a radical political group. None of your sources show how America's form changed, and as such I dismiss them as inconsequential to this debate.
Returning to the gold standard would be bad

1) Since my opponent still hasn't decided if he means for a certain country or not, I'm going to assume he means globally. The main point seems to refer to everyone. 2) The problem with this argument is that value itself can fluctuate. Once we had returned to the gold standard the value of gold would quickly shift in a manner that balanced the value of gold with the current conditions of the economy. So the only thing that would be limited is the 'quantity' of gold, But the value would remain unchanged. Plus, Gold is malleable, So unlike coins or dollars, You can have almost any 'amount of gold' from super small amounts to large amounts-- so once the value shot up, People would be expected to simply have a 'small-ish' portion of all the gold and that would still be sufficient.
Lethal Weapon is superior to Die Hard (Only the first movies of each franchise)

Lethal Weapon is a superior movie to Die Hard in the four categories listed below. 1. Dialogue 2. Plot (Ability to suspend disbelief, engaging, etc.) 3. Main Characters 4. Setting Round one will be an acceptance of the debate. Round two will address the first two categories, and round three will address the final two. Round four will be dedicated to rebutting the opponents arguments and dismantling the other movie. The final round will be an allowance to defend against the rebuttals as well as a quick conclusion.
the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms election process

My opponent still can not say that the more money "drown out opponents arguments" because more money does not mean that the opposing candidates opinions will be drown out. His arguments would still exist even if the opposing candidate did have more money. He also argued that the Supreme Court is very liberal, however that does not mean they would ignore what is best for America. Now to summarize my points and why they still hold strong in today"s debate. I showed in my first point that if we removed Citizens United it would harm the election process more than help it, as brought up in a piece of evidence I presented. I proved that Citizens United account for 78% of money in the election, and if we removed that it would take away the "safety net" and could force candidates to drop out of an election. Since he failed to disprove this my argument still stands in today"s debate. My second point showed that Citizens United helps keep voters informed. My main argument was that advertisements are a key part of an election, and that Citizens United helps fund these advertisements, informing the common voter. However with citizens united gone, these advertisements would go down in number and less inform us about what is going on in the political world, thus harming the election process. My opponent also failed to disprove this meaning the argument still holds in today"s debate.
the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms election process

My point is far from invalid, as I never stated that the candidate with more money always wins. I stated that candidates with MORE MONEY can spread more political ads and ideas and drown out their opponent's views and ads, which is true. Second, the supreme court is very liberal, and even though we have seen detrimental damage to democracy, the supreme court wouldn't admit a mistake and "repeal" (as I think my opponent meant) a decision such as this one, especially after only two years. An example? Here. http://www.opensecrets.org.... My opponent appears to not have much of a point of his own, but to only attack with invalid reasoning my points.
the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms election process

First of all my opponent said Citizens United gives unfair advantages" however that is completely false. If his statement were true than, historically speaking, every election was won by the candidate with more money. This is completely false disproving his attack. His second point that, "the court's decision allows for corporations to spend investor money (without the consent of the investor) on causes with which the investor(s) may not agree" is irrelevant to today"s topic, because it doesn"t show how citizens united harms the lection process. His third attack was that Citizens United is devastating to democracy" however if this were true, then we would already see democracy being effected, and would have been repelled by the Supreme Court. His final attack was that Super Pacs spread false lies, however one can not blame Super Pacs alone for causing this, and in order for this argument to be valid he must give a direct link to Super Pacs being the cause for all of the lies. I shall now attack his case in order for his first point to stand he must give me an example of a time corporations make a political statement using their investors money without their knowledge, since that is what his first point is about. In his second point he must show that Citizens United DIRECTLY empowers corporate managers to use money that isn't their own to make their own political statements. If he can not prove either, both points are invalid because his points would be based on a the possibility of something happening, not what actually what has happened.
the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms election process

Unlimited spending gives an edge to certain candidates, allowing them to effectively "drown out" the other candidates message. Also, the court's decision allows for corporations to spend investor money (without the consent of the investor) on causes with which the investor(s) may not agree. Also, as I stated before, people will become increasingly cynical about the political process if they believe that their elected officials are, in essence, controlled by corporations with access to more capital than they could ever reasonably hope to acquire. This is devastating to democracy because democracy only works when people believe their opinions count and are being represented. A deluge of corporate funding creates the perception (correct or not) that politicians aren't interested in the average voter"s opinion and that their vote may not count. This is very important as it shows that democracy itself is damaged by the supreme court's decision. People are not always truthfully informed by Super Pacs. Ads made by super pacs often distort the truth and/or may not do anything but attack the opponent of a candidate with false information. This is harmful to the election process in that people are fed incomplete truth and/or complete lies.
the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms election process

Resolved: on balance the supreme court ruling on citizens united harms the election process. My partner and I stand on firm negation of this resolution for these points" Contention 1: Without Citizens united the election process will be jeopardized Contention 2: Citizens united allows voters to be more informed about elections Contention 1: Without Citizens united the election process will be jeopardized. I would like to start out with saying that citizens united is a main contributor to the election process, in fact it is responsible for 78% of funds according to https://www.commondreams.org... With citizens united people have the ability to help change the out comeof the election by giving money to candidates. It is a well known fact that the most crucial key to winning an election is the resources you have ie money. With citizens united in place it gives candidates a "safety net" of funds to keep their campaigns in progress. If citizens united were revoked that "safety net" would disappear, and have the possibility knock a candidate out of the election. This clearly contradicts what my the pro side is tiring to prove, which is that citizens united harms the election process, in fact it helps the election process. Contention 2: Citizens united allows voters to be more informed about elections. Citizens United plays a big role in provide funding for these advertisements. It is a well known fact that a large majority of money is spent on political advertising. Advertisements are also often considered the most important part of campaigning because a candidate can reach out to a large amount of people with one advertisement. With these advertisements Americans can become more informed on what is happening in the political world. In most cases advertisements are the main source of information for voters, meaning that those advertisements have a large impact on the election. With Citizens United advertisements can be more abundant, properly informing voters on political situations. Due to this citizens united actually protects the election process, because it gives each candidate the resources they need to pay for advertisements. Without citizens united it would give an unfair advantage with the candidate with the most amount of money, so with citizens united it actually creates a "more pure" election process.
the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms election process

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (we'll refer to it from here-on as, simply, Citizens United) decision was a Supreme Court decision released in 2010. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the court held that political spending is speech protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Post-Citizens United, corporations or unions are free to spend money to support or denounce candidates in elections. They cannot make direct contributions to campaigns to fund their activities, but they may make statements in advertisements or other media about candidates for office. My first contention is corporate control causes undue corporate influence over the election process. This argument is contextualized by Peter Rothberg in a piece published in The Nation: Peter Rothberg, "The Story of 'Citizens United' vs. the FEC," The Nation, March 2, 2011. "And the results of the 2010 election bore out progressive fears as corporate-front groups flooded the electoral zone with massive contributions to reactionary Tea Party candidates. In fact, as Leonard's film makes clear, the kind of independent groups that corporations are now allowed to support spent $300 million to influence the 2010 midterm elections, more than every midterm election since 1990 combined." My second contention is that people will become increasingly cynical about the political process if they believe that their elected officials are, in essence, controlled by corporations with access to more capital than they could ever reasonably hope to acquire. This is devastating to democracy because democracy only works when people believe their opinions count and are being represented. A deluge of corporate funding creates the perception (correct or not) that politicians aren't interested in the average voter"s opinion and that their vote may not count. My third contention is Citizens United allows corporations to spend people's money on causes with which they may not agree. Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. the Citizens United decision: 1.Allows corporations to make political statements using investor money without their knowledge. With the decision, a liberal person could theoretically invest in a conservative company and have their cash fund ads advocating policies with which they disagree. Additionally, since there are no requirements for those expenditures to be reported, the investor may never know. 2.This empowers corporate managers to use money that isn't their own to make their own political statements. This gives some individuals a disproportionate amount of risk-free power to influence policy (which is not so democratic, considering the average citizen needs to spend their own money to engage politically, not investors"). It is for those reasons that the resolution is correct in saying that the Supreme Court's decision is harmful to the election process.
Barack Obama's Health Care Plan is simply this... Better than McCains!!!

Unfortunately, neither candidate's health care proposals will solve the problems with our current health care system, both will only make it worse. The present problems are caused by too much government involvement, through insurance mandates, and duty to care laws, that result in forcibly redistributing your money to people who have not earned it and cannot get efficient use of it anyway. The positions are shortly summarized here http://www.usnews.com..., I would be glad to see more sources from my opponent too. In essence, Mccain wishes to send out a universal 5000 dollar tax credit with which to purchase insurance. This is, make no mistake, a handout. Barack Obama wishes not only to send out tax credits (some of which aren't specifically targeted at health care, but economics can only be properly understood as a whole), but also to expand the government's role in providing for the health care. This is, make no mistake, a handout. And unlike Mccain's solution, it also leads to jobs for dedicated health bureaucrats. These become entrenched in the system. So when either system screws up (and they both will), Barack Obama's will be harder to get rid of. "3. Creates an enduring fence around healthcare costs that isnt hands on or government controlled." If the government creates something, it controls it. That is how these things work. If you were electing Obama as shareholder of a private charity, you might be able to say this. Otherwise, no. " 2. It balances inusrance costs by UNAVOIDABLE competition...not by the possible comptetion that McCain hopes will happen" Unsubstantiated, tell me more. "Its free-market! " Free market means the government has NOTHING to do with it. It means, all state, federal, and local regulations on health insurance other than the prohibition on force and fraud, are immediately scrapped. Free market means, unless I've got a specific complaint for breach of contract, my health care plan should never have anyone with a government salary decide ANYTHING about it. That is most certainly not Obama's plan. "Unlike McCains plan, Barack's will last indefinately, not provide only immediate relief." Since both plans are socialist, and too much socialism is what caused the problem in the first place, lasting indefinitely is a flaw of the plan, not a virtue. "4. Obama's plan will cost less than John McCain out-rageously costly plan!" Unsubstantiated, tell me more. Especially since, so far, I haven't seen any hard math on Obama's plan (Mccain's is easy, multiply 5000 by " 1. It involves NO government hound-outs!!!" Obama is running for a position in the government. On the plank of applying tax money to the issue of health care. What part of that does not involve a hand out?
Barack Obama's Health Care Plan is simply this... Better than McCains!!!

My argument is simple as this... Barack Obama's plan to solve our healthcare crisis is better than McCains! 1. It involves NO government hound-outs!!! 2. It balances inusrance costs by UNAVOIDABLE competition...not by the possible comptetion that McCain hopes will happen 3. Creates an enduring fence around healthcare costs that isnt hands on or government controlled. Its free-market! Unlike McCains plan, Barack's will last indefinately, not provide only immediate relief. 4. Obama's plan will cost less than John McCain out-rageously costly plan! (Interestingly enough, both Obama's healthcare plan and tax plan seem to be more conservative than McCains... odd... anyway...I just wanted to mention that for all of you conservatives out there...it WILL NOT be a point of argument in this debate!)