BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Current prisoners should have the right to vote.

To be fair to my opponent, I will use this round for my introduction and will rebuttal next round. This way, we each have equal opportunities to rebuttal.My introduction begins here:Prisoners are not currently part of society.Government officials are voted into office by society. This is because their roles are to help decide what is best for society and lead them. While prisoners are incarcerated, they are no longer part of society. This is how incarceration works. Incarceration is a form of punishment in which offenders are isolated from the rest of society. If the goal of incarceration is to isolate offenders from society, why would they be allowed to participate in societal activities? Allowing prisoners to vote would undermine the entire basis of the punishment.Disallowing the right to vote acts as a deterrent.If prisoners are allowed to vote, their punishment is no longer as severe as if they would not be allowed to vote. This makes weighing their options lean more to committing a deviant act. Some opponents to this may say that the right to vote isn't that big of a deal to prisoners, so why not just let them vote. A man by the name of Patrick Buchana puts this into perspective. "Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. And when you are doing time, do not expect your rights to be considered because when the crime was being committed, the one responsible didn’t consider anything[1]."Candidate campaigning.If prisoners were allowed to vote, they would be very easy to sway, as they care about getting out. A candidate could easily offer less of a sentence or other benefits to prisoners just to get their vote. This would have drastic repercussions, as less harsh of a punishment could sway individuals opinions in committing a deviant act. This could increase crime, as there would be less of a deterrent. This leads into my final introductory argument.Prisoners are imprisoned as they are considered dangerous to society.Crime can be defined as an act that can be considered dangerous to society. Government officials establish laws in order to keep the general public safe. Murder, rape, assault, etc. are all examples of acts that are harmful to the public. When individuals commit these acts, they no longer have society's best interests in mind. If they no longer think about society's best interests, how can they be expected to vote for the best officials for society?[1] http://www.newtimes.co.rw...;
Current prisoners should have the right to vote.

I am challenging the user, Anoid to this debate. Here are some rules of the debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults2) The total number of rounds minus 1 should be used for argument since I am not using round 1 for debate. This is to keep the number of rounds used for argument even between us.3) The last round that is used for argument should just be rebuttal to your opponent's arguments and/or conclusions.
Border fence between United States and Mexico

Kalieth, did you have an error message appear we you tried to view this debate, as I did? I believe that a border fence is necessary if we want to better our nation before extending help to other countries. We, as citizens of The United States, need to prevent immigrants coming ILLEGALY. I am all for expanding the culture of our young people by introducing them to new groups of people from across the globe, as long as these people did break the law by coming over. We have immigration laws for good reason. Good people creating and enforcing good laws for the American public. All nations have these laws with the same expectations. Our laws and enforcement don't harm these people. Choosing to break our laws may be the lesser evil. However they have still chosen to break our laws. A border fence, while it may seem expensive, will create jobs, not just building it but maintaing it as well. Look at Asia's great walls. They were meant to keep the northern tribesman from invading. Now I am not implying that Mexico is trying to "invade us" but criminals are flooding over every day, drugs, sex trafficking, gangs.
Border fence between United States and Mexico

I believe that the border fence between the United States and Mexico is a vital part in reducing the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. I think that legal immigration relations between the United States and Mexico could be improved though. As to address the cases in which illegal immigrants are dying to try and cross the border, here is my argument. The Arizona desert is one of the leading causes of killing illegal immigrants who try and cross it, however if there wasn't a fence people would still try and cross it anyways. According to huffington post the number of people who died trying to cross the U. S/Mexico border is the lowest it has been in 15 years as of 2014. More immigrants are entering through Texas instead of trekking across Arizona's harsh climate. Border enforcement officers say the reduced numbers are due to increased rescue patrols efforts and more Latin American based campaigns the discourage the Arizona hike. Now my friend, I would like you to address how the border fence reduces criminals entering the US. [1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Border fence between United States and Mexico

I think that the border fence between Mexico and the United States is just one example of how borders are damaging to the global community, how nationalities naturally destroy each other, and how the border fence is quite simply hurting people, and may in some cases be killing them. That last point is one I'd like you to address. No matter their motives, if a border fence is causing people to die without due process of justice, or if the due process of justice actually puts them in a situation where they die of starvation and dehydration, how can you justify it? Because the undeniable fact is that people die trying to cross the border, and their situations are being either ignored or acknowledged and forgotten. The people who hold the power recognize that there are people dying. Because of this border fence. [1] [1]: . http://www.nytimes.com... Cheers, here's to a good debate.
The Bible is not historical fact

' Its not just that these stories are outlandish, they are scientifically impossible '... You have to understand that these stories are miracles, even people in the bible people disbelieved in the prophets who foretold future events and performed miracles. it may be scientifically impossible for snakes to speak english because they do not possess the capability but you have to understand that these miracles were ' divine interventions ', this means they could not have happened without an interference from god It is important to note that these miracles are not 'logically impossible' so it is not like god creating a stone he can not lift or making a round triangle. These are all plausible within god's power. The rest of your argument does not follow the topic of discussion, You state that the bible was not a historical fact, then you went and starting claiming that if god exist why is there evil, then you touched on evolution etc. If you want answers to those questions , I advise you to visit here --- http://www.godandscience.org... So far you have not disproven the bible's historical accuracy, you said they are unlikely or scientifically impossible, Within god's power, they are perfectly plausible. I advise you to do more research on the bible history, so you can actually bring evidence to this debate rather than mentioning baseless opinions.
The Bible is not historical fact

Its not just that these stories are outlandish, they are scientifically impossible. Snakes cannot speak to humans. Meaning that snake did not speak to Eve. Speaking of which, if all these stories had "witnesses" how was the story of Adam and Eve even witnessed if they were supposed to be the first two people on earth? It is simply not possible unless the story was made up. And so what if you are Christian and believe these tall-tales as historical fact? Just because you think they are does not mean they are. I say this all from an Atheist POV. I don't go to church on Sunday. I don't have a copy of The Bible in my house (before you call me out, just because I don't own a copy of The Bible does not mean I have not read it), I don't think God created man I think evolution did, I don't believe in any of that. If God loves us all, why does he make bad men who make the world a crappier place? Which is not to say that some kind of God or Higher-Power does not exist. Just that I think said God or Higher-Power has had zero involvement in human affairs. The pure idea of a God or Higher-Power was created as a something early human beings could use to explain anomalies they did not understand back then (such as why the sun set, why plants grew, etc.) Now that we as a species are wiser, we understand better. We understand that most of everything can be explained by science.
The Bible is not historical fact

Asking me repeatedly do I really think?, means nothing as the answer will be YES. I'm a Christian so I do believe these claims. It is important to understand that these claims are radical and were consider miracles. The people who saw these events wrote them down, which is what we use as proof, ' Word of mouth is very weak ' .. Everything in the previous history was through word of mouth, cameras did not exist, does that mean we should disbelieve in everything that we don't have video proof for? You have to understand that everything in history can be challenged since we was not present, We can only use the evidence we have to prove how accurate the claims are. Experience claims in general can not be proven objectively. If you saw an alien or flying monster, and you told everyone, nobody would believe you but does that mean you never saw it. You have to disprove these claims which you can not. We have a lot of evidence through writings from different sources proving the existence of Jesus Christ. You have to show inaccuracies in the historical text. Repeatedly saying ' Do you really believe ' is not a good way to argue against the claim that the bible is inaccurate, I can say that for any claim...
The Bible is not historical fact

Do you REALLY think a man named Noah built a giant wooden ship that held two of every animal on earth, which then weathered out a giant flood? Do you REALLY think that a snake spoke HUMAN ENGLISH and tricked Eve into eating that apple that allegedly gave her knowledge? Do you REALLY think that God himself told a man named Moses ten rules in which humans should live by? The reason I cant take The Bible as historical fact is how outlandish and impossible most these stories are, As for these "witnesses", did they have pictures? video proof? Word of mouth is very weak. Anyone can lie. I wont lie, for moral inspiration The Bible is great. But as historical fact...no...not really.
The Bible is not historical fact

What proof do you have that proves that the bible is illogical> There is relevant material pointing to the accuracy of the bible such as the red sea scrolls, testimonies from witnesses etc. We have more records on the Bible than Alexander the Great. ' I immediately raise an eyebrow of doubt. The way I see it, The Bible is a source of moral and religious inspiration. ' -- As you should, but that does not disprove the bible's claims. I think you should do more research regarding the historicity of the bible before coming to a conclusion.
The Bible is not historical fact

I may not know that much about The Bible. But what I do know is that it is NOT historical fact. When people claim that a man named Johan was eaten by a large whale, an old man named Noah building a wooden boat big enough for two of every animal on earth to fit in, and three old men crossing the dessert to see a baby who is the son of God himself, to be historical fact, I immediately raise an eyebrow of doubt. The way I see it, The Bible is a source of moral and religious inspiration.
We do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to.

None of his arguments support his side of the topic. He says that there is a different curriculum, but doesn't provide one so we are using the California A-G requirements to graduate high school. He says he already learned his name, etc. Well, he's taken two years of Spanish already. By definition, we need to take two years of Spanish to get the basics. Therefore, take two years, regardless of when. He says that he's not going to end up in the government. Ok, maybe he knows this, but to take history out of the curriculum means that our government is screwed for the future because no one needs to take history. He says the school system should change but doesn't provide a plan of action. To evaluate a debate, one needs to use Comparative Worlds, which basically compares the PRO and CON worlds. PRO's world is unclear and muddy. Therefore, you cannot vote for him. He doesn't clarify what the resolution is asking before Round 3. His plan of action is the choose classes. In that case, no one would choose certain tough courses and the teachers that taught that course would be out of a job. Why I Have Won: 1) He has BOP yet doesn't clarify the resolution, deciding in the last speech that it means to choose your own classes. However, since Round 1, I have established that PRO means cutting school. I prove why that is bad with Argument 1. 2) He drops Argument 1. Therefore, our education system will get worse if we affirm. 3) He uses a lot of personal examples. Not saying I don't, but his whole case is based on personal examples while at least some of mine is based on logistics. Thank you and vote wisely.
We do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to.

Well okay, I don't know maybe there is a different curriculum where I live as far as the classes you need t take to graduate, but even with what you said about you will only learn the basics of a foreign language is not true depending on what you mean by basics: I already learned my name, how to greet other people, how to tell date, time and the weather, how to say the colors of something, how to say body parts, I can describe every single room In my house, I can ask someone or tell someone to go somewhere, classroom supplies, how to order food, etc. ...do I even need to go on?(this is only 7th and 8th grade stuff and unless Spanish is going to get easier I don't think we will be learning the basics. I can already carry on at least a 20 minute conversation just with someone in Spanish. Also stuff like being able to describe my room In Spanish isn't going to help me in my life. In History I agree that some people just might end up in the government one day, but I know for a fact that I will not. I believe that taking History should be a choice whether we take it or not in high school. By the topic: We do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to. I did not mean we should cut school. I mean the school system should change. People wonder why we are one of the dumbest countries and I think it's because we are being taught the wrong stuff. What I say the school system should be like: Elementary school should stay the same. Middle School:(where I live) we should not need to take Art and music as they are a waste of time in which we could be learning valuable information. High School: We should be able to choose between classes like: History, Economics, Government classes like that for which best suits us. I am a great student I'm on Honor Roll but social studies is probably my worst subject and I know I won't take a class like it in College. On the other hand a class like business marketing or economics I will probably be good at, but I won't know until I get to college because I can't try it in high school. I think we should get a little more freedom to choose our classes in high school because most people start to get an Ideal of there strong classes and what they are going to purse In there lives. Most of the stuff I'm going to learn in high school is just going to go in one ear and out the other because I won't have to take classes like it in college... therefore making part of school a waste of time.
We do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to.

His own arguments which he does not extend no longer matter in this debate. I defined school as an average American public school. He did not dispute this definition, therefore, that is the definition. To graduate an average American public school, all one needs to do is take 1 year of art- and no music and technology. The student also needs to take two years of foreign language. These years will only cover the basics and are not excessive, like PRO claims they will be. Onto history. He brings up that we need to forget our past and focus on the future. I have several responses to this. 1) There is only a future if we have a past and a present. Therefore the past is important. 2) We don't know what to do if we didn't have a past. George Washington set a precedent by stepping out of office after two terms. 3) Always expand your horizons. Who says you won't become president or senator one day? Also, a broad knowledge of little tidbits makes one seem smarter than he actually is. 4) He says America is dumb and then proposes to cut school. Ok? His credibility just shot right out the window. 5) He says America is dumb yet provides NO OTHER solution to fix this problem other than cutting school. Argument 1) He doesn't respond to the argument that cutting schools will not encourage people to become teachers. Let me expand. Currently, a teacher's salary is low. People will only become teachers if they love working with children so much that that overcomes to salary. Eventually, as school gets cut, the salary becomes so low that teachers will not be willing to take that much of a salary cut (1/6 or 1/3) to remain a teacher. Thus, the best teachers get thrown out and we are stuck with new, untrained teachers. He says America is currently dumb. Implementing is plan is not helping this cause; it actually hurts the cause. Thank you.
We do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to.

Thanks for your feedback, Well starting off with art, music, and technology, in middle school we are required to take these and besides technology (which helps us learn to use new technology we now have) these classes should be extracurricular and not needed. As far as foreign language goes I really think: yeah It should be required in middle school just so you are given a base of the language, just in case of any "emergency" situations, but as far as having to take a language in all 4 years of high school(Spanish 1 for two years & Spanish 2 for two more years) that should also be an extracurricular activity. History: you are right we should give credit where credit is due, but taking a test on the U.S. purchasing Alaska or whatever just doesn't make sense. In 5-9 years when i'm in or out of college stuff like this is not going to matter to me unless i'm on jeopardy. There is a quote that says forget about the past and learn from the future. or something like that, if anything we should be learning about our war veterans, our current president, the current government, that's whats going to help us. THE U.S. is one of the "DUMBEST" countries on earth, don't you think it's because we are learning about stuff over a hundred years ago...the world/country is changing and we should adapt our schools to teach about it as it changes.Don't you think it's time for the school system to change??
We do not need to go to school as much as we are forced to.

I accept. Thank you, PRO, for providing this debate, and thank you to any voters. I'm assuming PRO means that we do not need school that much (timewise) so I will argue against that. Definition: school- an average American public school First, let me go subject-for-subject off of PRO. Science: concedes importance PE: concedes importance Foreign Language: You say that foreign languages are not important and that Google Translate could be used. You also state that if one were to go to Spanish, they could learn from a paragraph or such. However, Google Translate does not work that well to translate entire sentences, and the grammar is mostly incorrect. Thus one should just learn a language. However, English first-world countries are spoiled in the fact that they think everyone should know English. However, Mandarin Chinese is the #1 spoken language and Spanish is the #2. Also, Kids in China take English AS ONE OF THEIR CORE SUBJECTS. You cannot learn everything off of a paragraph and being stuck in Spain not knowing any Spanish is always an awkward feeling. ELA: concedes importance of certain aspects It is only at the discretion of the teacher to choose what aspects of ELA to focus on. Grammar and writing, which I'm sure you touch on a lot, are very important in one's life. Math: concedes importance Religion: concedes importance Art: students are not required to take art art (probably thought of as drawing, painting, etc.) Web Design, Debate, and Music are forms of art that are accepted. Music: again, students not required to take art Technology: not required History: It helps us understand how society came to be and helps us understand why certain things are the way they are (1). Who invented the lightbulb is important because people give credit where credit is due and the lightbulb changed the way we live. Again, not saying you are spoiled are anything, but this is a typical first-world country thought- that the world was just set out for us. Therefore, we should not cut any subjects. Argument 1) People would have less incentives to become teachers. Teachers only get paid per class they teach. The average teacher salary in California was $67,871 in 2011 (2). Most teachers teach six classes, and you're talking about a one-two period cut (can you please specify?); that's a 1/6-1/3 pay cut. Teachers do put up with low salaries to get a chance to change the next generation, but there's a time when a line has to be drawn. Thank you. (1) http://www.historians.org... (2) http://www.sacbee.com...
The technological progress from now to 2060 will be larger than the progress made from 1920's to now

There's lots of reasons technology will not take a bigger leap than it has till now. First, technological growth is not inevitable. Technology leaps forward in certain areas, and then is overtaken by other technologies. if you're old enough, you will remember that we were supposed to be living in space by now. In 1920, airplanes were fairly new. 50 years later we landed on the moon. If you asked someone in 1965 how long it will take to get from NYC to London in 2017, they would say less than an hour. The real answer? Exactly the same amount of time it took 50 years ago. Ironically, part of the reason is other technologies. Why do you need to get to London when you can conference call or Skype instead? Second, technology often gives us cheaper versions of things we already have -- the above is one example. Another is cameras. Everybody has a camera in their pocket now. But they take lower quality pictures than digital SLRs that people used to buy. Third, technology seems to be occupying more and more of our time and mental energy. This is because it enables DIY like self-checkout at stores and endless emails at work. Because we will have less free time, we have less room to indulge in newer experiences. Fourth, people don't really like change that much. Remember the "Space Age" of the 60s? Now there's been a whole movement of organic food, local culture, and an attempt to recreate the past. People hate the globalized future world that was touted as the future years ago.