BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

All men are created equal". This was a statement made in the beginning of our nation's founding. If all men our equal then why should some be disallowed the right to vote. If we disenfranchise felons then we are disagreeing with our country's founding principles. Also John Locke's Social Contract was not written for today's society. While it somewhat relevant my opponent is relying on a piece of work written in the 17th century way to much and also, nowhere in our constitution is a "social contract" between the government and the people mentioned. By instating this 400 year old idea into our society it would not only change this resolution, but everything in our constitution. Furthermore my opponent stated that disenfranchisement is not to severe a punishment when I believe that disenfranchisement is not a punishment at all. Most felons often do not care for voting in most cases. The most time felons have been interested in voting was in the 2008 election and the election of 2000. If the felons are not interested in voting in the first place then it is not a punishment at all. Therefore it is a right that is unnecessarily taken away from them. As to his Contention 2 attack, just because race is not a factor in determining whether someone is a felon, it is still entirely relevant to this resolution, for when you think of a dangerous or violent person who is stereotypically thought of? Blacks or Latinos. Stereotypes have to come from somewhere, though, and are often true. Because of this say for example a outrageous bill was put up for a citizen vote to reinstate slavery. If minorities cant vote they have no say in the matter so a one can see felon disenfranchisement can lead to genocide and slavery. So, moving on, Hitler has nothing to do with this resolution and it is completely uncalled for that you say that I am a Hitler supporter. Hitler is, hands down, the worst man in the history. comparing a common thief to him is like comparing a tadpole to a dragon: which is worse?Also according to the Washington Post "To condemn millions to eternal political silence is to stab our democracy in the heart, and to provide cause for bitterness and alienation. Felons may face many other disabilities: They cannot sit on juries, serve as teachers, firefighters or -- often -- even barbers or plumbers. They cannot receive food stamps or live in public housing. Add to all this the knowledge that whatever they do, no matter how much they have changed, their voices will never be heard in the public arena." This clearly as one can see is unfair and wrong. Now, continuing, my opponent seems to advocate an eye-for-an-eye policy, that because a felon takes away, in a sense, someone's right to vote, just so you know: an eye-for-an-eye just makes the WHOLE WORLD BLIND. if we show our American people that we are so afraid of petty criminals that we take away their GUARANTEED RIGHTS, we declare ourselves so incompetent we must stow away felons as lower Americans. this. once-again, denies the principal of our nation that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Value: democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.
A technological dependancy will prove well for the greater good of mankind

yes ,i see that you are implying that other countries will come to americas aid with a helping hand i find that funny because we are the ones that always have to go help out other countries most of them dont have the resources to come help us and the ones that do are not to happy with us they will see our weakness and vulnerbility and come attack us while we are down it will be the ultimate advantage that leaves us open for attack it doesnt have to be just an EMP it could be any matter of chaos -a ice age- raging solar flares-major asteroid that leaves this earth helpless and the survivors will have to do without technology and honestly i dont think many will survive very few,not enough to repopulate and with what resources? i think its because of all this technology that people will not know how to overcome the next big doomsday senario
A technological dependancy will prove well for the greater good of mankind

The road to recovery from an emp In the modern world countries are very giving and willing to hand out foreign aid[1], so in the scenario that one country emp's another in all likelyhood the country hit would receive millions of dollars worth of foreign aid to help pay for the damage. I'll even list some of the aid money, and what country it's from the Katrina hurricane [2]: (I would also recommend you view the source since I only listed a few countries) Afghanistan- $100,000 Albania- $300,000 Armenia- $200,000 The Bahamas- $50,000 Canada- over 1,000 personnel Cuba- 1,568 doctors China- $5,000,000 along with 1,000 tents, 600 generators, bed sheets, medical care, disaster relief workers, and 104 tons of medical supplies. Cyprus- $50,000 Equatorial Guinea- $500,000 Gabon- $500,000 Iceland- $500,000 South Korea- $30,000,000 Oman- $15,000,000 Qatar- $100,000,000 to victims Turkey- $2,500,000 United Arab Empires- $100,000,000 I would also like to clarify that a strong, long lasting solar flare emp landing on a continent is very, very unlikely to occur in an average man's lifetime(and my opponent build his argument off what will happen if another country emps another). Meanwhile a nuclear emp typically lasts less than 0.01 of a second meaning you can immediatly start rebuilding, once electronics are destroyed. My opponent said: "this is very wrong your generators you will have for a short time but what are you going to do when the gas runs out ? do you know that all gas station pumps will not work ? and most likely people will kill for gas . so thats "ill_logical"" However I reccomend ignoring this since not only will the country get millions upon millions of foreign aid and technology (such as gas station pumps) but it will likely get oil from another country in the event it runs out or even low during an emp. Just for example both Portugal and Spain offered 1.75-2% of their oil reserve to the U.S. during Katrina.[2] Besides is their any logic within saying that technology is bad because it can be destroyed/emp'd, In addition all of its effects listed this debate (mainly round 2) have been positive, thanks for debating this topic with me Con and I look forward to seeing the votes and comments. Sources: [1] http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://www.nationmaster.com...
A technological dependancy will prove well for the greater good of mankind

That was a good try Pro but i fear your the one whos "logic is poor" here is why (1.) you say " and a forums discussion about generators, are listed in my first three sources[1][2][3]. So the statement that Con said: "we would be set back to time in history like the stone age" was obviously false and not thought about, in addition many technological devices will still work while you may have temporarily lost your mom's cell phone numbers, pipes and human necessities would still work and be available, some cars (if turned off or further away from the initial blast), would still be accessible along with electricity. But I would like you to completely explain how getting emp'd and having to get a new laptop or travel out of the country/area means technology has now fallen back to the stone age." this is very wrong your generators you will have for a short time but what are you going to do when the gas runs out ? do you know that all gas station pumps will not work ? and most likely people will kill for gas . so thats "ill_logical" (2.) you say that "human necessities would still work and be available, some cars (if turned off or further away from the initial blast), would still be accessible along with electricity." wrong again , it doesnt matter if any electrical device is on or off if it his a chip ,its fried . my EMP wiki source clearly explains that . you say that we will still have electricity , we will not , in fact we will not even have running water after a week and when we run out of it its back to digging wells you see all the pants and nuclear reactors run and generate on and off of computers so they too would be screwed . i fear you still do not know much about an emp so you are throwing false claims around. i hope you have something better for me
A technological dependancy will prove well for the greater good of mankind

Despite the poor logic Con used in which he argued we shouldn't rely on technology because it can destroyed, I have still used this round to refute his argument, despite how it's strength. I will also note that not one advantage of relying on technology in round 2 was refuted. How EMP's work is listed , and a forums discussion about generators, are listed in my first three sources[1][2][3]. So the statement that Con said: "we would be set back to time in history like the stone age" was obviously false and not thought about, in addition many technological devices will still work while you may have temporarily lost your mom's cell phone numbers, pipes and human necessities would still work and be available, some cars (if turned off or further away from the initial blast), would still be accessible along with electricity. But I would like you to completely explain how getting emp'd and having to get a new laptop or travel out of the country/area means technology has now fallen back to the stone age. About the graph you posted featuring a miraculous solar flare that just happens to land in the exact center of the US I would like to mention the EMP strength gets weaker and weaker as it expands outward (in a circular form). A solar EMP could be minutes, hours, days, or whatever. Depends on the event. Nuclear EMP's are quick, pulses, they're the most destructive and more likely to occur. For a strong Solar flare to occur the conditions have to be perfect (odds are this won't happen in your lifetime) since the flare must be a strong one fired perfectly at earth and not only must it be aimed at earth out of anywhere it could be aimed in space, but it must also land on a land and over 2/3's of the earth's surface is covered in water.[4] Sources: [1] http://modernsurvivalblog.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.survivalistboards.com... [4] http://ga.water.usgs.gov...
A technological dependancy will prove well for the greater good of mankind

Definitions: Technology[1] : the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems : a machine, piece of equipment, method, etc., that is created by technology Dependency[1] : the quality of being dependent Con may decide whether or not to use the first round for an argument or for acceptance. Source: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Smoking should be banned

1. Personal Right Con said that "The problem is these only affect the people who do the actions", I already talk about it in the 2nd round. Everyone as human has right to choose what they want to do. This is personal right. Con said "Banning smoking may infringe on a person's individual right to behave as he pleases. In addition, basing this prohibition on health reasons may be hypocritical when other substances that may pose similar or greater threats to health, such as alcohol and fattening foods, are allowed. It is a silly thing. I mean, if con want to not infringe on other people rights, Government can make a law for smokers to smoking in a special room NOT banned smoking. With this, government can protect smoker rights and other people rights. So, from the 1st round until 3rd round, he just make a problem that government can solve it this problem with other way with not adverse one party. Government should fair to make a decision. Even, The World Health Organization"s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) formally classified outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (PDF). "The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances," the IARC"s Kurt Straif told the South China Morning Post. "We consider this to be the most important environmental carcinogen, more so than passive smoking." http://www.businessweek.com... Con said that "marijuana is less harmful than smoking" But con said before "The government should keep people from harm. In the fact, marijuana is also harm. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect non smokers from secondhand smoke exposure. Separating smokers from nonsmokers within the same air space, cleaning the air, opening windows, and ventilating buildings does not eliminate secondhand smoke exposure. So, if government should keep people from harm : marijuana, vehicle, alcohol and more should be banned. Not only smoking. But, you know that is so illogical. So, con failed to break my argument about personal right and it's also answered about second hand smoke. 2. About Business and Taxing, I already explain this very clearly that based on the fact in the 2nd round. I think here, con ignores my argument that based on the fact. We can"t close our eyes that banned smoking give bad influence for economy impact. So, my argument about business and taxing are very clearly and con failed break my argument. So many way to protect people non smoker rights without decrease smoker rights. Government can make regulation about special room for smoker. So, "banned smoking" is bad idea. Whereas, smoke has important place In economy impact and this is personal right. Thank you.
Smoking should be banned

Thanks to Rizkaa for responding!Here, I will attempt to refute Con's arguments and put forward my own.1. People who do not want second hand smoke should just not go to places where smoking is allowedCon argues that people should not go to places if they do not want to get second hand smoke. However, if smoking is allowed in public, there will be little places that they can go because there are so many smokers. My argument, argument 2, still stands.Con's argument is also based on the idea that adults are allowed to harm themselves, as long as they don't harm others. I have proved that smoking harms others in my previous round, and forcing people who do not want to suffer from second hand smoke to either put up with it or avoid going to a lot of places actually reduces rather than increases rights.2. Ventilation can remove most of the smokeVentilation is, in fact, ineffective in removing harmful gases caused by tobacco smoking. (http://www.cdc.gov...) 3. Economic impactCon claims that establishments such as bars and restaurants will get reduced profits if a smoking ban takes place. However, this is not the case: restaurant profits stayed the same, and pub profits dipped slightly but increased in the long run. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) This proves that economic issues do not result from smoking bans.4. Personal rightI have debunked the "freedom of choice" argument before in the last round: smoking affects non-smokers, and the government does have the right to make certain drugs illegal.Con argues that because some other substances are more harmful than smoking, smoking should not be banned. This is a red herring: just because one is worse than another does not mean that the less harmful one is not an issue.Also, as stated in the previous round, marijuana is less harmful than smoking in terms of death rates but is banned: this shows that, according to con's logic, smoking should be banned, too.5. Difficulty of implementation - Though a smoking ban may seem like a brilliant idea to control the potential dangers, it is not always easy to implement at all places.However, the difficulty of implementation does not mean that implementing something is wrong: abolishing slavery was difficult, but that did not mean it was wrong. - Also, if it is a small or a new business, it may not afford to lose its clients because of the ban. After all, it all about survival. In such cases, the ban loses its purpose.I have proved above that smoking bans had little to no impact on restaurant and pub revenues: in fact, pub revenues rose after the small dip caused by the smoking ban. ConclusionI would like to thank con for putting effort into his well thought out arguments. I believe that I had proven that smoking is harmful, that "personal rights" is not a valid objection to smoking bans, and that con's concerns are invalid. I believe that con has left some of my arguments, such as my argument about personal rights, inadequately addressed. I believe that I have adequately proven my case for this round.
Tax Policy

Without delving into Trump's economic expertise or his financial success, I will point out that his companies have filed bankruptcy 6 times, at least partly because of using excessive debt financing. Many economists believe that his tax plan will not pay for itself, but instead just increase the debt. But, if you do believe that he knows the economy and business so well, then wouldn't it be a great idea to have him making decisions with a a higher amount of tax income? The countries my opponent listed as failed states are not the only examples of socialist countries. They are arguably not even the best examples of the philosophy. According to studies for happiness and GDP, 7 of the top 10 countries ranked by happiness were socialist, while the United States came in at number 14 (2014-2016) and 4 of the top 20 countries, including the #2 country) were socialist. 70% and 20% of those groups. But, just as with the failed countries, there are many relevant factors to these numbers, and many of them have nothing to do with socialist/capitalist policies. But regardless, the US government is a representative democracy. If the will of the populace is for more socialist policies, they are free to pursue tax policies to reflect that as we live in a representative democracy. Sure, the top 1% contribute a large % of the taxes, because their income is so much more. I suspect if we could total up all the benefits people get from taxes, we would see that the 1% get a large % of those as well. It isn't necessary to call the 1% evil to support these tax policies. Does the 1% want a better educated workforce? Consumers? People that are in general healthier due to better healthcare? Lower crime rates and better infrastructure? The 1% are often more capable of exploiting loopholes in the current tax system to avoid paying the same rates that hard working Americans are required to. These tax changes are intended to help the whole country. But you want to speak of real charity, what is more charitable than giving to the less fortunate of society? That is a group these policies are intended to benefit. The 1% are in the best position to afford this charity, and should they oppose the policies, they are also better able to structure their businesses and income streams to avoid the taxes. Many "charities" are more form than substance. That is, they give only a small % to the actual causes they claim to represent, while at the same time paying large salaries to employees, and creating tax deductions for the 1%. I'm not against charity, certainly not real charity, but these tax increases aren't so large to eliminate contributions. As far as incentives, the tax isn't high enough to destroy the incentive to provide for one's children. It doesn't abolish rights of inheritance or land ownership. And to say all the wealth is stolen by the government implies that the people (tax payers and their children/grandchildren) receive little to no benefit from the taxes collected. While the claim is up for debate, my opponent is overstating the reality.
The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has some form of access to the Internet.

I am in no way upset. It was you who declared you'll take and win any debate, and you who chose to accept when I called your bluff.A swift search of Google declares that "Supposedly" no such thing as the "Reroute Bypass Approach" has ever existed. Such suppositions, if truly supposed so widely as to be supposed without the context of a particular supposer, would be present on Google.This is because access to a part of the network without access to the network is incoherent. To post something within the view of the Internet is clearly to have some form of access to the Internet, if only posting access. The fact that you knew enough to accept the debate shows that you also had enough reading access to know you had been challenged, notwithstanding the contrary interpretations implied by your difficulty addressing my argument.The notion of this "RbP" is absurd and would hold the burden of proof even had you not chosen to concede a nonstandard burden of proof to your disadvantage.
The user possessing the username "Liquidus" has some form of access to the Internet.

Hahaha! Ragnar, I would have expected better! You challenged me to a debate that I couldn't win, and then get upset when I do something crazy!? This is precious. However, the show must go on, yes?New Argument: I claim that I am not accessing this website through the Internet. I am using a way of entrance known as "Reroute Bypass Approach or RBP" This was a way to access the WWW without using internet, supposedly this was used by the Russians during the cold war. I guess I'm just that smart that I figured out how to use it. Thanks to it, I can access this website without needing any form of Internet! How convenient right? All I have to say now is: Prove Me Wrong.