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

Lets start at the top. My opponent values equality with a standard of democracy. Starting off with the value of equality: My opponent tells you of a standard of equality but fails to define what equality is. So we must assume that equality is referring to all the things. Obviously this impossible because you cannot have equality of all things. I'll give you a simple example, felons lose there right to liberty and freedom while in prison. Thus, they are no longer complete equals in society. So, my opponents value ultimately fails because there is no bright line as to what equality is so you look back to the negatives standard of Lockes's Social contract in this round. On to the value criterion of Democracy: She tells you that, "My value premise and my value criterion relates because equality is essential to a democracy." You can assume than that my opponent doesnt believe democracy is essential to equality because she did not tell you so. Thus, she is not upholding her value through her standard and is not upholding any type of framework in this debate. Impacts: No brightline for equality so you cannot vote of off it and it cannot be brought up later. Thus the value falls. No explaination of how or why a democracy is essential to equality so you have no reason to look the the standard either because there is no link. Thus the V and VC fall so you look to mine. On to her contention one. She tells you that she contends that by taking away felons rights to vote it will violate constitutional laws. Turn this because giving them it back will violate constitutional laws. Ammendmant 14 tells you that the Right to Vote can be taken away from violators of crimes. So the impact of my opponents contention is turned and is now negative offense. On to her second contention where she tells you that, "My definition states that a democracy relies on citizens voting; it is a government elected by the people. You cannot have a full democratic society without all citizens voting." Notice where she tells you ALL citizens. This cannot be weighed at all in this round because A) Children are not allowed to vote, and B) The mentally incompetent are not allowed to vote. So the entire contention falls because of my opponent believes in universal suffrage which is, as ive shown you, entirely impossible in any society. You can cross-apply my arguement againtst her first contention because she tells you again about how it goes against the ammendmants of citizens. I've already shown you the turn on this arguement so look to that. Also my opponent believes in a "clean slate" for felons. Also impossible because they are felons and, however unfortunate that may be, it cannot be taken back so all these things will still happen. This is where your voting: 1. Cannot uphold an already faulty value, with no explanations. 2. Impact turn of contentions 1 and 3. 3. Contention 2 is illogical and impossible.
In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

I affirm that in a democratic society felons should retain the right to vote. Definitions Democracy- is a government elected by the people. Felons- a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. Society- is a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive cultures and institutions. My value premise for this round will be equality and my value criterion will be democracy. My value premise and my value criterion relates because equality is essential to a democracy. I contend that by taking away felons rights to vote it will violate constitutional laws. Everyone is supposed to maintain their citizenship. As written by Steven Earl Bennett in the American Journal of Political Science, "the most fundamental criterion of a fully functioning democratic system is citizen participation. Myrna Perez, author of report "Voter Purges" and an attorney for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice states that there are 5.3 million people that cannot vote because of felonies. Those 5.3 million people will never be full citizens again. For my second contention I refer back to my definition of democracy. My definition states that a democracy relies on citizens voting; it is a government elected by the people. You cannot have a full democratic society without all citizens voting. "Once a person begins to interfere with the voting qualifications one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it all together" stated Alexis de Tocqueville, author of "Democracy in America". Abraham Lincoln once defined America's democracy as a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." This quote refers to the American people. For my third contention I contend that felons don't need extended punishment. They had already paid their debt to society. When they get out of jail they are expected to contribute to society. They still have to pay taxes. They can no longer get a decent job because they are no longer trusted in their society. Their record has already been messed up since they do not have the same trust because they have been in jail. Their future has been messed up. Felons should be able to start life with a clean slate once released from jail. Voting is a form of freedom of speech. You cannot take away someone's right to vote. That is against the amendment as citizens. We are rightfully supposed to follow the amendment. A democratic society is a community of individuals that follow preset commands created by our four fathers. These preset commands are the amendments.
Hell does not exist.

If God was all loving, he would not send ANYONE to hell, and if he sends people to hell, he is not all loving. If God is also all knowing, he knows what sin, lust, evil, greed, etc, all these emotions feel like, and if knows what these emotions feel like, then he is also not worthy of sending anyone to hell, as the bible quotes 'Do not condemn and you will not be condemned'. If the world was created by such an intelligent and all loving God, he would also not send someone to hell just because that 'someone' was not his cheerleader. An open debate, post your arguments below and I will rebut your argument as soon as possible, thank you.
Hell does not exist.

Thank you for answering to my first argument. Alright, fair enough, what you are saying is that we reap what we sow, and sow what we reap? What you are saying is that our Benevolent God created hell to punish sinners and non-believers, and that if we ever go to hell it is because we did not live a godly life. So, lets say, if i am a muslim, or whatever other religion that has the idea of hell itself, and i go to the hell of that specific religion which i believe in, but, oh wait! I'm a non-believer of Christ, and so i must also go to the hell of the Christian God, or his fallen angel, Satan. So, will Satan / God have to snatch me over to his side of hell or..? Besides, there are 1.6 Billion Muslims alone. Thats a lot of snatching from. Obviously, it is not free will if there are consequences after you question the existence of the one who gave you 'free will'. It's like saying to your kid, 'You can do anything you want to do, i give you the free will to do so, but if you later rob a bank, and scold me for not being a good parent, i will roast you in our micro-wave oven'. You also did not answer my first 3 points of my previous argument, which was basically my whole argument from the start. A few counter arguments you might propose to my second argument are : - Christianity is the only true religion, and if you say that then you give me the right to say that Christianity is NOT the truth, as you are basically saying that all other religions are wrong and yours isn't. - God works in mysterious ways. - Satan goes against God, and God gives him the free will, so he is able to send people to hell, as it is God's will and cannot be questioned. Satan is not God, you cannot blame God for what Satan does ( although Satan acts under the command of God ) Thank you for your time in reading this.
Socialism could take down capitalism in an economic race.

My opponent has forfeited. I am at a loss of content to reply to, so I will simply address my opponent's opinions from round one:May we arrive at truth."If just one country gave up capitalism and switched even their motivations and intentions to providing for all of their citizens they would grow accelerated in technology all their cave men would have the wheel again and on to something else! They could even do this without ending their capitalism just a common welfare status for their country and all countries. I'm a optimist! If I think It can be done the only reason it's not , war for territory"Such a bold claim can only be supported with solid evidence. Nonetheless, there is logical evidence to suggest the contrary, that capitalist countries advance faster than socialist countries because of the innate lust for 'more.' It is this very drive for competition that forces corporations to think 'outside the box,' and create innovations for the future. Although socialist countries probably have their share of technological advances, they are more likely to create practical applications that work for everyone. This is not a negative quality, but a positive quality- as such motives are forged in generosity, rather than greed. Yet when it comes to technology, capitalism wins the race because of its very nature. I would ask my opponent to consider the fact that most poor people in this country have refrigerators, microwaves, and televisions that we think of as basic necessities even though those items are considered to be luxuries in much of the world. For all the Occupy Wall Street talk about the "1%," if someone makes $34,000 a year after taxes, they are part of the worldwide 1% and Americans make up half of the total 1% on the planet. This is due to the technological growth created by capitalism. Even nations like China have made this connection, and have seen their economies lift off by moving towards capitalism. If China keeps at it long enough, eventually the hundreds of millions of Chinese who're still living in huts and shacks will be able to have the sort of lives and technology even the American poor take for granted[1]. Not to mention that producing new products is often time consuming, expensive and hit or miss. Nine ideas may fail before that tenth one takes off. The less the creative people behind these ideas are allowed to benefit, the less time, money and effort they'll put into developing new concepts and inventions. Put another way, the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward has to be to convince people to take it. Capitalism offers big rewards for productive people while socialism offers makers only a parade of bureaucratic leeches who want to take advantage of their "good fortune[2]." And, therefore, capitalism wins the economic race.In conclusion, I have nothing more to say, since I do not hold the burden of proof.On to Pro.[1] http://townhall.com...[2] http://townhall.com...
The godhood of Christ Jesus is Biblical

OK, but first I need to ask you to explain what you mean by "godhood" because scriptural the word "god" has many meanings.. To which one are you alluding and why. 1 Corinthians 8:5 ASV(i) 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; Notice that here Paul includes not just the earth, but heaven also. Hence I feel the need for clarification. Not quite sure why I accepted this, I don't normally do debates, but I'll have a go. The only condition I have is that since we are discussing it from a biblical viewpoint we use the bible and only the bible. Any translation or number of translations you wish to choose..
Water isn't wet

I first will answer Pro's question, then I will prove the topic/resolution wrong.The answer to Pro's question is that the flat Earth doesn't rotate around/within the sun, the sun rotates around/within it.http://www.youtube.com...Pee, if stored in balls, is not done for any reason related to the Earth being flat nor for water being wet. The reason would be that we micro-evolved that way (I am a skeptic of macroevolution).It's extremely easy to mock the flat Earth if you believe in NASA's honesty. The minute you consider NASA could be lying, the entire concept of flat Earth and the entire conspiracy begins to make sense. Open your mind before mocking.It's also easy for Flat-Earthers to mock Round-Earthers because they are sheep to NASA and the Roscosmos but do not loathe the sheep, nor the shepherd but rather the farm itself. The fact the system allows NASA to lie and Roscosmos to lie with them and "back their findings up" is the thing to hate and fix.Water is wet because water wettens things it touches. Water molecules of H2O touch each other and make each other wet (yes, I'm sure in a dirty way too if they were conscious and sexually attracted to one another). If you have a H2O molecule on its own, it still semantically must be wet in order to have the potential to wetten all that it is not once it touches them.
Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

I have not nor will ever create my own version of Christianity. Christians believe through faith that the miracles presented in the Bible are true. My opponent argues that if the miracles are not true, then Christianity has no valid basis to exist. Again my opponent sees the need to tell Christians what they believe through faith and what they actually believe to be factually true. There is little to add here other than he continues to be wrong. This is an impossible position because there is no way of ever proving if these miracles are true or not. That is why everything my opponent argues is invalid and, at best, horribly poor standards for judging the basis of something to exist or not. My opponent continues to fail at upholding his BOP whereas I have upheld mine fully. It is very possible to prove that they are not true, as stated in my OP. If my opponent refuses to read the OP and create not only his own Christianity but also his own version of the OP to argue against, there is little I can do at this point. _____________I will not address any further points because my opponent is just repeating arguments based on his double strawman argument. As I pointed out earlier, he stated:The Resolution of the debate IS: Christianity has no valid basis to exist. The Resolution of the debate IS NOT: Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion. And again, I point out that if my opponent sees that Christianity is not a religion, then he has to state what Christianity is in order to properly continue. I also wish to note how many times my opponent made incorrect assumptions throughout this round and expect my opponent to show the exact quotes where I said Christianity is not a religion, because I never said such things. Bizarrely, in the bolded quote above he claims that the debate is not about Christianity being a religion and at the beginning of the last round he admits that "Christians believe through faith that the miracles . .. " which is pretty much what a religion is; and now claims never to have said otherwise. So at this point, my opponent seems to be arguing as much with himself as me (or rather a strawman version of me). I think we have been talking at cross purposes, the same cross-purposes as I stated in the first round. We have spent the debate disagreeing what the debate is even about, nevermind the topic itself. And we have run out of time, so any voting on the matter isn't even about the debate but about the topic of the debate!
Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

Unfortunately, my opponent continues to argue a strawman version of my argument from his atheist position. In failing to concede that Christianity requires that all the miracles to be true in order for it to be called Christianity, he is creating his own entity that he wants to call 'Christianity' that doesn't believe in the same things Christians believe in.In doing so he has to make statements that Christianity exists because "because humans exist and practice Christianity in their daily lives", without realizing that this practice includes the recognizing the fact of the miracles: otherwise, there would literally be no point in the religion in the first place.He admits this by confirming my original assement of his position that he doesn't recognize that Christianity is a religion! Hence he feels that he was won the debate because, as he says: The Resolution of the debate IS: Christianity has no valid basis to exist. The Resolution of the debate IS NOT: Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion. In doing so, he has admited that his perception of Christianity is not a religion! One only needs to quickly refer to a dictionary to see:http://www.merriam-webster.com... Christianity: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodiesAt this point, there is no reason to pursue this any further since my good opponent has admited to the mistake I originally pointed out: that the 'Christianity' he is arguing for is not only not a religion, but doesn't even exist in the real word. He is merely playing semantic games, which is not the purpose of this debate.I accept my opponents graceful concession on the debate and trust that when we meet again, it will be to discuss things with more clarity.
Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

I do not believe that Christianity has a valid reason to exist: 1. It is based upon the mythology of the OT, including the story of Adam & Eve, whose 'original sin' is what Jesus was supposed to have died for. If that story is not literally true then Jesus' sacrifice is for naught. 2. Jesus' virgin birth is clearly impossible since there is the question of where the Y chromosome came from. Also, isn't it more likely that Joseph (her husband) is the father? 3. Jesus' resurrection is equally impossible since if he had really died then his body would have been decayed beyond recovery. So either he either didn't really die, in which case he wasn't resurrected; or he did die, and his resurrection is not true. Even if my potential opponent invokes the magic of 'miracles', that would still not explain that physically, these are impossible things to have happen. Thoughts?
This poem led to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet

con says "This poem is by -c dean.Not shakespeare. C.Dean's 'Majnun And Layla'" I did not say it was by shakespeare what I said was This poem led to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet proof https://groups.google.com... " It is a tragic story of undying love much like the later Romeo and Juliet, which was itself said to have been inspired by a Latin version of Layla and Majnun to an extent." now all you have to do is prove This poem did not lead to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet if you cant then i must win the debate
P.E. mandatory in grades 10,11,12

Having physical education in high school is a great way to encourage youth to pursue a healthy and active lifestyle throughout their life. With PE, they will have to become active, and it is proven that exercise actually increases dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin levels in the brain: all chemicals that stimulate feel-good pleasure and calmness, or what we feel as "happiness". This is can last up to 12 hours, which is substantially longer than what happiness laziness can get you. In 2013, only 29% percent of high school students had participated in at least 60 minutes per day of physical activity on each of the 7 days before the survey.
P.E. mandatory in grades 10,11,12

Acceptance:I accept. Since my opponent has posted his arguements in the first round, I will do the same. Also, may I point out that since my opponent is the instigator and is making a positive claim, he has the full BoP; all I have to do is refute his points. Since my opponent has failed to establish the rules and semantics of this debate, as per the norm of this website, I will.Semantics:Physical Education (P.E): Instruction in physical exercise and games, especially in schools. [1]Mandatory: Required by law or rules; compulsory. [2]Rules:Round 1: Acceptance/Arguments (done and done)Round 2: Rebuttals/ConclusionArguments: There is no true positive reason for making P.E mandatory for the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades in high school. If P.E was to be made mandatory for all grades (as it is already mandatory for 9th grade in the United States), it would interfere with students' other electives. There are already many required classes for high school students; high school students only have 1-2 electives that they can use for their Career Focus (which colleges, well, at least American colleges, look at to help determine if you are a good fit for certain programs that school provides). If P.E were to become mandatory, then students will no longer be able to meet the their Career Focus (unless, of course, their focus is on P.E).While exercise does increase your health, and even though P.E does encourage a healthy and active life-style, students being forced to take it every year while in high school will undoubtedly become tired of the exact same curriculum being taught every year; it would become repetative, and students would come to despise the class and what it teaches, thus defeating the purpose of promoting a healthy and active lifestyle._________________________________________________________________[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Should we have more internet censorship

i agree with you that people should be as safe as they can be on the internet, but that doesn't mean ban social media,witch as of now is a great way to interact with people thousands of miles away and keep updated on world events. your much more likely to die in a car accident than you are to die from a crazy Facebook stalker so shouldn't we be more likely to ban cars by your logic? not all dangerous hings ca be banned. It's much easier to communicate with other people around the globe with twitter and Facebook since you don't have to talk to them.
Should we have more internet censorship

i agree with you that people should be as safe as they can be on the internet, but that doesn't mean ban social media,witch as of now is a great way to interact with people thousands of miles away and keep updated on world events. your much more likely to die in a car accident than you are to die from a crazy Facebook stalker so shouldn't we be more likely to ban cars by your logic? not all dangerous hings ca be banned.