I'm saying shes the least harmful rep we have. very different statements.

We understand that's what you're saying. We're saying "she's still absolute shit". Seems like you should wipe your own ass before you call out the stink in the room.

Its not my fault you lack basic read comprehension and confuse terms like 'accomplishments' and 'effectiveness'. First, effectiveness requires a benchmark and we won't agree on the benchmark metric so there is no point.

It's not our fault you struggle with basic communication. I don't know if this works in your high school debate club, but continually insisting that basic terms aren't comprehensible to you because you normally have a slightly different interpretation of them, so as to not have to engage in the actual argument, isn't really a good rhetorical strategy. It just makes you come off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
You were asked what change she has effected - ie. What has she accomplished?

secondly I'm not the one making claims about her that need refuting

You haven't really made any claims apart from her being effective and accomplishing stuff, not bein supportive of a genocider and a lot of other claims, that's true. I guess if you require specificity you can say you haven't made any claims, but that's why you're being asked to be specific, so you can have an actual discussion.

She doesn't

You keep trying to tie this down to one single act for some reason, despite users referencing her entire tenure. I know being wrong can feel terrible, but it's actually a great opportunity to learn something! It might also improve your grades in high school, since changing your attitude about learning to something less defensive would probably make your teachers despise you less.

the omnibill version is not a vote for supporting genocide.

So it doesn't give money to Israel? Huh.