BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Felon Voting

Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Value: democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.
Illegal immigration could be a good thing

In summary, I restate that I think foreign workers have a place in society. That they be illegal or legal really has no bearing in the argument that was presented ... as we both met on the idea that they would be willing to perform lower wage work for our society in exchange for better benefits than they would normally receive in their home country. To say though that foreign workers and immigrants have their place here is also saying we should not make them citizens by default on the grounds tht they would cease to serve that role that we claim to need them for.
Illegal immigration could be a good thing

I don't fully disagree with the statements you've made. Foreign workers do have their place in the low wage job sector. They do play an important role by accepting jobs that most Americans are too uppity to take on. I don't, however, believe we should make full fledged americans out of anyone. I look at this from a business standpoint, that the US cannot afford to have every type of worker on the full pay and pension plan at the company. It's simply too expensive. Outsourcing a bit of work to areas that are proficient in it, while our workers back home refuse those sort of jobs, is perfectly ok to an extent. We get to continue being proficient in what we are good at, and that other country gets to flourish in the increased sales we bring them, and they get to continue doing what they are good at. I don't think it'd take long for those illegals to turn into the same spoiled individuals that are refusing that work. With their wages adjusted and workers rights being fed to them ... they just turn into more minimum wage class citizens, of which we currently have to many.
Resolved: In a fight, Darth Vader would easily vanquish Superman.

< > Your argument was irrelevant. I had no intention of addressing YOUR MULTIPLE-POINTED OPINION of a hypothetical situation when I can "easily vanquish" your points by saying that is your opinion. < > This argument alone supports the very argument I'm making. Vader cannot VANQUISH Superman because that would be the end of the story for Superman, thus making your entire argument mundane and irrelevant. < > No, it shouldn't. With that said, this point is thoroughly refuted. <> Wrong! Part of Superman's strength is his allies. So before Vader could do anything to him, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Supergirl, the Martian guy, Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse... ALL OF THEM would come to represent Superman's power. < > I disagree, which is all that proof that I need, as you having provided a single issue number to support your arguments. You just made questionable claims to Vader's greatness and Superman's limitations. Do they exist? Possibly, but I'm definitely sure that there is proof that fully supports everything I claim. As you haven't provided and issue numbers, your request for me to do so is officially DENIED. < >> The majority of your argument has nothing to do with Vader being able to "easily vanquish Superman". It's just a bunch of personal interpretations. The only difference between my argument and yours is, I admit that our arguments are purely based on interpretation, whereas you're deluding yourself as to Vader's might. < > Again, you've provided nothing to support your imaginings of your claims, but if you insist, the telepathic pincher plant from Orgos 7 tried to take over Superman's mind, but it was revealed that no one could use mental manipulation on a Kryptonian. It's common knowledge. (See how that works?) < > Can Vader move a planet? No! The Deathstar required engines, but guess what? Superman could've moved it. Could Vader move at the speed of light? Nope. Could Vader destroy the rebels and their efforts? No, because he wasn't smart enough. < > And I didn't bother until now because we could play tit-for-tat indefinitely, but the voters are going to see the Vader couldn't possibly win because he was a guy that got cut up by a mortal man. That's right! He didn't use these magnificent powers against Obi-Wan, did he? No. < > Yes, but Wonder Woman nullified that in her comic book (and in JLU) after she became a goddess, so I negate that point. < > Closing statements: I have thoroughly proven why I defeated my opponent in this debate. Superman is Superman and Vader is not Superman. His argument for Vader's precognitive abilities were disproven and he admitted to being wrong. He lost thoroughly and all I've done here is prove what everyone already knows. Vader would NOT "EASILY VANQUISH SUPERMAN" in a fight. Thank you.
Resolved: In a fight, Darth Vader would easily vanquish Superman.

My opponent makes grand claims as to why Darth Vader could defeat Superman, but he fails to recognize the simple fact that Superman and Vader exist in worlds where GOOD ALWAYS TRIUMPHS OVER EVIL. Vader could never "easily vanquish Superman" because he's a proven loser; and Superman is a proven winner. It is a constant than doesn't fail in the comics or the movies. You cannot use your brilliant and well-thought out arguments without accepting the obvious given. Good always triumphs over evil. Superman is a winner. Vader is a loser. To make a long drawn out argument of how a mind trick could penetrate a Kryptonian mind is ridiculous. You also try to dismiss arguments based on your understanding of Superman and Vader, but you are not the creators of either character, so they are no more valid than mine. Superman is smarter and stronger and better than Vader, and in the off chance that Vader had a good day in a fight against Superman, he would not be able to "easily vanquish Superman" for the simple fact that it wouldn't make an interesting storyline to follow and thus would go against the very nature of what these two characters were specifically designed to do... capture the audience. No one is going to bother with a battle that could take place in a single three inch box. That doesn't make sense, nor does your argument.
Resolved: In a fight, Darth Vader would easily vanquish Superman.

< > I doubt Vader would triumph with ease, as you've indicated, if he could at all. easily (http://dictionary.reference.com...) 1. In an easy manner; with ease. < Strength: People claim that Superman would dominate Vader due to his sheer Super strength, but I am one to disagree. Vader can easily move objects which weigh over 100 tons.>> Vader never did this because he was unable to and you cannot give an example where he did perform such a feat. < > We saw Yoda do this, not Vader. Also, Yoda's physical body does not reflect his ability to control the Force. He was a Jedi Master on the Jedi Council LONG BEFORE Vader was even born, so Vader couldn't have ever been able to match Yoda's powers. < > Luke's X-Wing was tiny compared to a JUMBO JET. Jumbo jets can hold many, many people. The X-Wing was a one-man craft that couldn't even house it's R2 unit on the inside! < > He may have had more military power, but he was never more powerful when it came to the Force. But none of this matters because the argument I'm proposing is that Vader couldn't "easily vanquish Superman". I won't dispute the irrelevant power usage analysis, at this time, but I will comment on one and then fill-in where you did not. < > The Force is not magical. It is defined that way by people who do not understand it. Light sabers, also not magical -- Superman would be impervious to attacks by them. Nothing in the Star Wars Universe is magical, as it is all based in Science and Technology. That's why the Jedi's need space ships to roam the galaxies and they don't just ride magic carpets or any nonsense like that. < > The Siths wouldn't have met their demise if they could accurately see the future. I'm going to further negate this argument with the fact that Superman could just reverse time where ever Vader was, as he did in Superman (1) when Lois Lane died in the earthquake. <> Possibly, but Vader isn't indestructible. That's why he's in a special suit. Also, Superman can fly. All he has to do it is rip off Vader's arms and legs, so that Vader can't move on his own, then fly behind Vader, take him up a mile or so into the sky and then let him go. Vader died by falling, so it stands to reason that gravity would be his undoing again. Vader "could" win, but it wouldn't be an easy victory as you suggest. Thank you.
Resolved: In a fight, Darth Vader would easily vanquish Superman.

I'm a big fan of both fictional characters, but I'm afraid that if the two were to trade blows, Vader would easily wind up as the victor. I will perform this debate by stating how the dark lord of the sith would counter Superman's powers. Strength: People claim that Superman would dominate Vader due to his sheer Super strength, but I am one to disagree. Vader can easily move objects which weigh over 100 tons. Proof: In "The Empire Strikes back", we saw an old and weakened Yoda lift Luke Skywalker's X-Wing out of the Dagobah swamp. Luke's X-Wing surpasses the size of a jumbo jet. Not to mention that the space craft was doubt heavier due to the sheer weight increase there is when removing it from a swamp. Let us remember that Vader was by far more powerful than Yoda at this point. So, if Superman attempts to punch vader with one of his powerful punches, Vader can reflect his blow with a force blast. Speed: Now we all know that Superman can move at the speed of light. That much is understood, but how often does he do this? In the first film, Superman could have easily evaded Lex Luthors dastardly kryptonite trap if he had moved at light speed, but the mighty man of steel easily fell for the trap. In all the films, there isn't one point at which Superman uses to full extent of his speed during a confrontation. This leads me to believe that he certainly wouldn't use it in a battle against Vader. However, even if he did, we must remember that all Jedi has shown themselves able to deflect a barrage of lasers with their uncanny light sabers. Also, during the second and third prequel, Yoda had shown himself able to deflect Lord Sidious' lightning spell with his hands alone. Scientist have estimated that a lightning bolt moves at half the speed of light or more. My point: Superman likely won't use his speed, but even if he did, Vader would easily counter it no harder than he had countered Han solo's laser blast in second film of the original trilogy. Heat Vision: Basically the same as the criteria covered in speed. Ice Breath: Vader should be able to dispel it with a simple force push. Invulnerability: In the comics, it is noted that Superman's invulnerability can be bypassed by any magical force. The force in the SW universe could be defined as magic, thus it could be used effectively against Superman. Finally, in Return of the Jedi, Darth Sidious tells Vader that he had foreseen Luke Skywalker's arrival on Endor. This justice that force wielders can see into the future. If that is the case, Vader could simply prepare for this fight days in advance. Any way you look at it, Vader would be the champion in a brawl with Kal-el of krpton. I now stand ready for my opponent's case.
Abortion Is Morally Acceptable

This is the definition given in any respectable medical textbook. To declare a beginning of life at any point after the fusing of a wife"s egg and a husband"s contribution is irrational and an exercise in sophistical chicanery. Only machines such as clocks and cars come into existence part by part. Living beings come into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. A living human person begins to exist at the moment of conception, even though only as a cell. What is important is not the accident of size or weight but the essence " which is fully human. The unborn baby has a distinct, unchanging and unrepeatable genetic code, unique in all of history, from the moment of conception till death. Nothing is added except nutrition and oxygen.
summer is better and winter

Winter is the #1 cause of the flu. The flu is a major killer of vulnerable people. Ages from 65 and older have a higher death rate by the flu And with other long term health conditions, Including diabetes, and kidney disease, are at high risk. In winter you are at risk of the cold, sore throat, asthma, norovirus, painful joints, cold sores, heart attacks, cold hands and dry skin. There is also a very good chance of getting frostbite. Frostbite is when your tissue(usually skin) gets frozen and reduces the flow of blood. The tissue also changes color. children, elderly people, and people with circulatory problems are at a higher risk of getting frostbite. Frostbite most likley will effect parts of the body away from the core. It most likely effects the ears, nose,fingers, hands, feet, and toes. There is a higher chance of getting sick, frostbite, and even death in winter. Winter is also a cause of depression. During the holidays you use up more money and it makes you worry more about it. Soon your bills will be coming in and you will have to spend even more money. The sun setting earlier and less light makes you have a sad feeling. The cold temperature makes you curl up and to remain lazy. In summer you don't need to worry about curling up or spending a lot of money. There is also more daylight so you can be outside running around and having fun. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.cnn.com...
summer is better and winter

Even though this "issue" of yours has no valid arguments TO or AGAINST, I shall continue on with my arguments. First of all, your argument is invalid. It is only your opinion and not a straight-up fact that "everything dies" in winter. A wordpress blog is also an UNRELIABLE form of proof, which I deem invalid. Now for my argument; According to many health websites, Summer is the #1 cause of heat stroke. During the summer, heat stroke's affect many countries around the world. The harsh summer climate mainly affects people over the age of 50,but the risks outweigh a song about "winter depression". Some symptoms include dizziness, seizures, rapid heartbeat, and can indirectly cause other health risks, including heart attacks. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.mayoclinic.org... Summer does not definitely define whether it is better than another. Some people like it more than winter, but that is only an opinion.
Classrooms should have closed circuit cameras

Hello All, Today we will be debating if classrooms should have closed circuit cameras. Before we start i would like to make some rules clear. Your argument should be no longer than 10,000 characters and only one troll argument, but please refrain from them. You are only allowed to present one argument per round. Those are the only rules, so lets get right to it! Since I am on the Affirmative side, I have the right to define the topic. Closed Circuit Camera - can produce images or recordings for surveillance purposes, and can be either video cameras, or digital stills cameras. First of all, closed circuit cameras would stop students from committing crimes, such as cheating on tests, bullying, etc. The idea of closed circuit cameras has gained great momentum in Britain, where 85 percent of schools currently have closed circuit cameras and some schools, such as Stockwell Park High School in South London, have over 100 cameras inside its buildings. During the 2005"06 school year, according to the most recent statistics available from the U.S. Department of Education, 86 percent of public schools nationwide reported that one or more serious violent incidents, thefts, or other crimes had occurred at their school, for a total of roughly 2.2 million crimes. That works out to about one crime reported for every 20 students. And that doesn"t include vandalism and graffiti: Nearly 100,000 incidents of vandalism are reported in the United States public school system every year.With closed circuit cameras, the number of crimes would drop dramatically. Terry Piper, the principal at Seaholm High School in Birmingham, Michigan, feels the time is right for security cameras at his school. After all, dozens of schools in their county have already done it, and with some success. "There are 30 high schools in Oakland County, and every single one of them has security cameras except Seaholm and Groves," Piper says. "They"ve seen thefts go down. They"ve been able to solve instances of They"ve been able to solve instances of vandalism on occasion, and there have been student altercations where they"ve been helpful. They also serve as a deterrent, so you never know how many things might have happened if you hadn"t had them." Now I will wait for my opponent to respond to my argument.
Classrooms should have closed circuit cameras

RFD:1.) Plagiarism:My opponent plagiarized, as I mentioned during my first speech. 2.) Forfeit:Extend all arguments.3.) My opponent failed to prove how CCTVs are successful:My opponent was unable to bring up a statistic that shows how effective CCTVs are. Instead, he merely talks about how the bullying rate (crime) is gradually becoming a bigger problem. For all these reasons, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you.
Classrooms should have closed circuit cameras

Hmm... "The rules never stated that I could not, as you say, "plagiarize", or in other words, copy and paste, therefore your rebuttal on plagiarizing is invalid and should be disregarded." I understand that you are new to DDO. Plagiarism is NOT allowed here. "Your" first speech is not your work. You just "copied and pasted" someone else's work. Isn't it common sense? Copying someone else's work is not moral without his/her permission is immoral. Well, this is up to the judges. "I would also like to state that you only provided only TWO sources for your argument, which is not sufficient enough. You also provided only two statistics. There have been many other sources that contradicted your first point, such as: (and then sources)" The quantity does not matter; the quality does. Your sources provide weak arguments: 1.) First source was inaccessible (it doesn't open up for some reason) 2.) Statistics shown in this source were weak and indescriptive. (Lack of explanations) 3.) This source actually supports my side, as well. I shall explain about it later on (3rd speech). "My second contention is that the bullying rate will go down." Your supporting arguments are irrelevant to your claim. Your statistics talk about how bullying is a major issue; it doesn’t mention anything about how bullying rate would go down. Thus this argument is invalid. Moving onto my arguments. Argument 1: CCTV violates PrivacyBBC News decided to conduct a survey for students, based on CCTVs at school. Most of them thought that having CCTVs was a bad idea. Many claimed that they were quite "annoying." Some also claimed that they "go to school to learn, not to be watched over." As a student, I completely agree them. Wouldn't it feel awkward if a camera is watching over you, during the whole school day? [1]Argument 2: CCTVs are NOT Successful"Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology, a senior police officer piloting a new database has warned. Only 3% of street robberies in London were solved using CCTV images, despite the fact that Britain has more security cameras than any other country in Europe." [2]This means that although tons of money are being spent on CCTVs, they barely decreased the crime rate. This argument proves how unsuccessful CCTVs would be, even if we spend millions of dollars. If CCTVs are not successful outside, how can we be sure that they would work at school? My opponent has failed to explain how successful CCTVs are. Instead, he only talks how bullying is a common issue in US. For all the reasons, please vote for the negative side. Thank you.Source:[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://www.theguardian.com...