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

Alright since my opponent forfeited his last round, I will provide some synthesis and crystalization for the round. Weighing Structure: Value- Representative Democracy, my opponent didnt respond to my analysis distinguishing between a Direct and a Representative Democracy, I also make the argument that under this value not everyone is guarenteed the right to vote Criterion- Punitative Justice, since my opponent gives no weighing of issues on his criterion and most of the arguments in this debate revolve around my criterion I ask that the judges accept my Value Criterion as the legitimate and actual weighing machinism of the round, I extend my analysis answering his arguments on why my criterion is bad which effectively mitigates the criteria debate Issues: 1. Extend the Turn on my Opponents Conditionality Argument, my opponent stated,"Conditionality is bad because my opponent could win the round on a never heard of unimportant small example." My opponent violated his own theory argument twice in this debate: a) Elite Theory b) Felons recieving the death penalty As such, since I agree that this violation was bad for debate, I argue that you vote in negation to protect the integrity and fairness of debate 2. The only offense my opponent had in the second round was his first Contention, Extend my turn to his Contention One, because only the negative world can enact these punishments to deter further felonies while including reparations for those that were falsely convicted. This links directly to Punitative Justice because it provides the most protection of the established legal systems while providing deterence to future felonies and crimes. Basically I can extend all the responses and arguments I made in the second round, but I dont have the time or the energy to do so. But hopefully the arguments I already extended are enough to win. I urge a Negative Vote on Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

I affirm. In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I value democracy. This value is preferable because it is the most relevant on a resolutional scale. Any given society is better off under a full democracy. The Stanford Encyclopedia if Philosophy explains. "Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: relatively good laws and policies and improvements in the characters of the participants. John Stuart Mill argued that a democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three ways: strategically, epistemically and via the improvement of the characters of democratic citizens (Mill, 1861, Chapter 3). Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives some political power to each, more people are taken into account than under aristocracy or monarchy. The most forceful contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues, for example, that "no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press" (Sen 1999, 152). The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor." Democracy is extremely beneficial and thus is the ultimate goal of any society. The standard is individual agency. The main goal of a society is to assure each indviduals right to agency. If people could not make decisions then society would not exist and democracy could not exist. Violation of an individual's agencies are therefore baad. Any action denying an individual of his agency thus is also bad. My burden is to prove denying a felon the right to vote in a democratic society violates that felons agency. 1. Convictions may be wrong. This means that we are denying a felon of automatic right when he actually may not have commited the crime in the first place. A innocent person may lose a right guarenteed to them by democracy. This is a clear violation of the agency of the innocent individual. 2. Discrimination. In the United States, most of the inmates are black. This means that in society, blacks lose more rights than white. This is unfair and bias and is a violation of blacks autonomy. 3. By commiting a felony, convicts are being punished by being confined in jail. It is unfair to provide extra punishments and violates their autonomy.
Everything a Person Does is Influenced By Society

Willingly: (adv) Acting or ready to act gladly; eagerly compliantOne can certainly possess a willingness to breathe and digest. Since such is the case, these acts can be done willingly. Hence, they are fair game. ---BreathingThe opponent proves that society has an influence on our ABILITY to breathe (through changing the contents of air, for example.) This argument completely diverges from the matter at hand. I was talking about the act of breathing itself. If one is in an environment that enables one to breathe, then, due to innate neurological wiring, one breathes, regardless of the influence society has.DigestionSociety influences what we eat, indeed, which, in turn, influences digestion. But whether or not one digests is not influenced by society. Rather, it is in a human neurological wiring and is dictated by strictly that. ---Conclusions: (1) One CAN digest or breathe willingly (i.e., with a feeling of willingness), even though they are involuntary functions.(2) Society does not influence whether or not one digests, under a circumstance in which the function involuntarily occurs.
Everything a Person Does is Influenced By Society

If, under any circumstance, the resolution is false, then Con is victorious. I'd like to thank my opponent for posing his arguments, but I'm not very interested in them. Two examples that conflict with the resolution:One thing a person can do is breathe. Respiration is an innate action performed by a person to acquire oxygen for body function. Breathing is necessary to keep oneself alive. The basic process of respiration is not triggered by societal pressures. A second thing a person can do is digest. Digestion is when a person breaks down foods eaten. Digestion is not a voluntary function and works out of one's control. Therefore, societal pressues on one's world view do not affect the core of this function. (Note that this does not conflict with the "semantics" rule posed by the opponent. It does not conflict with ANY of the definitions established and only uses the primary definitions of words that were left undefined.)Thank you.
Everything a Person Does is Influenced By Society

Society: An enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one anotherPerson: An individual human being Influenced: To have an effect on the condition or development ofNo trolling, no semanticsR1: AcceptanceR2: Arguments and RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals and ClosingGood luck. To counter last word argument, in R3 CON can only use 5,000 characters. If this rule is violated, all 7 points go to opponent. I could also argue that everything we do is influenced by society, and we also in turn influence society.
Con Will Win This Debate

1. GrammarA. My opponent intentionally used poor grammar, it's impossible to assume whether or not he was speaking in past or present tense. Whether or not voters have bias is totally irrelevant in this case, because they're wrong no matter who they vote for in this debate. B. My opponent is incorrect, during the first round I had made at least two grammatical errors. Those errors are as follows:-"I shall refuse Pro's assertion that Con (that's me) will win this debate." (Refuse was supposed to be written as Refute.)-"3. My opponent conduct isn't bad. " (opponent should be written as opponent's.)Voters should take into account that, unlike Pro's grammatical errors, mine were totally unintentional. 2. SourcesA. My opponent clearly states that his sources are irrelevant, and uses this to further his case that I will win this debate. That said, his use of irrelevant sources are very relevant. B. In his first debate, my opponent presents his irrelevant sources as a reason why he won't win this debate. Also, my opponent is incorrect, posting random links does not make you seem more sophisticated. C. I never even acknowledged the point Pro made about this site's statistics. Voters should definitely take my total disregard of some of Pro's arguments into consideration when deciding on who to vote for.3. ConductA. My opponent is correct, there's no way that I could possibly prove his intentions in acting so weird. However, at the beginning of his argument on the second round, my opponent clearly states that he wished me the best of luck;"I wish my opponent best of luck and thank him for accepting this challenge."While this doesn't prove his intent to make it more easier for me to win, it clearly shows my opponent wants fortune to be in my favor while debating with him. B. My opponent's conduct isn't any worst than his taste in music, judging from what his profile says. 4. No Persuasive ValueI'd like to apologize to my opponent for not responding to this argument, it was totally unintentional. My own incompetence was the reason this argument wasn't touched on, so the points should go to Pro. However, I'd argue that his initial arguments had a lot of persuasive value, because he intentionally presented it in a way that's in my favor. 5. FontMy opponent is correct, and I concede to his argument about his use of fonts. I apologize for my paraphrasing. Again, readers should take my oponent besting me in this particular argument into account while voting. 6. My Logic My opponent was able to counter my counters, and will probably repeat this cycle again in round 3. This shows that he has a solid understanding of how my own thought process works, and that I am his intellectual inferior. I never countered his paradox, I just pointed it out. It hardly even effects me, just the voters, and there's no real way for me to counter it. That said, pro's a total genius. Conclusion: Pro rules, Con drools. Pro wins!
Con Will Win This Debate

GrammarA. My argument was that my grammar is sucks. notice that "is" is a present tense verb, meaning I am referring to the current state of my grammar, not my grammar in previous debates. My opponent wants to refer to previous debates as an example of why I should win this one. The problem with that is obvious. The voters will be voting on my ability to present proper grammar in this debate and this debate only. If a voter were to vote based on my grammar in previous debates, they would show bias and be voting unfairly. B. At no point in his argument did my opponent make a boldly noticeable grammatical error, therefore he continues to carry better grammar than me in this debate, therefore my grammar is sucks. 2. SourcesA. My link does not illustrate my assertion that my sources are irrelevant. It just makes me look like a moron. B. I'm afraid I have no assertion as to whether my sources are relevant or not. I just like pasting links. Links always make you look more sophisticated. -. http://tinyurl.com...-http://tinyurl.com...-http://tinyurl.com...3. ConductMy opponent admits that I behaved in a disrespectful manner in the first round. But he suggests that I deserve the conduct point for doing so. In any debate throughout this site, there is occasionally a debater who shows intolerable conduct. How do we prove that they are simply showing courtesy by allowing the opponent a free conduct point? Obviously, we can't prove that intention, so we must assume that the debater with poor conduct is a jackass. Therefore, we must assume that I'm a jackass and give the conduct point to Con.4. My Arguments Have No Persuasive ValueThis argument remained untouched therefore you must carry it in favor of Pro.5. FontAh, the water debate. .. good memories. .. Anyway, my opponent seems to think I said, "I just learned how to change font", but this is paraphrasing. You'll actually find that I said, "It looks like I just learned how to change font. "I did already know how to change the fonts in my case, but the intent of this argument is that I handle my ability to change font quite immaturely. UNNECESSARY ENLARGEMENT6. My Opponent's Logic Has Proven Superior to MineAs you can see in all of my opponent's arguments, he managed to counter what I said with only using the very words I said and throwing them back in my face. The fact that my opponent can fight off a paradox with another paradox proves that while I may have a firm grasp on logic, his grasp is much tighter, as if he wears the pants in this relationship and I require him to open the pickle jar of logic. It was ingenious, really, winning an argument entirely based on the words I said as evidence. This man is the Chuck Norris of the debate community, and therefore wins this debate. ConclusionCon made my brain hurt. Con wins.
Con Will Win This Debate

In this debate, I shall refuse Pro's assertion that Con (that's me) will win this debate. 1. Con's grammar doesn't suck. The following is a list of debates where my opponent is clearly shown to possess a decent understanding of proper grammar.-http://www.debate.org...-http://www.debate.org...-http://www.debate.org...It's obvious that he's purposely making gramatical errors so that I will win this debate. It's very witty and deceptive, and illustrates why he's more deserving of victory than I am. 2. Con's source is very relevant. Con's source illustrates his assertion that his sources are irrelevant. 3. My opponent conduct isn't bad. Con obviously wants me to win this debate, and what better way to do so then to behave in such a disrespectful manner? If anything, he deserves conduct points for making this debate more winnable for me. 4. My opponent already knew how to change font. My opponent was able to change font in the end of the debate "Humans Do Not Have the Right to Water" (http://www.debate.org...). This proves that he was capable of changing font before writing this debate. Furthermore... The very fact that my opponent was able to present a paradoxal situation for the voters proves just how intelligent my opponent is in itself. You see, if I win, then my opponent was correct, and therefor the voters are wrong because he was right. However, the voters are still wrong even if he wins, because they prove him wrong by voting for him. His whole first debate is a testament to just how great a grasp he has on logic.
Con Will Win This Debate

I stand in favor of the resolution that Con will win this debate.1. My Grammar is SucksFirst off all my grammer is sucks becuase i dont school. Second off all their is alot wrong with my word choice here and they're, and wut i know off the voters there not a fan of that kind of thing. Bottom Line: Would it be cool if a man were are to jump from a to be rock to at a the jetpack? Think abot it.2. My Sources are Irrelevant(http://tinyurl.com...)According to statistics seen here, Con wins debate rounds regardless of topic nearly 78% of the time. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that Con will likely win this debate as well. 3. My Conduct is Intolerable ...AND SO'S YOUR MOM. ...FATFACE.4. My Arguments Have No Persuasive Valuewow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow5. It Looks Like I just Learned How To Change FontAND I LIKE IT VERY MUCH. If you have a prblem, I really don't care....
Abortion

All life is treasured as you argued, so the mother bearing the child's life should also be considered. Abortion is the mother's right. The baby's birth may endanger the life of the mother, thus validating the use for abortion. Also, a woman has the right to choose who she chooses to bear her baby. If a woman is raped, she shouldn't just idly have her raper's child, she should have absolute choice to keep or abort the baby. Also your statement of a society that murders is existent nowadays. Capital punishment and civilian terrorism are all acts of murder. Although these murders many times have no good reasons, at least abortion gives a compelling reason.
Silver Surfer (Pro) vs. Superman (Con)

"superman cant be hurt"Yes, yes he can. Let me explain.Silver Surfer possesses The Power Cosmic, [1] and one of the powers that comes from that is Energy Absorption and Manipulation. Energy Absorption and Manipulation is the ability to absorb and discharge energy of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, to the point where he can destroy planets. [2]Superman gets his power from the solar radiation under the "yellow sun," and since solar radiation is apart of the electromagnetic spectrum and that's where Superman gets all of his powers from, Silver Surfer would be able to drain Superman of his power leaving him powerless and defenseless.When Superman has his power absorbed by Silver Surfer, he can then officially defeat Superman since Silver Surfer is Class 100+ on the strength scale, [4] meaning he is on par with The Hulk when it comes to physical strength and can shift himself into hyperspace, meaning he can go faster than the speed of light, more than 11,160,000 miles per minute. [5] 1.) http://marvel.wikia.com...;2.) https://goo.gl...3.) https://en.wikipedia.org...;4.) http://marvel.wikia.com...;5.) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Silver Surfer (Pro) vs. Superman (Con)

Con will start arguing in Round 1 and waive the final round. Con and I cannot form new arguments in the final round, (my opponent's last round would be Round 2) only rebuttals and conclusions.I will be taking the position of Pro, demonstrating that Silver Surfer would win in a match against Superman. My opponent will be taking the position of Con, defending the claim that Superman would win in a match against Silver Surfer.
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

My argument is plain and simple. Business owners create jobs. When we raise capital gains taxes on business owners, they have less incentive to continue investing their time & effort into creating jobs, and are more likely to just sit back and retire. Therefore, if we want to maximize the incentive for business owners to continue working, innovating, and hiring, then we should not raise taxes on them, and if anything should remove the capital gains tax entirely. As a reminder, all capital investments have already been taxed once when the income was earned as personal income, and so capital gains remain a double-tax. Double taxataion that reduces incentives for growth and hiring are bad for the overall economy, and so I urge a no vote on this resolution.
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

You do make a compelling point, which I think goes only to highlight that not all capital gains deserve to be treated equally. It also highlights how efficient our capital markets have become in allowing wealth to sustain wealth by simply investing it in the markets and putting your money to work passively. However, I'd much agree that direct investments (by small/medium business owners who are making decisions about hiring & firing workers, etc.) are arguably more important to society than passive investment decisions. As such, I would very much favor a reduced capital gains tax on small-business owners engaged in hiring new employees to grow their business. Perhaps for every new employee hired, busiesses are able to claim a deduction on their capital gains tax.However, I don't believe it is government's role to dtermine how much individuals "want to work". There wil always be some who value their time more than money, and others who are always hungrier for more. In absolute terms, individuals generally decide to either work or not, and if they are working, they're going to maximize their self-interest. If in the high-tax environment, the CEO decides that his time isn't worth the effort to open the new location, then there's probably another entrepreneur out there who is willing to put their time into it. In fact, the original CEO's passive investment may find its way toward funding the hungrier entrepreneur, who wants to translate their effort and time into increased outcomes. Finally, we should also keep in mind that there are obvious benefits to the higher tax environment, that come in the form of government spending. In the high tax environment, the government ends up with 20% more funds with which to educate & train the next round of entrepreneurs who are hungry & willing to go out and build businesses. As such, I rest my case that taxing capital gains as ordinary income would be best for the greater economic good.
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

But what is your time as a CEO worth? In the current tax scenario, going through all of the effort of opening a new store and hiring people is going to net you $120,000 more than if you just went to the beach and let your money sit in the markets ($360k vs. $240k). I agree that most folks will keep working for that type of gain. But not everyone, because no one actually likes working hard, and passive investment income sounds pretty good too.However, in the high tax scenario, going through all of that effort of running a business only is gonna make yoU $90k more than the passive investing strategy ($270k vs. $180k). For at least some CEOs, they'll look at that tradeoff and decide their time is more valuable, so they'll head to the beach and hang out. Now think about if we eliminated the cap gains tax entirely. Then the same CEO is looking at a potential difference of $150k ($450 vs. $300) in reward for his time, since no taxes will be paid at all in either scenario. This is clearly the most likely to encourage the CEO to go ahead and invest his time in growing the business.
Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

Let's take another hypothetical scenario. Rational and self-interested business owners will pursue the actions that they expect to maximize their outcomes. Faced with two possible business decisions, the same choice will be made regardless of whether there is a capital gains tax.Hypothetical context Decision A: invest $300,000 in a new store location and higher 10 employees to run the store. This decision will produce steady cashflows of $50k per year. You plan to retire in 15 years, so your time-horizon and multiple-on-earnings is 15x. Thus, this $300,000 investment is thus worth $750,000 to you, for a gain of $450,000 pre-tax. Decision B: make a less risky (with lower expected reward) and just invest it in a diversified stock portfolio. You can invest the same $300,000 into the market and not higher any more people, and you'll still generate some healthy returns. The expected outcome is that in 15 years your portfolio will have doubled to $600,000, for net-present value gain of $300,000. Clearly decision A is best for maximizing your self-interest, as everyone would choose $450,000 over $300,000. Nowl let's see if tax policy could possibly change the equation.Scenario #1 -- current capital gains rate of 20% (today) Your $450,000 gain is taxed at 20%, so $90,000 goes to Uncle Sam. This leaves you with $360,000. In the low-risk scenario, you still pay the 20% tax on your $300,000 gain, or $60,000. Leaves you with $240,000. Decision A is still clearly superior ($360 > $240) Scenario #2 -- capital gains taxed as ordinary income (40%) Decision A results in a tax bill now of $180k, and you're left with just $270,000. Deciion B results in a tax bill of $120k, leaving you with $180,000. Decision B never becomes the optimal scenario. Sure, we would all prefer to pay less in taxes since we then get to keep more. However, higher tax rates don't actually change the set of possible decisions you have, and you will always choose the decision that maximized your self-interest.