BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Regarding the most vile anti-social corrupt humans among us. The depraved ones who are found guilty of heinous crimes and destruction of society for self serving purposes. Regarding these incurable criminals who selfishly deny others their human rights, Kasmic wants to give them a share of power in the governance of our society. To that I say "NO!". I will painfully accept the influence a few states will have on our nation by allowing these incurable criminals who have proved themselves to be chronic transgressors of of the boundaries necessary for a healthy society to have some influence on my children's future. These destructive people chose to not be governed at all. You too can make that choice just Step out your door and hurt another citizen. I hope you do not but if you do then you will have chosen to not be governed at all and in that case myself and a super majority of our fellows banish you from our society and its brilliant system. As far as "The War on Minorities" goes, one that Kasmic and I agree needs a solution, does not make banishing incurable psychopaths a wrong measure for the protection our society. It is the wars on the minorities that is the problem. We wrongfully banish these unfortunate people who are victimized arrested and imprisoned by an already corrupt and criminal system. We do not need more of the criminally insane to contribute to this already terribly flawed government. All in all this debate here is about states rights. As Kasmic conceded through silence the federal congress is not a democracy at all. You can not have a democracy when a citizen shares a representative with eight hundred thousand other constituents. In my state legislature I share a representative with 63 thousand fellow constituents. Anyone who appreciates democracy appreciates our constitutional system of leaving much decision making to the states. I assumed Kasmic wanted to use the federal congress to force the states to handle destructive anti-social psychopaths in manners that would go against the democratic will of the states. Kasmic claims I am wrong in my assumption when he says "I merely argued that Felons should retain the right to vote. Not once have I mentioned how this ought to be accomplished." Since my argument is to maintain the status quo I have no problem with Kasmic voicing his opinion as long as he is not promoting the use of federal violence to force my community to act against its will. This particular debate is "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S." My point is clear Those who chose to commit violence against against innocent members of our society. Those who chose to selfishly steal the fruits of labor from honest people. Those who chose to destroy the fabric of our society for their own personal gain, Those who chronically suffer from criminal insanity have no business in the governance of the rest of us, our lives and our children's future.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

You say "when a crime is committed that action should be taken to preserve the liberty of others" and ask "How does taking a Felon"s right to vote protect other"s freedom?" Because voting is a civic duty necessary for a healthy society and criminals are anti-social with little care for civility. If you prove yourself to be uncivilized and anti-social to the extent that you need to be caged like a wild animal you have proved that your opinion regarding the welfare of society is malignant. "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" One of my favorite quotes. Beautiful. I never thought I would have to explain that malignant speech is crime. You are not allowed to say "Go Loot Ferguson". These exemptions are obvious just as offenders of human rights with good reason get taken out of society and out of the process of governance. Yes I said ..."We have Zero Representation because our ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a "Representative Democracy"...but I must not be very clear you failed to understand my point. My point is that congress is not measurably a democracy. You want an entity that is not a democracy to decide who governs my child's future. You want this non democratic body to give nefarious people power to make decisions on how this nation will be structured to receive my children as they transform into adults. I want the best for all of our children. Whereas you and a Non-democratic institution wish to give nefarious people, people so terrible that they would injure and or kill our children to serve their selfish depravity,you would give them a part in deciding the path of our children's lives. If you are in favor of Democracy you will leave these decisions to the states as prescribed in the constitution. You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected. I agree that is a problem but the problem is for another debate. That debate is about the failed war on drugs and the failed war on poverty. Two wars that have terrible effects on minorities. I support pragmatic solution on this problem as a Libertarian. Funny how it is that the politicians elected by minorities vote in the halls of Congress to continue these ill gotten wars. Many minorities suffer the violence of arrest and imprisonment for things that sensible men would not consider a crime. Democrats could fix that problem overnight.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

I can hardly believe anyone would make the argument that they would want violent psychopaths and organized crime members to be casting votes from inside of the penitentiary. If I lived in a community that had a prison inside its borders I would be very upset if the federal government forced us to allow these prisoners to vote for our town council, Mayor, School board etc... Once again leave communities to make these decisions. I can accept what you and your peers want. I can not accept you meddling in my community and forcing us to bend to your totalitarian will. Mind your own business. Not every community will have the same wants as yours. The Declaration of Independence is not a carefully thought out law but a cry for freedom from an oppressive centralized government. Your proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will. Laws are violent things. They are enforced in brutal ways. Just ask Eric Garner. He was arrested on suspicion of breaking law implemented by progressives. You also propose to have this law implemented and enforced by a centralized government with almost zero representation. I can say "Zero Representation" because cause a ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a "Representative Democracy". We designate an act a crime because it is injurious to public welfare. If you look at all such crimes you will find that someone is a victim and that victim has been deprived of their Human Rights. Their right to pursue life liberty and happiness. I see no problem in denying these offensive criminal their rights. We deny inside traders access to the markets. Child molesters are denied privacy. Computer criminals are denied the use of the Internet. All are denied the use of weapons for self-defense. These decisions, as clearly prescribed in The Constitution of the United States of America, are left to the states. You ask "What happens when we take away the right to vote?" No one here wants to take away the right to vote. The vast majority of us do not commit acts that deny others their human rights. We keep our right to vote as it should be.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

I must make clear that my position is in favor of the status quo. I may disagree states that I do not live in but I accept their decisions and the shared federal government that results from our individual election systems. If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also. I say leave the states alone and keep to your own business in your own state. Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1) “5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1)http://www.ncsl.org...
Why ROBLOX is better

Reasons why ROBLOX is better: 1. Opening up your own server is easy on ROBLOX, all you have to do it create a free account and one will be provided for you. However, on MineCraft, you need to search multiple sites and most of the time have a recurring fee to keep a server running. 2. ROBLOX has more customizable characters. With ROBLOX, you have the option of not only making your character a bunch of boxes, but you can make it have various different armours and packages along with many 3d hats. 3. Adding scripts is much easier. With ROBLOX, adding a script to your server is just a couple of click away. While, on MineCraft, like what you have to do to open a server, you need to download programs to put scripts into your server. ROBLOX comes with the full package of everything you need to create your own server and add scripts to it. 4. ROBLOX has a better system of finding and playing servers. To find a server on ROBLOX is a lot less guess work then it is on Minecraft, on ROBLOX, all you need to do it hit games and then every server on ROBLOX is at your fingertips. However, on MineCraft, you need to looks through the internet, like most other things on Minecraft, to find servers. 5. Making and uploading models and mods is very easy to do and to share on ROBLOX and there is more oppertunities. With ROBLOX, when your done making a model, all that you have to do it highlight it, left click it then click save to ROBLOX. The Model will then be given a link which can be easily shared with friends. This is the same with scripts on ROBLOX. On MineCraft, unless you download a program from the internet, there is only a limited number of blocks. On ROBLOX, you also have a limited number but you also have things like furniture or cars. And on ROBLOX, if you do not like the options they give you, you can make your own blocks and share them with friends.
Why ROBLOX is better

obviously you don't have a good server then people own servers with more then 50 people additionally,mine craft has a one time fee of about $25.00 USD and you can play online with people while roblox has a free account but you cannot play online with people until you purchase builders club which is ranging from $60-300 dollars. P.S. The Moderators are nasty to anyone who doesn't have the most expensive BC
Why ROBLOX is better

In replies to your previous argument. On ROBLOX, you can edit the settings on your servers to allow or not allow people to join while setting roles for your friends and the people you added to your best friends list. Removing a player is also easier, because the player list is always visible, all you have to do is click their name and then hit ban. You can also give them member or admin, which are 2 different levels of admins. ROBLOX also has infinitely more commands which you can make available on your server without downloading it off the internet. If you do happen to get a script from ROBLOX, you are able to look through and edit it.
Why ROBLOX is better

Minecraft is better Because the games/servers are user hosted so they are less likely to have the kind of problems rob lox will have because the server owner can solve the issues quickly additionally mine craft servers are customizable because they are privately owned so they won't always crash when you join a game because the host computer can be upgraded for more members as rob lox being a game that users can't host there own games you can't customize the server computer for more ram,cpu usage etc and its more likely to crash. it can be customized with 3rd party programs to expand the world
Support land expropriation without compensation

You have changed the context of the debate completely. Land ownership is one thing. South African political issues and perceived, racially motivated injustices, though obviously related, are a separate discussion in their own right. Nonetheless and for your further consideration. Land usage and management: I would suggest that in a modern society with a burgeoning population it is far more important that land is managed and utilised, sensibly and competently. Rather than being indiscriminately reallocated purely on the basis of skin tone. Furthermore: Your arguments are very contradictory. You open by suggesting that you are indifferent with regards to individual rights to land ownership, but go on to clearly imply that there should be a reversal of the current situation in South Africa, in favour of individuals of a particular skin tone. Finally: I believe that my questioning in round1 is very pertinent, particularly in respect of the above observation. I would therefore be grateful if my opponent would give due consideration and response to this line of questioning.
Support land expropriation without compensation

It is not a point of who the land belongs to as it in actual fact did not belong to a single individual in SA, when South Africa gained its independence, the responsibility fell on the leadership at the time to ensure the equal distribution but instead White majority of South African. they chose to have a racially skewed distribution of land, and this is what needs to be corrected, return the land to government and let them decide who shall live on it.
if healthy baby can be removed, and mother is fine too, abortion should not be allowed

if we take as a premise that you are for those babies having rights, then why not give them the same rights as every one else? even with self defense or defending one's body... no one has an absolute right to kill someone just because tehy are on their property etc. the baby is not about to kill the mom in these later term abortions we are talking about. if a robber were somehow attached to your house, you wouldnt be allowed to kill them just because they wouldnt leave. couldnt leave. not only that... even the law recognizes no absolute right to the mother as even con seems to be saying. the law says at late term abortions the mothers life must be at risk, no abso.ute right. the law i am contending just does not go far enough, it doesnt require the baby to be removed safely, if possible. cops come to get robbers if needed, we can have people get these babies too. the law is justified in those late term cases and here too in not extending absolute right. the mother is at least partialy responsible for the baby's existence in her body, and she did not abort earlier when it was morally grayer whether the baby was a person or a living human being etc. that makes her responsiblity even more, even to the extent that she does ot have absolute right. by law already, and i'd contend even to the point that she can't just decide to kill it even if it's healthy and could live outside the mom.
if healthy baby can be removed, and mother is fine too, abortion should not be allowed

The orthodox catholic view that abortion is murder has been dismissed too casually by most. To arbitrarily set a line at conception, and to say that at that point the child is not human, and not worthy of the protection of law before the line is irrational. For what is the difference between the child one minute before birth and one minute after birth? The key feature of a child, which demands it the protection of law, is not that it is presently a rational, thinking self aware being but rather that it will become one when it reaches adulthood, and certainly this is no less true of the child in utero. The in utero child, the unborn baby, is human and as such has all the rights which we must grant to all humans. But it is not always wrong to kill. If you attack me, for example, I am justified in defending myself, even if that means your death. Violence is justified against invaders. If you break into my home, I can expel me from my property. And just as my home is my property, so is my body my property. The property owner is the absolute ruler of their property, and just as I can expel you from my home if you remain there without my consent, so a mother is the absolute ruler of her body, and can expel the invader - the baby - from her body if she wishes. The mother owns her body and the child is welcome to live there only so long as she wills it. The state does not own the mother's body, and thus has no right to regulate how she may use it, or who she may let live inside of her. By saying that the state - in reality, some bureaucrat, or judge, or cop - can dictate to a mother what she can or cannot do with her body, you are really saying that the mother is the slave to the judge, or cop, or bureaucrat, that it is the bureaucrats body and he will instruct the mother on how she may use his property (her self).
if healthy baby can be removed, and mother is fine too, abortion should not be allowed

in cases where mother wants abortion (or to be free from the baby), but the healthy baby can be safely removed instead of aborted... and thus both mother and child saaved, this should be required. abortion should not be an option. after six months of pregnancy or so, abortion in the US is restricted to only cases involving health of the mother. (to be sure, this includes much abuse for 'mental health' etc) if even a healthy baby MUST be aborted to save the mother, msot including me would agree it's the right thing to do. to be sure, however.... healthy babies are too often aborted in the name of saving the mother or trivial reasons, when labor could be induced or teh baby somehow otherwise simply removed, instead of abortion the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can jsut be removed.
if healthy baby can be removed, and mother is fine too, abortion should not be allowed

even if we accpet your premise that the mother has an absolute right to evict them... that only means what i said to ebgin with... she has the right to evict them, and if the baby is healthy, then it should be removed. not killed. there are countless examples of babies who are healthy being aborted. born alive babies, partial birth abortion that could be removed more, aborting for trivial reasons late ni pregnancy etc when healthy and viable. the police don't come and shoot trespassers on your property, they come and tak them away. same should be done w babies. and the law doesn't allow an absolute to the fullest extent right elsewehre. so why here? again you cant kill someone if they were surgicablly attached to a building on your land. why here? espeically if it wasn't permanent, just temporary. and even espeically if the person could just be removed. you said why shoudl they be expected to carry to term? im not even arguing that. im just arging they should be safely removed if healthy. you like almost everyone who takes ths debate is arguing against soemthing i dont even say. my point is very novel and different, bt it shouldn't be. healthy viable babies who can live outside the mother should not be aborted, just removed.
if healthy baby can be removed, and mother is fine too, abortion should not be allowed

The difference between the unborn child and the robber - both invaders - is that the child cannot exist outside of the womb. When you demand that a mother carry her child to term, you are saying that her body is your property and you will instruct her on what she will do with it. I am giving these babies the same rights as everyone else - what I'm not giving them is right's that they should not have, the right to invade another's property (the mother's body). While it's true you cannot kill someone just for trespassing, as the punishment must be proportion to the crime, the unborn child's life requires that trespass and the mother has an absolute legal right to evict the unborn baby from her body.