BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Iraq war is illegal and amoral and should never have been waged.

Bypassing the UN does not necessarily an action unilateral make. The UK was, and still is an important ally in the war, and though the US and UK comprised the vast majority of the original troops, around 40 other nations went in with us. Though it was not within the framework of the UN, it was hardly a unilateral action. In addition, the American resolve to topple the Hussein regime started in the first Gulf War, and far from subsiding during the Clinton administration, was actually ratcheted up with, for example, the Iraq Liberation Act, signed in 1998 by President Clinton and stating the intent of the US to work in no uncertain terms for the topple of the Hussein regime. Thus the Iraq war should not be seen as a private initiative of Bush's, but rather the culmination of decades of animosity towards the Iraqi government. There was in fact significant reason to believe that Hussein was developing WMDs, not the least of which was that he consistently refused to let in UN inspectors. "I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully." -Tony Blair Even still, that was hardly the only justification. Paul Wolfowitz said, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction - because it was the one reason everyone could agree on". Everyone does not agree on something that they know is false, and certainly the administration, if anyone, would be aware if anyone knew it was verifiably false. It doesn't look like deliberate deception was behind the "massive media blitzkrieg" at all so much as a conviction based on the fact that Hussein refused to cooperate with UN inspectors that Iraq posed an eventual threat. As for the Plame affair, the post-invasion situations are a completely different argument.
The Iraq war is illegal and amoral and should never have been waged.

YOu seem to miss the U.N. charter, which the United States signed and ratified, which states the no one nation shall take unilateral action against another. I'm pretty sure that that's a law. An international law. National laws don't take precedent over basic human rights which include security, and happiness, food, shelter, and warmth. I'm pretty sure if people are bombing you you don't have those. So state rights don't trump human rights. Well let's take a for instance on the amoral part. The Bush Administration told the American people that Iraq was pursuing nuclear material, called yellow cake, from Niger. the United States government sent a senior diplomat to Niger to look into these claims. He find no evidence to support this claim, which he reported to the FBI and the CIA. However, President Bush wanted to use it in a speech even though his CIA liaison told him that there was no evidence to support that claim. Well he used it, and it came out that it was falsified information and he had to fire some people and the government slipped the name of the CIA agent wife of the senior diplomat who wouldn't verify Bush's claims. Her name is Valerie Plame. Or how about the fact that the Bush Administration tried to convince the American people that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when the CIA said that there was no evidence to support that. In fact there was evidence that Osama bin Laden approached Hussein in the 80's for weapons and was treated poorly.
The Iraq war is illegal and amoral and should never have been waged.

1) Illegal by what legal system? "Illegal" is a term applied to individuals and not nations, simply because the international arena is still fundamentally anarchic. Though there have been trends in the direction of international law over the past century, state sovereignty still takes precedence as evidenced by the fact that all international institutions to date operate on an opt-in basis. Countries essentially get to choose what, if any, international law applies to them. If you mean the American codex of laws, can you point to a particular law which would make it "illegal"? 2) You assume that the Bush administration told the American public about Iraq with deliberate malice of intent, knowing what they were saying was false. I assume this is the basis for you calling the war "amoral". Can you prove it was malicious intent and not intelligence misinformation?
The Iraq war is illegal and amoral and should never have been waged.

In 2003 almost two years after the horrendous events of 9/11 the Bush Administration started saying that Iraq and it's leader Saddam Hussein were partly responsible for the hijackings. They also started to push information that Iraq was seeking nuclear material from Niger. They also insisted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or WMDs. They told the American public through a massive media blitzkrieg that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and her allies throughout the world. These criterion and the criterion that we were going to build democracy we why we attacked a sovereign nation for little legal or moral reason.
Philip Rivers- Underrated Quarterback

i dont care about stats, and he is not the second greatest qb in the league lets mention some veterans and young qbs well ahead of him: 1) Peyton Manning 2)tom brady 3) Brett Favre 4)Tony Romo 4) Carson Palmer 5) Marc Bulger (when healthy) 6) Donavon McNabb 7) Matt Hassleback 8) Eli Manning 9) David Garrard 10) Ben Rothelisberger 11) Jay Cutler 12) Jason Cambell 13) Derek Anderson 14) Drew Brees 15) Jeff Garcia and yes even CHAD PENNINGTOn it is debatable that all of these quarterbacks are better than Phillip Rivers, you cannot see he is underated becuase he is regarded as a top quarterback in the league after two years and has shown extreme immaturity and disability to lead a fully capable team into the superbowl. If you want to talk about underrated qbs they are all on that list. Derek Anderson, David Garrard, Eli and Peyton Manning(Peyton is still the best qb in the game), and Chad Pennington
Philip Rivers- Underrated Quarterback

Alright, in regards to last week, he had an injured knee. This is coming from someone who complains about an injury every week, I want to see you play with what he had last week. He is a hero for playing last week. And Benny please remember the team he played against last week. The Patriots. The best team in the history of football. There was no chance he was going to win that game. This year his INT-TD ratio wasn't too great but the previous year, he had more then twice the amount of TD's then interceptions. Only Bulger threw more TDs and less INT. He is the QB, besides Brady himself, you want if you are down in the last quarter. And his pocket prescence Benny is actually over-par. He has been sacked in the last two years less then Tom Brady, who has the best O-line in the game. He isn't the quickest, but he avoids the defense great. Although he hasn't had great postseason success, neither did Dan Marino, Brett Favre, in his long career he only won the Super Bowl once and Peyton Manning.
Philip Rivers- Underrated Quarterback

Alright Benny, now let me tell you something. Do you know how hard it is to be a good QB in San Diego when the playbook is dominated by the run game? However, Phil manages to be not good, but great. He wasn't to do anything these last two years and both years he not only has had the highest 4th Quarter percentage, which means he is mad clutch, but led them to 14 wins last year and 11 this year. He was selected to the pro-bowl last year. He is constantly compared to Dan Marino due to his pocket prescence and his quick release. It is just LT dominates the plays
Euthanasia

(although if this is your argument against euthanasia, then I will treat it as such). The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why euthanasia should be illegal. Why? Because societies (most of them anyway) are based on the principle that you start by allowing everything and then proceed to ban (or forbid) certain things when there is sufficient reasons to do so. You do not start by banning everything and then proceed to allow certain things, because that leads to some contradictions (such as: who gave you the right to allow anything? ). Good luck!
Americans are eating to much,have less exercise and obesity is on the rise.

Let me start by saying that I am a Grammar Nazi. Your arguments make me CRINGE; of course, I will slip up every now and then but your argument is LITTERED with mistakes. You have still failed to address the flaw in your title, the part: 'have less exercise'. Less exercise than whom, exactly? '...by the looks of it, America cant take criticism [sic]' This seems to be a poke at ME, saying I, as an American, cannot take criticism. Let me assert the fact that I am NOT an American, I am a Briton and I'm capable of taking criticism but I am not capable of watching you slag off 320million people because you have been tripped up by the media who insists they are a nation of uneducated, overweight idiots. 'New Zealanders don't eat as much as Americans do. They have the right portion for the average diet' Hmm... average diet? For who? Oh yes! A New Zealander, because you guys are so perfect and we could ALL take a leaf out of your book. 'Its fattening and shocking to other countries,because of this America is feeding all of its corn to fatten cows to make burgers.But in reality all that corn can be used to take away starvation in Africa. Thats a fact. [sic]' Again...the rhetoric! This is SUCH a left-wing take on the issue. Why should we give corn to Africa? Whenever we give money to these governments, they spend it on themselves because they are all corrupt. Giving them corn is only going to help Mugabe fund his next banquet with his other evil associates. You said 'To much is Americans portion sizes. [sic]' But this isn't addressing my question, you're just slagging off America again. Also, you failed to answer my point about Olympians. The US claimed 104 medals in the Olympics...NZ only 13... 'Also in America there is a MacDonald shop in every corner [sic]' That's not quite true either, my dear, have you ever been to America? I've visited New York, even though it's a big, BIG city, there is not a McDonald's round every corner. The intersections of 9th Avenue and W14th St all the way up to W49th St are entirely McDonald's free...look for yourself. '70% of all fast food CEO head quarters are based in America [sic]' Your point being what? Most Hollister factories are in Vietnam, doesn't mean all the Vietnamese go around in designer brands.
Americans are eating to much,have less exercise and obesity is on the rise.

My 1st point is that I wasn't saying that New Zealand is so great and so healthy that America should learn from us.I was comparing the two countries.I only compared New Zealand and America I also compared Australia and America. Americans have stopped exercising when technology started to take place. I never said that New Zealand is the figure of perfectness.New Zealand isn't perfect, but America isn't perfect either and by the looks of it, America cant take criticism. New Zealanders don't eat as much as Americans do. They have the right portion for the average diet.Who needs a gigantic burger for themselves? Like I showed you in the 1st round, the portion sizes there,are 10x bigger than other countries burgers. Its fattening and shocking to other countries,because of this America is feeding all of its corn to fatten cows to make burgers.But in reality all that corn can be used to take away starvation in Africa. Thats a fact. You said how much is to much? To much is Americans portion sizes.The New Zealand,Australia,Middle east and Fijian diet have just enough food for what they need.So what im trying to say is that we have portion sizes that are enough for us and our bodies, but Americans over eat. Now im not saying for Americans to eat only a little bit of food, but to eat food that is good for say there adult diet or teen diet. As for the fit Olympic Americans who are talented.Well all of the countries have talented fit people.Yes there are strong,talented athletic people in America.But there are also obese Americans as well.If you look in the article I sent in round 1 you would have seen statistics of how many people are obese in America. Also you said something about the New Zealand education system.Well stick to the moot.The people who are reading the debate will see the errors you don't need to point them out.So what I put to much instead of too much big deal. Also in America there is a MacDonald shop in every corner.You don't need a MacDonald in every corner. Also 30% of the worlds obese people live in America and 70% of all fast food CEO head quarters are based in America. America has also introduced the Carl's Junior burgers to New Zealand and recent studies have shown that with one burger you can put up to 5kgs of weight on.And the oils that are used have serious health implication. Therefore Americans are eating TOO much,have less exercise and obesity IS on the rise. Thank you.
Americans are eating to much,have less exercise and obesity is on the rise.

Can I firstly start by correcting your atrocious grammatical errors. 'Americans are eating to much' should really be 'Americans are eating too much'. That's a noob error, really. Maybe the problem is with the NZ education system? But onto my point. How much is too much? The GDA is around 2000 kcals for women and 2500 for men. But just because someone gives you 'advice' it doesn't mean you should follow it. If you want to eat tons, then it isn't 'too much' according to how much you want. If you wanna eat, why shouldn't you eat? You insist on comparing the US to New Zealand, they are two separate countries; US is more commercial and there are more fast food establishments than in New Zealand. But what if NZ aren't eating ENOUGH? Your title says 'have less exercise'. Less? Less than what/when/who? Less than 10 years ago? 20 years? 100 years? Or less than 'advised', and we've already talked about that. Or less than NZ? Who says New Zealand is the figure of perfectness and that we should all follow the Kiwi diet of...well..what DO you eat down there? Eating less isn't always a good thing. There are a lot of fat people in the US, but there are a lot of PEOPLE in the US. America does REALLY well in the Olympics, there are a ton of athletic, strong, slim, talented people from the US; you forget to give them a mention.
Americans are eating to much,have less exercise and obesity is on the rise.

I believe that Americans are eating to much,have less exercise and obesity is on the rise. My 1st point is that there serving sizes are just way to big.The bigger the serving size the more food, which means the more fat or food gets inside you.Now I know other countries eat way to much as well BUT America is one of the main ones.In New Zealand our large Cokes are Americas small size. http://www.jackiebrownmedical.ie... If you clicked the link you would have seen a image showing different portions.Now I can tell you that the smaller ones are in other countries such as New Zealand and Australia and the bigger portions are Americas. Now you may say that some people don't go and eat at take aways,but if alot of people are obese in America than it means that most people are eating un healthy food and are going to restaurants and food courts. America also has alot of technology and and instead of going to lay outside in the fresh air there sitting on there butts playing games on the computer. http://www.webmd.com... If you clicked on the link you would have seen an article the percentage of how many people are obese and that they DON'T EXERCISE. In conclusion America is eating to much,Have less exercise and Obesity is on the rise Thank you.
Marxism is invariably superior to Capitalism

First of all, land owned by individuals today was never stolen from Feudal Lords, go back and read a history book, what happened was this thing called rule of law, and later the bubonic plague. Basically peasants moved away from Feudal manor economies, who were battling it out with eachother, and established their own property and farms. Most land today was actually achieved through homesteading, esspecialy in the Americas. The ancestors of those feudal lords still own those same plots of land today as they did then, or they sold it off somewhere along those lines. Secondly, profit is not made by exploiting workers- what are you talking about? Profit is made by providing a quality good to the public at a reasonable price. Thirdly, people can't just randomly "lose everything," maybe if their house gets hit by a meteor or catches on fire, but that's not the markets fault. Fourthly, private property should belong to someone- you cannot make an arbitrary distinction between a, let's say, toothbrush, and a factory- both are things of value that someone produced or arned with the intent of bettering themselves. Fithly, inhereitance is acheived by someone who earned a sum of money giving it to someone else because they are going to die- they should be able to do this. Bt regardless some people do have more opportunities than others, but those opportunities were created, not taken, and therefor this inequality has no har on others, and is honestly not a problem, as the opportunities produced do not diminish from those that already exist.
Marxism is invariably superior to Capitalism

I think your debate can be pretty much summed up in the words "what are you talking about?". At least, it appears you have either missed or misunderstood most of my points. Please note a may use capitalization not to denote emotion or volume but simply for emphasis Perhaps you missed me mentioning the bourgeois REVOLUTION? For that quite clearly shows, the capitalists took their wealth and power from the aristocracy in much the same way that Marx intended for the proletariat to take it from the bourgeois. So the words " voluntary exchange" are pretty hollow. Also, when they "purchase property from someone else" you mean they "purchase private property" from someone else. Personal property belongs to someone. Private property should not. You also seem to have forgotten that your Utopian free market doesn't exist. Most people don't start out life equally. Inheritance makes this even worse. Therefore, your claim that capitalists are in their place due to hard work and investment doesn't really ring true. The point about "buying the means of production" is moot because there is no right to put them up for sale in the first place. I think it was quite clear I didn't mean the market broke down the front door, walked in with a big market grin on and stole stuff. It was a figure of speech, and your literalist pedantry only serves to prove you have no answer; you accept that the, and I'll be explicit here, CONDITIONS SURROUNDING HAVING A MARKET can cause people to suddenly lose everything through no fault of their own. Your statement "nothing in, nothing out" is also true of Marxism: "From EACH TO HIS ABILITY to each unto his need.". As to your last point, this is true, he has done good work and deserves a fee. What he deserves though is what he NEEDS, and not PROFIT made by EXPLOITING workers. You are completely ignoring my very first debate point; please research the Labour Theory of Value. You have one last chance to disprove my points now that I have (hopefully) made them clear enough for you to understand, unlike what was implied in the first sentence of your previous post. Good luck. Sources same as before.
Marxism is invariably superior to Capitalism

What are you talking about? Capitalists achieved their property by, through a voluntary exchange, purchasing it from someone else. They bought it with good money, and are therefore entitled to it- they invested good money into the construction factories, and are therefore entitled to those factories. The market is merely the exchange of goods and services among individuals, it is a phenomenon, not a thing, and cannot seize your property in any way. Under Capitalism you can chose not to work, but unless you put something into the system, you aren't going to get anything out, and you will thus starve. Capitalists invest money into more advanced means of production, and thereby allow other people to amplify the productive powers of their labor, the capitalist is thus entitled to a portion of what was produced with his factory- the workers benefited by him, and he is thereby entitled to a fee.
Marxism is invariably superior to Capitalism

What message? Karl Marx wanted everyone to vilently usurp the means of production from its rightful owners and give it to everyone else. This is called stealing, which is immoral. But let's talk communism, Capitalism is invariably superior to communism for 2 main reasons:1. Capitalism has regard for the individual, and establishes respect for his property and his person- rather than regarding the work of others as public property simply because you need it, as in communism, capitalism gives ech individual rights over what he or she produces. 2. Capitalism accounts for human nature; peple will always serve their own separate intrests, this is a given, and this is why Capitalism accounts for the incentive to work by allowing those who produce to keep whatever they earn.
Marxism is invariably superior to Capitalism

I have recently come to the firm conclusion, after reading several texts by Marx and Engels, that, despite the stigma surrounding communism in much of the West, it, at least in the Marxist form, is far superior to capitalism. Whilst I do not advocate any of the atrocities committed in, for example, the Soviet Union in the name of this cause, I feel that this is a perversion of the true message of Marxism, and that the pure form is an ideology that we should readily adopt. I personally can see no reason to advocate a libertarian free market over libertarian collectivism. The Labour Theory of Value seemed to me a very poignant idea, and it is something that I have come to idolise as one of the great philosophical breakthroughs of history. The idea that labour is equitable to value seems to intrinsically make sense to me. I can see no reasons to continue the capitalist idea of pricing; to me now, it seems to be barely distinguishable from theft. It is exploitation in its purest form. The effort put into the production of goods should surely be represented by the worth of that good, rather than be overruled by a number invented for the simple purpose of "competition". Something else that was important to me in Marxist writings was the belief that the system shapes your ideologies. This was particularly clear when seeing how capitalism creates " Commodity Fetishism". The giving of value to surplus produce is incredibly illogical, for if one has all the produce they need, surely any excess is wasted labour and therefore not inclusive of value. Our obsession with goods is quite clear, and thus I would agree on this front. Also in this idea of the system making ideologies we come across Marx's famous quote; "religion is the opium of the masses". This shows how both feudalism and capitalism cause the proletariat to create falsehoods that will relive their suffering, for they believe in a free future. This is manipulated by the aristocracy or capitalists, depending on who is the ruling class, to prevent any proletarians from desiring a better present. This type of manipulation is sadistic and evil to an inexcusable degree. I have many other reasons to support Marxism over capitalism, however I will leave others for later rounds in order to avoid needless repetition. I would therefore ask that someone debate with me who cannot only advocate a capitalist system but also present flaws in a Marxist one (and vice-versa) in order to convince me wholeheartedly that capitalism is better than Marxism. Also, in clarification, I am defining Marxism as ONLY based off texts written by Karl Marx and/or Frederick Engels. This avoids confusion with Stalinist perversions etcetera, which I obviously do not condone Sources for Marxist Ideas: The Principles of Communism The Communist Manifesto Das Kapital