Judges don’t tell a team their facts are wrong, the other team does. Judges decide which of the teams had better argumentation.

I find the judge symbolism interesting and compelling, but moderators are not judges. They’re not making a judgement in place of the citizens by the end.

Rather than only letting two people debate, they could ask for clarifications. If you see them as press, and as representing the citizens, you may even think they have to to fulfill the press code and their responsibility.

I think it’s a question of how you see the debate. What it is, or should be. Is it between the two candidates, and moderators merely give it structure? Or is it a debate with an expectation of truth and trustworthiness, fulfilling the press code, where the moderators would have to at least point out lies or ask for clarifications?

A debate between two candidates has its value, but we can’t deny it strengthens Trumps position as an apparently to many people charismatic liar. Between only two people it’s about who is more charismatic and convincing, not about truthfulness, verifiability. All of those only go as far as the other candidate can establish them.

If many citizens watch only the debate, is that enough to inform them / base their voting [or omission thereof] on?

In the end, it may be understandable to wish for moderators to point out lies. It can be irritating and frustrating to see lies on a podium finding success, without successful, conclusive rebuttal. But that’s not the moderators’ place in the show format as it is.

Disclaimer: I haven’t watched it.

Over the last eight months, Israel has killed at least 37,765 people and injured another 86,429, according to the ministry’s latest figures. These numbers are likely an undercount due to the decimated medical infrastructure, killed medical workers, and thousands feared trapped under the rubble in Gaza.

Was there a debate in Congress? Did they reason their vote?

The closing paragraphs in the article paint a bleak light. None of reason or arguments. Only denial and dismissal of opposition/different views without any reasoning.

Content-Blocked - requires email signup

Accessible via https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://theintercept.com/2024/06/27/congress-gaza-death-toll-democrats

and noted that the planes won’t be delivered to Israel for years

…but will it get better or worse in those years?

How do you want us to push for peace there too? Because we have been since the beginning of the war in my eyes.

What do you mean by “won’t recover from”? Because they have lost things that can’t be recovered since the beginning of the war. Russia is losing things they can’t recover too; thousands of its people for example, it’s money reserves, its military inventory, its non-military-sector economy. Where do you draw the line for Russia and Ukraine of what is “won’t recover from”? Western nations have already committed to helping rebuild the country and especially its destroyed infrastructure.

How is the war in Ukraine “quickly turning into a much bigger global conflict”? Fighting is still only within Ukraine and the border to Russia. Western material support has been the case since the beginning.

I have to assume by pushing for peace you mean Ukraine should accept losing large parts of its territory and human atrocities in order for the fighting to end. Is letting Russia win going to reduce conflict long term though? They’ll have more resources to invade other countries next. And proof that it’s a worth investment. That works and they win from. There was precedent before the current war in Ukraine, which is why they started this invasion in the first place. Only this time it didn’t go as smoothly.

I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.

I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).

Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.

How do you think the US tried to make China invade?

I think it’s a bafflingly absurd claim. And I’m surprised some people wouldn’t doubt it.

How does this fit into China invading and harassing other ships in international waters near Taiwan? Or China punishing Taiwans independent election results by doing military maneuvers around Taiwan, clearly showing force and threatening. And the constant reiterations of considering Taiwan as part of China. Integration of Taiwan is a clear and repeatedly voiced goal. Their willingness to use force was shown repeatedly; in Tibet, Hong Kong, and against minorities in their own established lands.

I don’t see how with such a discrepancy believing the Chinese claims makes any sense. It’s smoke and trying to influence and irritate the western nations and their alliances. Similar playbook to Russia.

title: … to increase propanda efforts worldwide

A pro panda initiative?

content: propaganda

oh…

I think you’re grossly misrepresenting what the NATO does, how it expands, Ukraines own interest, and Russias views.

NATO is a voluntary and self determined collection of states, a collection of states. States have an inherent interest in their own safety. For that reason the NATO expanded passively.

How can you say Russia needs buffer zones and NATO not “getting closer” while denying any countries closer or next to Russia any form of safety net like the NATO? It’s plainly obvious what the bigger threat is. Russia is invading neighboring countries. Not the other way around.

Can you cite regarding your claims of pressure on Ukraine to decline a peace deal - where Ukraine would have even went for it? I assume the claim that the reason is monetary profit is pure speculation?

Ukraine has had a clear position on peace talks. It’s a country that is being invaded. Even when losses increased that didn’t change much. Out of their own interest, stance, and necessity. (I don’t know if that changed more recently, I’m not up-to-date on that specifically.) Accepting loss of land and people amongst Russias atrocities and treaty violations is a hard ask when it’s your people and home.

Back to the main point and opener of your comment:

The “expansion” of NATO is a Russian narrative that Russia uses as smoke and mirrors. Like it does in any and all of their communication. Is it actually part of their reason for invasions? Maybe. But it’s not the only one, and unverifiable. Claiming that NATOs “expansion” justifies Russias activities is actively supporting Russia, and frankly, insulting to the invaded and violated people - that have a right to live without invasion and atrocities.

Russia was safe. Europe and the EU were actively connecting and supporting Russia and its people. NATOs “expansion” is a Russian narrative to mislead.

/edit: Bolding for some highlighting.

“Anna never leaves the house, she suffers from agoraphobia. But she is strong, I hope she will overcome this,” he added.

Agoraphobia is a phobic disorder involving the specific anxiety about being in a place or situation where escape is difficult or embarrassing or where help may be unavailable

damn, it’s gonna be extra hard for her

well, yes

That’s standard procedure in Russia.

They claim and label it fake, or insulting or damaging to Russia, prosecute, and sentence.

who publicly and intentionally insults the national anthem

the anthem felt very insulted

It’s really baffling and sad.

?

Not really obviously best. But there’s obvious, well known problems that can be obviously improved.

• Don’t let the president alone appoint candidates. Include states or the justice system.
• I assume the Senate confirms with a simple majority; increase to 2/3 majority.
• Separate questions of constitutionality from top-court-revision processes.

on 34 counts

That’s all of them

It’s just insane how it’s never enough even for huge countries. It’s an entirely cultural thing.

In Europe, you have many small countries in cooperation, and none of them think to deny other countries. Russia and China are huge, and have so much. But it’s systematically and culturally different, with a specific type of people and apparatus in control.

You look from a small country to these behemoths, and it’s just insane that they would even feel a want or need to expand like that, at the cost of so much.

“play this clip”

dude, just play the clip, it’s not like I’m the one pressing play each time

Why would they abbreviate cubic meter as cm - conflicting with centimeter - instead of m³?

I assume it’s historically common in the field?