BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections

Judge, we have to realise that giving people a second chance doesn"t hurt, and in some cases, felons are unintentional. A robbery happens usually for money to support a family and to make ends meet, and some murders are unintentional, usually done in self defense. We cannot degrade felons and snatch their voting rights from them, because that will have devastating effects on how the society views them as an individual. According to MSNBC, when felons are given voting rights,they, 93% of the time, will not commit a crime again. Now lets see how this helps felons blend back: According to Columbia Univ., when given the right to vote, felons feel as if they are like everyone else when they are giving their opinion on who should be the person who they want to govern over them. they feel like they have a say in the nation"s matters, which makes them fit in. After all, voting is a constitutional right and as citizens they should have that right regardless of their past. Judge, not only does giving felons the right to vote help them blend back into society, it also helps the SOCIETY ITSELF. Fox News said that felons usually help in services such as helping people become fit, marriage arrangers, and overall, jobs to enhance a person"s life. The reason is simple: a person wants to give back what they "stole" from the society, and basically, they are giving back to the society. Judge, our point is clear: voting rights help felons blend back comfortably, and in the end, it positively affects the society as a whole. One of the largest purposes of prison is to make sure that the crime never happens again with the same person so why would we not let these citizens vote if it prevents more crime from taking place, helps the citizens rehab to become a normal citizen, and lets them blend back into society? Also, maybe these felons broke the law because they did not support it. The felons should have a say in it because they are citizens. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to vote. They aren't making the laws because it also requires society to agree with them. It just gives them a voice that they don't have in anything else which helps them in the long run to fit back in and rehab, and prevents more crime from taking place.
Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections

Firstly, and fundamentally, we must recognize that these people have decided to not follow the rules and regulations of society. By breaking these rules they have shown they do not want to function in society. If this is the case, why should they be able to vote, an active part in our society? If they have broken the rules set by the people we have elected, they clearly don't show enough respect to be allowed to elect people. After a criminal has served the sentence given to them, they are now an active part of society, and should be allowed to take part in all areas of it, voting included. But while they are not an active member of our society, they don't deserve the right to take part in things such as voting, they have made their choice and that is the consequence. People that have broken the laws set don't get a say in the laws we make. Perhaps they want to vote someone in who will change the law that they have broken, because they don't agree with it? Fine, that is their choice, but only after they have been punished for the law they broke. The U.S. prison population is very excessive due to an unnecessary war on drugs (sorry for the digression), so the prison population is just such a large factor that allowing it to vote would not be beneficial at all to our society. Don't allow people that have broken our laws to make them.
Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections

Countries like our own are succeeding with letting their felons vote Half of all the European countries allow all current inmates to vote, and virtually all former inmates in Europe have full voting rights. Take Ireland for example. For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address. Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so. In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.After the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners. Also, judge, we have Germany, in which the law even calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the "democratic order", such as treason are barred from voting, while in prison. However, as soon as they are released from prison, they regain their voting rights! Now judge, i would like to mention how these countries are going in their criminal ways. According to a 2004 study done by Oxford Univ., former prisoners who vote are half as likely to re-offend, and so far, half of these European countries, whom are letting their felons vote, are having their repeating felons reduced by half. Judge, this shows that with letting their felons vote, these countries are not having repeated crimes! This is reducing the amount of crimes committed by ex-felons by HALF, Lets also think about this logically. these countries are both democracies, and their governments are very similar to ours. and yet, they are letting their felons vote. while letting their felons vote, they are not only reducing the amount of crimes occurring in their countries, but they are also letting more people have a say in who gets to govern over the people. How judge, how can this be harmful to anybody? and judge, as i will state in my 2nd cont., giving people a second chance does not hurt, and in some cases, it even provides benefits.
Batman could beat Spiderman in a fight.

Thanks, I think I need it more than you.Let's first go over the powers both heroes have.BatmanGenius level intellectPeak physical and mental conditioningMaster Martial ArtistMaster DetectiveExpert AcrobatAccess to high-tech equipment, gadgets and weaponsMaster of stealthMaster of disguiseBillionare thanks to his companyHe has (criminal) records on every personTrained Computer HackerMaster tacticianExcellent observational skillsPhotographic memoryMaster strategistExpert MarksmanMaster EscapologistSpidermanSuperhuman speed, strength and agilityAbility to cling to almost any surfaceAbility to shoot webs from his wristSpidey-senseMaster hand-to hand combatant#1 Batman's got dirt on everybodyBatman has records of every single person in his batcomputer. Thanks to his intellect and information he could find out every weakness Spiderman has and use it against him. He could plan a scenario in which he wouldn't even have to make any effort and he could beat Spiderman. Even if this wasn't the case, Batman is genious in adapting to his environment.#2 He can put his money to good useBatman has something Spidey doesn't, and that is money. It's only natural, Peter Parker is a teenager, Bruce Wayne owns a huge company. He has tons of handy gadgets that Spiderman doesn't. He even once used his money to create his own kryptonite to defeat Superman. Green Goblin had once created a gas that could temporarily shut off Spiderman's spidey-sense. If Goblin could obtain it, Batman can. Also notice that Spiderman's web shooters are nothing more than mechanical devices which can easily be jammed/drained/destroyed.#3 Batman is a predatorBatman knows that Spiderman with his sense could easily counter the batarangs or any things Batman has. So he plans his attack carefully. Learning everything he can about the spider, he uses tactics to wait for the perfect moment to strike. Even Spiderman has to replenish his webshooters, even Spiderman gets tired. This can put Batman to his advantage since he's a master escapalogist and can hide almost everywhere (also because he wears a black suit instead of a freaking red-blue suit).#4 Batman can defeat anybodyWhen Batman joined the justice league he collected information on every member so he could take them down when they turned against him. And he did. Even Superman knew his temper would be a great enemy so he trusted Batman to take him down when it was that far. And he did. Bane even broke Batman's freaking back once and he recovered. Batman has had several oppertunities to kill the Joker, mr. Freeze, the Penguin, Bane and many others. He doesn't because he's not an executioner.These are my arguments.
We need war to achieve peace

I'd like to first set up my argument before rebutting my opponent's in a very concise round. I do not see war as a necessary precursor to peace as it does not seem logical. This is not for reasons that include sentimentality or soft-heartedness, it just doesn't appear as though it makes sense.Pondering the Past's PatternAs my opponent has done, I will present what we know of History before deducing the truth from it. Peace has been achieved several times.All over the cosmos, there is peace. There are vacuums in which there is no conflict. Before humankind, there was peace. During humankind, there were instances of peace in various locations.There also happens to be war. Where can you find war? Wherever it's started. Start a war and there's war.Conflicts Crucial Components for CommencementWhat does war need to start? Well, as my opponent stated, it requires, by definition, organization. It requires "states or non-state actors." Without these components, war cannot exist.There was a time in which these did not exist at all. Therefore, it must have been peaceful. As these did not exist to start a war, peace must have reigned without an annoying war to get in the way. Peace was achieved, not by war, but by truism of having less rules. As my opponent utilized a quote, it is only appropriate for me to use my own."[Chaos] always defeats order, because it is better organized." -Terry Pratchett.War takes premeditation. Peace is natural. War is organized. Peace simply exists from superior statistical permutations. Peace does not logically need war.
We need war to achieve peace

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war) - Vegetius Anybody would agree that most civilians desire to live in their countries in peace and would loathe the idea of having their lives put at risk or the idea of taking away the lives of others. However, a quick look into history and we realize the propensity of humanity to engage in warfare. Even today: Syria. Libya. Egypt. Yemen. Bahrain. Tunisia. Turkey and the list goes on. This raises the question: Who are these peace-hating individuals at the root of violent conflict? Dictators, fanatics and corrupt politicians. When it comes to people with such a mentality, people who are often psychopaths, people who'd do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda, there is no way to create peace without the use of violence. When a person like Hitler attacks a nation, the only option they have is to fight back, to engage in warfare. Yes, surrendering is an option but surrendering to an autocrat does not create peace - it creates Desolation. But what about mediation you ask? Nope, that only works in utopia. The world is a mean and violent place. Nonviolence is useless when it comes to oppressors. What is one to do? Go on a hunger strike? Starving one'self would make such people happy if anything... One is simply making their jobs easier. Hitler would've loved it if the Jews decided to oppose his terrible regime with a hunger strike. Let's go back to the example of the Arab Spring. Nonviolent protests never worked in lobbying the late Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi out of office. They literally had to go there and pull him out. Gaddafi, a tyrannical dictator whose administration violated the human rights of Libyan citizens, had to be shot in the head to end the Libyan civil war. As a note to my opponent, I don't believe in having to show a source to everything I say in my argument. My arguments are based on thorough research but I would willingly accept a correction to any factual details mention
We need war to achieve peace

As my opponent failed to rebut my argument with any arguments, rather than rebutting the initial round, I will be rebutting my opponent's argumentless rebuttal.Dismissive Demeanor Discouraged"You don't say...significance to us."My opponent, here, completely throws away my argument under the condition that this isn't what Pro was wanting to debate about. I did not deviate from the conditions in any way. My opponent says it's "obvious" that I did, though I really don't see how. The conditions were not set up in the first round, so one must look at the title for any."We need war to achieve peace."This is a syllogism that puts forth the idea that if there is peace, war was present prior to make it possible. That is the argument. That's what was agreed on by both parties, Pro by creating the argument, me by accepting. It is entirely unfair to change any definitions or the argument itself once the debate's already started. For instance..."warfare is not an 'organized' state."There are disorganized aspects of war, but it takes organization to execute it to begin with. This was agreed upon by both parties. Showing examples of portions of war not being organized does not make war itself, altogether, disorganized as it is, by definition, commenced in an organized manner."peace is associated with harmony, serenity, tranquility"Here, my opponent argues that because the connotation of peace is attractive, appealing, and serene, it can't be disorganized, without even attempting to make a rebuttal to my proof that it is, in fact, objectively and denotatively, disorganized.Back to the initial quote,"And it's not even peace, it's Emptiness."So, Emptiness is war? If Emptiness not being peace does not necessitate it to be war, war and peace are not opposites. Therefore, they are not exclusive and can be simultaneous, meaning war is not necessary for peace. Otherwise, my opponent states that Emptiness is an organized conflict from states or non-state actors. Peace exists by default.
We need war to achieve peace

My opponent hasn't presented any real arguments denouncing the need for warfare to achieve peace. "All over the cosmos, there is peace. There are vacuums in which there is no conflict" You don't say! That is a (excuse my teminology) cheap and abstract argument. And it's not even peace, it's Emptiness. When humans debate about war and peace, it's obvious we shouldn't be concerned with their presence in empty space, but their significance to us. "Peace was achieved, not by war, but by truism of having less rules. "What does that even mean? My oponent calls the statement a 'truism' but it's very far from being one. Less rules, if anything, would cause war as people are likely to attack and take advantage of others if there are no rules to persecute them for doing so. "[Chaos] always defeats order, because it is better organized. " -Terry Pratchett. I didn't know who Pratchett was and a quick search revealed that he's an author of fantasy novels, especially comical works. The quote given above is obviously a paradox but assuming it is true, I could with equal ground argue that peace is not any less 'organized' than war. A quick look into a battleground and you'll find a mess of debris, blood and dead bodies - in that sense warfare is not an 'organized' state. On the other hand peace is associated with harmony, serenity, tranquility - no chaos here.
The Ethics of Star Trek: The Resolution

My understanding is that on the second inhabited planet of the Kaelon system: Kaelon ii. Resolution occurs i.e ritual suicide; this act committed, performed, or done is ethical. I will be arguing that it is not ethical, and my opponent will be affirming it. I assume my opponent cannot add definitions as well. I also assume watching the video is unnecessary. I accept. I'll remind myself here to keep the facile arguments to a minimum. I am more than happy to discuss anthropological aspects. I thank Bsh1 for this most engaging debate, and look forward to this. I hope I am a worthy person to engage in this discussion.
The Ethics of Star Trek: The Resolution

PrefaceThis is my third installment in 12-part series on the "Ethics of Star Trek." I think Star Trek holds a wealth of moral and philosophical quandaries that are fertile ground for debate and controversy. While some may see these kinds of TV show-related debates as "fluff" topics, I think that the serious ethical implications that underpin the topics I have selected belie that idea.My hope for this debate and for this series is that I will be able to have some fun delving into my inner nerd and my inner trekkie, while still having some lively and informative discussions. In this debate, particularly, I hope to explore the concepts behind and ethics of cultural relativism, euthanasia, and suicide through the example of Kaelon II's "Resolution." I am, I think, taking the harder side of this issue, so it should be an interesting challenge...!Full TopicKaelon II’s custom of “resolution" is ethical.TermsEthical - conforming to accepted standards of moral conductResolution - age-induced ritual suicide [1]ContextThis debate stemmed from events portrayed in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Half a Life." In it, a Dr. Timcin explains that it is the custom on his world that when people reach the age of 60, they commit, after a celebration with family and friends, ritual suicide. Amb. Lwaxanna Troi, appalled at this idea, attempts to persuade Timcin to not go through with the ritual. While Timcin initially files for asylum aboard the Enterprise, he ultimately recants and decides to return to Kaelon II to complete the Resolution to Amb. Troi's despair. [2]Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. Con accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared: Pro must show it to be ethical, Con must show it to be unethical8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive Cases are PresentedR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......to whomever takes me up on this debate. This should be fun![1] http://en.memory-alpha.org...[2] http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode)
The moon landings were real

I don't really have any more arguments, but I'll see what I can come up with. Did you know that as soon as the Soviets obtained the ability to see spacecraft in deep space, that the US cancelled the remaining three Apollo missions? This means that the US had been faking the moon landings all along, but then the Soviet Union obtained the ability to see if the moon landings were fake and the US had to quit it. This also means that the Space Race is just propaganda, but that isn't important. Also, the manned space landings were done to distract the US citizens from the Vietnam war. After the end of the Vietnam war, the "moon landings" stopped. Finally, everyone knows humans have a subconscious. This means that we can detect it when things are off kilter-but we don't realize it consciously. There are numerous documentaries about the "moon landings" and there are also some that state that the moon landings are faked. These are true!!! OK, that's all for now, vote for me voters!!!!!!!!!!!
The moon landings were real

No offense, but I sort of think this topic is ridiculous, but hey, who cares! Let's go!The moon landings were faked for multiple reasons. One: I looked at the moon with my own telescope, and there was a giant face that blinked at me! He F-ing blinked at me! Do you really think that you could land a giant spaceship on a F-ing giant face?The Illuminati live on the moon. I serve them, and you should too. (They will take over the world someday)In Chinese myths, there is a rabbit and a woman and a man on the moon. We would have reported life on the moon had we landed a shuttle (or anything else) on it.As someone said in the comments, the moon is made of cheese. How do you land a spacecraft on cheese?That's all I can think of. See you next time! Hope this makes you laugh!
Resolved: Ironman is better than Superman

Who is Superman? Who is Iron Man? Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that Superman is a better persona because he is more relatable to the audience. Lets look into that. Sub 1a: Superman is everything America wanted to be. Notice the use of past tense. It's 2011. No one cares about Superman anymore. He is still very much this Christlike figure but does that make him a better Superhero? He's an icon, no doubt about it but he's boring. In today's world technology is king. Watch this video of defense contractor Raytheon sarcos working on a exoskelton for military use.http://dsc.discovery.com.... Can you imagine the possibilities? Not just in warfare but maybe even construction. Skyscrapers erected in half the time. Superman has ideals and principles and its admirable but doesn't fit in, in today's world. Sub 1b: Iron Man is no role model. But you know what he is? He's real. He has flaws. And most importantly, he has a personality. He's a womanizing billionaire. He's smooth, witty, and basically a likable @sshole. Who is superman? What kind of person is Clark Kent? More importantly what does he do, when he isn't saving the world? A reporter? That's it? With his talents and abilities? He could dig farms in Africa and he chooses not to. Why is it he only does crime in Metropolis? Tony Stark has been the director of an Agency called S.H.I.E.L.D http://marvel.wikia.com... and Secretary of Defense. Superman is great but what has Clark Kent done? Rebuttal 2: My opponent states that Superman is a better superhero. I will show you why this is simply not true. Sub 2a: It would seem my opponent has not brushed up on his Iron Man literature in quite some time. Tony Stark is now a Super human even outside his suit. http://marvel.wikia.com.... Your argument that it cost more resources is now null and void. The power of extremis allows him to repair damages to both him and the suit on the fly(similar to wolverine). Now you bring up kryptonite. Not only does it take away his powers but with a little kryptonite a 5 year old could beat the snot out of Superman. And its not just green kryptonite but according to this http://dc.wikia.com..., there are more than 20 varieties, most with disastrous effects. At this point Superman is looking like more of a liability than a Hero. There is no stopping Iron Man. He suit can withstand a nuclear blast at 2% power. He has a hulkbuster armor that allowed him to go toe to toe with the hulk. You want to talk allies? I've mentioned the hulk already but also there's Thor, who is a God, and both Captain Americas, armed with shields that superman couldn't dent if he punched it with all his might. Sub 2b: Due to Extremis, Stark's mind could now directly access satellite networks, security systems, and other digital technologies. The armor could be piloted remotely, even simultaneously with several other models in the field. I can't even begin to list all the abilities his various armors have but they're much more than what Superman has. In fact, everything Superman can do, Ironman can do better