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

A felony is a serious crime in the United States and previously other common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Most common law countries have now abolished the felony/misdemeanor distinction and/or replaced it with other distinctions such as between summary offences and indictable offenses. Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud. People have the right to vote to form a democracy. A democracy is run by the people and for the people. The people vote on there leaders, there laws, and many other important issues. If the people think that felons should not be given suffrage, then in order for a democracy to be kept they mustn't vote. In some cases like maine and vermont voting is allowed by all felons because they have so many prisons in such little area that they make up much of there population in these states. Is this who we want to be voting? or should we have the hard-working americans who actually abide by the laws that felons help make?
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Some potential Aff values: democracy, justice, human rights, human dignity, equality, autonomy, societal welfare. Some potential Neg values: democracy, justice, the rule of law, societal welfare. Obviously, one of the most critical definitions is that of a "democratic society." Who determines what counts as democratic? What is the core value of a "democratic society?" Some baseline question: why does anyone have (never mind deserve) the right to vote? Why is it stripped from felons? What's the difference between a civil right and a human right? A tricky question: when is a felon not a felon? If your definition doesn't involve the expiration of a felon's term, watch out. Much analysis coming: value/criterion pairs, crucial definitions, important articles, and more. Watch this space, and, as always, post questions, comments, and wild ideas. They're what make this blog most useful to all who come by for (quality, free) advice. Articles and Analysis 1. I review an article explaining several reasons felons ought to have the franchise. [10/1] 2. International law analysis and links, plus a retributive perspective. [10/4] 3. A Rawlsian stance on the affirmative. 4. A list of potential value/criterion pairs. 5. State-by-state felon disenfranchisement laws are broken down here. 6. Foucault makes an appearance. Definitions 1. The importance of defining "felons." 2. "Democratic society."
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Wow nice job. This was a good closing statement except you copied and pasted the whole thing from http://www.debate.org... I guess i will still make my closing statements to. First i will attack this new case you just copied then i will make my closing arguments. Against your criterion of Democracy- Democracy is a governement run by the people and decided upon by majority rule. So if the majority of people think felons shouldn't vote they should not be able to. I don't think this is a very good criterion considering we will always still have democracy whether felons vote or not. Felons do have a voice in sociaty. They used this voice when they went against sociaty saying "I don't want any part of this sociaty." They wasted there voice there instead of using it to elect who they want. By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Now for my closing argument. Felons are people who have commited a serious crime of anger and hatred. These felons have shown they do not have good judgement. We should not let them use thier poor judgement at a time when judgement counts the most, during a national election. 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. The american punlic has spoken and came to a conclusion of felons not being able to vote. In my first arguments I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, I also showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. Then I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. In my next argument i gave facts about felons having drugs and in most cases going back to jail once set free. In my last argument i spoke about felons having bag judgement. With all of this together i believe you should vote toward the negative side. To Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating- Thank you for this fun debate and may the best debater win. I very much so enjoyed this resolution. I would love to debate you on other topics sometime in the future. Thank you and good bye for now.
Capitalism (Pro) vs Socialism (Con)

This round is acceptance Round 2 is opening arguments Round 3 is rebuttal Round 4 is Closing arguments I hope you accept :) Definitions Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government as a whole. Efficiency: ability to avoid wasting materials, energy, efforts, money, and time in doing something or in producing a desired result. Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Capitalism (Pro) vs Socialism (Con)

You know- all those SA countries you mentioned have had electioneering Murica intervened with, or have a refugee crisis. So what if Switzerland has a high GDP per capita? It is still higher than ours. Would you consider someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth a hard worker? NO. And most of the time it punishes risk. What is so bad about communism? Hogher tax rates for weathly people give more money. If our system was controlled by the people, why do we have the electoral college? Also, Trump IS the establishment. Actually, America voted for Hillary. Imagine world war 2- if it was just the US fighting the Axis, we probably would have lost. but working together we are stronger.i can already tell you are a conservative. What does Brexit have to do with the EU? 60% is too much and m Ore than most countries in my opinion. Canada, no its because Murica is richer. Name. Capitalist country that beats Norway or a Ireland. Baka debut is not true and Bernie is not president so he can't really do too much. Are you calling a bush a socialist? How conservative are you? Sorry about the short argument- I wanted to get this in on time- pleasure debating, mate.
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ Historically Occurred

This is not a spiritual resurrection or one of a new body, but instead one in which Jesus' body which he died in physically was resurrected as depicted in Luke 24:39 and John 20:27, complete with the wounds in his hands and feet. This is centered around historical evidence. I will not say nonsense like "people don't just rise from the dead; it's scientifically impossible" if my opponent doesn't resort to "God did it. "This is also separate from a question of God. Jesus rising from the dead may have been a miracle from God, or it may have been a physiological abnormality. Undisputed Pauline Epistles are the only sources to be used as by the hand of Paul himself. Round SpecificationsRound 1 is for acceptanceRound 2 is for opening arguments onlyRound 3 is for rebuttalsRound 4 is for counter rebuttals and conclusions only. (i. e. Counter rebuttals cannot address material brought up in Round 4, only material from 3)Debate Specifications 1) I expect a high level of education in my opponent on this subject. This includes knowledge of:-Disputed Pauline Epistles (Does not need to accept that they were not written by Paul)-The Synoptic Problem and Acceptance of the Two-Source Theory OR Farrer Hypothesis (Including Q and Markian Priority). I will be operating under Two Source assumptions but will change if my opponent is more accepting of Farrer. -Dispute over traditional authorship of the Gospels (Does not need to accept they were not written by the traditional authors)-Textual Criticism (Needs no stance on specific texts)2) Only undisputed Pauline epistles are to be used as written by Paul3) Use Proper Sources - This is up to the discretion of the debaters, but they should be well-respected, peer-reviewed authors, professors, and researchers with a PhD4) Comment in the Debate before acceptance to discuss the rules and any ambiguities. This includes affirming the rules and clarifying whether Farrer or Two-Source is to be used. Acceptance without commenting is an automatic forfeit
America is the Freest Country in the world

By far this is the most absurd thing I ever heard in my life. I hope you dont expect to win with that nonsense. Never the less, lets get this over with. Our debate is not a question of if the US is a country(which the UN says it is) nor if its in the world(which you'd know if you was being serious), the question is if the US is the freest, and the answer is no. Here is why: For decades, Americans and forginers have called the US the Freest Nation in the World. Now I am here to prove you people are wrong. We will go down to 3 Catagories: Free Trade Freedom of the Press Press Freedom Index Who is #1 in Free Trade? America? Japan? Nope, its Singapore[1]! The US is ranked 20th. The Global Enabling Trade Report was first published in 2008 by the World Economic Forum! Ok next up, Freedom of the Press. The US Consitution garenttes freedom of the Press, but just how Free is it? Well according to the Freedom House, Iceland is the has the Freest Press in the world. In a ranking 1(freest) to 100(least free), Iceland ranked 9. The US only has a rating of 18. Not even the freest in the Americas, its 4th freest in the Americas. Jamaica is the freest in the americas. Japan ranked 21. Note these are not rating of #1, but of the Freedom House Index. Though Iceland is #1. 40 nations are Free in press. Finally, Press Freedom Index by the Reporters Without Borders. The survey(PFI) asks questions about direct attacks on journalists and the media as well as other indirect sources of pressure against the free press. Guess what? Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland ranked tied at #1. The US ranked, 20th. Japan 11th tired with 2 other countries. I rest my case.
America is the Freest Country in the world

Thanks for having this debate i'm sure it'll be awesome... First lets look at the wording of the resolution.... "America is the freest country in the world" 1. America is not a country, it consists of two different continents... the north and the south 2. America is not "in the world" it has actually been said by many philosphers to be on top of the world, this is what scientists call the crust. So as we can see america can not be the freest country in the world because it's not in the world and it's not a country. This would be like saying, "My computer is the best christmas tree in outer space" when obviously it's at my house and not in space. their's no way to debate it.... I WIN!!!
America is the Freest Country in the world

For Decades, people have said the US is the greatest country in the world. Without getting facts. Well those people are naive, and I am just the man to prove to them that the US is NOT the freest country in the world. Just think about it, is it really? Have you been to EVERY country? Have ya even looked in to if what you think is true, is actually true? I bet every gold and silver coin I have that you haven't. Watching too much Fox News will lead you to think that the US is the Freest. Well, it's not.
The FCC should add warning labels to news programs

The FDA puts labels on food to let you know about their content The MPAA rates movies to let you know about their content The FCC puts labels on late night tv programs to let you know about its content So why not let the FCC assign warning labels to news programs? These warning labels would assign grades to tv programs on an ABCDF scale would assing grades to tv news programs based on the following criteria: - How truthful the news programs are - How biased the news programs are - How competent news programs are at reporting news in a professional manner - Whether or not news programs try to 'sensationalize' news The grade that a news program would receive would then be displayed at all times on the screen (likely in one of the corners of the tv screen) to inform viewers who are regular watchers of a program or just come across the program flipping through tv channels whether or not the news outlet they are watching is reliable, credible, and overall trustworthy. I will debate in favor of this idea, con will debate against this idea.
Why did God of the Bible create us

I think for emotional reasons He could have just made us as robot and forced us to love and worship him but that wouldn't mean anything I think to create someone and them genuinely wanting to love you and worship you means more and the fact. Just a question for you if you had all the wealth and power in the world would you rather share it with those you love or keep it to yourself. Its amazing to think that He would love us soo much that after all of the bad things we've done he wants a relationship with us what a wonderful God we serve. AMEN Sorry I've been busy the last couple of days so I had to rush this argument.
A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

I will choose to avoid the attacks for now., and move onto future arguments. I will have some form of mass rebuttal within the given 5 rounds. The wall satisfies all. Countries in Central America want a strong powerful government, compared to cartel anarchy. We as Americans would want to support a very Democratic-Humantarian cause. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We like puppet government and no horrible drugs Crack, Cocaine, Heroin, DMT, Salvia, and all forms of meth. The public and the officials in our Government want these things. The wall is "Oh! Thank God we had that!" type of project. Imagine in the future lets say 200-300 years. All of South America untie to fight America. By then we would add on to the wall since, but this is the cornerstone... We have governments, backed by the UN. Cartel controlled areas don't count. A common cause. Defense. The Chinese never really stopped the Mongols. Maybe some walls only went 500 feet. But we learn from history, we surpass it. The wall is built from the edge of California to the Texas Tip. The river we can give the majority of Mexico because well Rio Grande! Unless tunnels are used, which hardly any work/end up collapsing. We have TV shows about it. It is gross propaganda and fear, tactics of conservatives. Thank myself for reminding myself! This would be so bi-partisan if all of other aspects fall into place. We will have more crossing and crossings than ever. I never specified the distances and measurements exactly. Adding 15 new borders, for more looser traffic and more security officers. Also remember the Towers. We have 1989 thousand miles of borders. we will add roughly 14 new crossings. Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and thee American governments are happy. Happiness equals peace. Source: COMMON SENSE Jamaica and other small Caribbean Island nations will lose out they might inherit more children refugees. But the power and complaints too stack high enough on the one world government. UN and BRICS don't care, it is not the 1770's anymore. Greatest Defense System ever. I suppose a scenario: BRICS nations are about to launch a global bank. The Bank will make up of Chinese currency. Not the US dollar. Look this is crazy to think. Not just arming America most the planet. No time in history of humans, have two major banks both globally and not at the same time. This will cause chaos. The stock market will crash massively. Chaos will erupt. America and NATO nations might attack BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Notice the first? Brazil they have many allies like Argentina, Columbia, Cuba, Venezuela. And even huge sway on Mexico. A war breaks out and if WW3 did go down. The world may establish a no nuke war because of immortality and innocents. A mass ground offensive from South America gets stopped by the wall. Thank you
A border fence is needed along America and Mexico.

Thank you for the challenge I got pulled into the same debate by another contender. Here is my proposition specifically. A 30 foot wall made of concrete with a Iron wall in between then another layer of concrete. A 50 foot gap between the complete different wall that is exactly the same.The top of the fences are laced with 3 feet of condense barbed wire. A tower 10 feet higher than the wall every 50 yards on each wall with one or two snipers counting on area. The openings that are already in existence will be added on to but kept. Reasons for fence: P1 - You stop all illegal immigrants coming from Central and South America. Also stopping drugs. P2 - Defense against an army P3 - Jobs P1: It will be similar to that of the Berlin Wall. The Berlin wall had great success. Not many but for sure less than right now people will escape into America. Also it will decrease drug traffic because the openings are already hard to smuggle and with the new wall, more security. P2: If for any reason any army from anywhere south of the boarder unless it was another outer Continental force that already invaded Central or South America it would have a harder time getting into America compared to right now. P3: You need men to build this wall, the wall is an amazing project to jump start the economy. It takes many men to build such an epic wall many jobs will be given to the unemployed and young. It will also boost the southern economy on young men taking their families there to live while he works. Just like FDR made men build bridges and dams the wall is the next great project.Besides the builders look at upper on patrol and snipers getting jobs as well. I look forward to your argument.
Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical stage. For more than two decades, the two-state solution has been the basis of international efforts to make peace in the region... A failure of the two-state solution will generate further instability in the region, strengthen rejectionist elements on both sides and likely mean that the conflict will drag on for generations... The Palestinian leadership remains committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement to our conflict with Israel based on the two-state solution.
Darth maul vs. Darth vaders aprentice

Series creator George Lucas had described Darth Maul as "a figure from your worst nightmare". Designer Iain McCaig thus offered Lucas a design based on a nightmare of his, which was rejected, but later inspired the Nightsister Sith witch in later Star Wars tales. One day McCaig was trying to make "Sith lord versions" of the art department crew, and drew David Dozoretz, head of the animations group, with a circuit board on his face. Lucas was intrigued by the circuit board idea, and McCaig started producing similar caricatures. After getting frustrated with a drawing of production designer Gavin Bocquet, McCaig started covering it in tape. Both he and Lucas liked the result, described as "a kind of Rorschach pattern". The final drawing had McCaig's own face, with a pattern based on three things: a concept of a "flayed flesh face", face-painting of African tribes and further Rorschach experimentation (dropping ink onto paper, folding it in half and opening).[4] Darth Maul's head originally had feathers, based on prayer totems, but the Creature Effects crew led by Nick Dudman interpreted those feathers as horns, modifying his features into those common in depictions of the biblical Devil.[5] Maul's clothing was also modified, from a tight body suit with a muscle pattern to the Sith robe based on samurai pleats, because the lightsaber battles involved much jumping and spinning.[4] Another concept had Maul a masked figure, something that could rival Darth Vader, while the senatorial characters would sport painted and tattooed faces. It was later decided to apply this to Maul rather than the senate.
Does it Matter ...

InaugurationsI never said that presidents spend too much money on inaugurations. These are my specific words:"Yes, Obama spent 150 million dollars on his inauguration but that isn't frivolous spending because it's his inauguration. Inaugurations are what presidents do. In fact, Trump's total costs for inauguration are estimated to be 200 million dollars. Pretty similar to Obama's. "Trump spent more money than Obama but I would never argue it's frivolous spending because it was his inauguration--those things are expensive. You have to cover the costs of security. My logic is that using tax payer money for inaugurations is fine, it doesn't matter who does it. You're the one who brought up inaugurations so I was just trying to show you that your inauguration argument was invalid.Military Parades"Military parades that a country puts on are more than just a glorification of a sitting president, they represent a countries military abilities to defend itself against all tyrants."I have a problem with this argument because America has no need to "boast" its military strength as you claim. We spend 601 billion dollars on our military, more than the next 9 highest spending countries combined. Every country knows the wrath America can wreak if you dare attack us. Perhaps Trump wanted to show that America is strong but that's a waste because everyone already knows that.Furthermore, military parades give the appearance of desperation. It makes America seem like it desperately wants to prove itself to the world when there is no need to do so. We know we're a great country, why push it? Who are we trying to prove it to? Military parades are held by countries like North Korea that have little else to boast. North Korea isn't nearly as powerful to the U.S. militarily which shows that they are compensating."The Roman general, Publius Flavius said, "If You Want Peace, Prepare for War....."That's a fine and dandy quote but having a military parade and wasting tax dollars is not preparing for war."Russia and the China, for instance, do not hesitate to demonstrate their military might by having parades, are they to be considered foolish when they do that or are they demonstrating that they are a power to be reckoned with and prepared to defend themselves at all times."Yes, it is foolish. if you have the confidence and know you're strong, why have a parade? What are you trying to prove? Who are you trying to prove it to? Are they conducting parades to scare the U.S.? Cause they aren't scaring us. Or to look good in front of their citizens? Because that isn't the way to do it, you're wasting their tax dollars.Having a parade doesn't prove you are a power to be recokoned with. Would you argue that North Korea's parades have shown you they are a power to reckon with? No, because they're not. I don't care what Trump's intentions were, the parade was a waste of money.If you want to show you are ready to defend yourself, you don't send a bucnh of your weapons into the streets for a parade. Talk is cheap.