BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution

Let's start. As my opponent did not offer any points in his first constructive, I will simply dive right into my case. - My opponent seems to purport no substantial evidence of evolution exists. But a quick search on Google will tell you right away that the idea that we have evolved from monkeys in not a hypothesis- rather a well- accepted theory. The reason for this is that once monkeys evolved overtime to better suit themselves in a race to genetic perfection- not only to better suit themselves for their environment but overall (we evolved from arched backs) (source: http://www.uni-kl.de... and http://www.mnsu.edu...) -We have also found all of these proposed early humans such as Lucy, the first of which, which led to people to once again discuss the high probability of evolution. (Homo Habilis) -To keep religion far from this debate, how did we get here if evolution didn't occur? Humans did not see spontaneous creation (source: any science textbook) thus we had to evolve from far more primitive beings, and technically the entire human race came to be from a single (important) cell if we are taking it back that far. -We are evolving today (people are born without wisdom teeth) along with vestigial structures in humans pointing to previous uses early in evolution that are unnecessary now. (Tailbone: we had [possibly] tails at some point!) - Not to mentions other points like the fossil record, which shows evolution overtime through sediments. (source: http://anthro.palomar.edu...) Thats all I feel like typing right now, I'm prepping for a debate tomorrow. I await my opponents refutations with...bated breath.
One should work against global warming and avoid extinction from it, even if it is non-anthropogenic

Ok, so I will use this round to accept (obviously) and outline my objections: The resolution states: One should work against global warming and avoid extinction from it, even if it is non-anthropogenic The bolded section is the portion I will object to. Observations: 1) "Work" against and "avoid" directly corrolate to action to result in a desire effect 2) "One" refers to an agent who can actually enact the desired change for the desired effect, namely the government as a regulatory agency. 3) The last phrase preempts a NC attempt to prove non-anthrprogenic warming (which seems somewhat counter-intuiitve on face, but I accept the condition)
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. 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) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs.
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Overview of my case: We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting Con has claimed voting to not be a right. This misses the mark, as while I do argue that voting is a right my main argument is that the governments function is to protect and ensure rights and that the government can only do so legitimately through the consent of the governed. Voting is how that consent is given. Thus the impact of taking the vote away from felons is 1: Government cannot receive legitimate power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Con asks what I intended by my Power of the People segment stating “ Are you trying to say that if the government takes away a right, the people will rebel? ” This is not at all what that portion of my argument is stating. Rather, I am stating that our society accepts that the people give power to the government through consent. Without consent people cannot give the government consent. Overview of Con’s case: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows…. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. Conclusion: It becomes clear that If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Thanks for reading, vote Pro!
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

I will now begin by rebutting Pro's case from R2. Pro argues over Unalienable rights. Voting is not a right. As I have argued, in the 14th amendment it states that it isn't a given right to vote. It is up to the state in which they decide to let felons vote, or not vote. Pro arguing that voting for everyone is a right, is false. The 2nd part of the 14 Amendment can back this up. Pro then goes on to say "We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights." Yet the 14th Amendment, it's not a validate right. The state can choose whether or not to enforce this so called "Right". Let's take freedom of speech for example. the Government can't tell the state whether or not the state can enforce this right, it's a given right. Voting, isn't. Pro argues the "The Power of the People" I am not entirely sure what he is arguing here. He gives us 2 quotes, and 1 sentence that doesn't say much nor explain what he is trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that if the government takes away a right, the people will rebell? That is what I'm getting at here. Pro's next argument: D: The whole picture We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights (Equal rights, yes. But these rights are temporarily taken away when the person has acted in poor misconduct.) 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights (Not according the 2nd part of the 14th Amendment which states the States can decide whether or not a felon can vote.) 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting ( This doesn't mean that Felons should still enjoy freedom because they have murdered somebody. Consequences need to be bestowed so these people can learn from their mistakes. Doing so will also protect your city.)
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Rebuttals: Con states that “First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison.” I noted this in round one. There are some cases where voting rights are restored after the sentence is served, but not always. This is also off-point as I am arguing that felons should not have to regain their right, I am asserting they should retain/ never have lost the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. Con states "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... “ We don’t let children vote, it’s true. I disagree that it is due to us not trusting their judgement. Rather it is their inability to reason. This is due to the Pre-frontal cortex of the brain not being fully developed. (1)(2) Non-citizens don’t vote it is true, not because we don’t trust them, but rather because voting is part of the social contract of which non-citizens are not a part of. Con than asks “do criminals belong in that category?” I am assuming the category being children, noncitizens, or mentally incompetent. Clearly felons should not. Felons are not children, are citizens, and if mentally incompetent would have made the insanity plea. Thus Felons do not fit in this category. We see contention one is negated. Contention 2; Congressional Authority over Voting Much of this contention merely states the status quo, not support for it. I have shown in my argument why the status ought to be changed. Merely stating the status quo does not negate or support Con’s Argument. Con argues that “the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government.” This is in contrast to America’s fundamental principles of Government. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Con has added a multitude of criteria to vote that is un-necessary. The only legitimate government gets its consent from the governed. If felons can’t vote, they can’t give consent. Thus, making the government that takes away the right to vote illegitimate. We ought not have an illegitimate government. Thus Felons should retain the right to vote. Overview: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows…. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. (1) http://www.wisegeek.org... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...
Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Argument: We live in a society that accepts the notion of unalienable rights. As a society we accept that the main duty of a government is to secure such rights. Such a government receives their power from the consent of the governed. In our society this is done through voting. A: Unalienable Rights “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: “impossible to take away or give up” (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable. B: The Duty of Government “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” (Declaration of Independence) “Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;” (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights. C: The Power of the People “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(Declaration of Independence) “Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law.”(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed. D: The whole picture We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting What happens when we take away the right to vote? 1: Government cannot receive legitimate power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Conclusion: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Sources: (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Welfare

Although the reform had an impact on the welfare dependency and the amount of child poverty, why have we not seen a decrease in our spending for welfare? Not only has welfare reached a record high than it has ever been but it is costing the US almost a 15 trillion dollars each year and shows how good our welfare system might be, it"s not. ""News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1% of Americans, the highest level in nearly a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls for increased government spending on social welfare programs. Yet, this year the Federal government will spend more than $668,000,000,000 on at least 126 programs to fight poverty, and that does not include welfare spending by state and local governments, which adds $284,000,000,000 to that figure. In total, the U.S. spends nearly one trillion dollars every year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three" (Tanner). Today the poverty rate has risen and is proof that the US long-term welfare system is not working the way it should be. Not only that but the US has reformed the welfare system many times over the decades but in reality has made no long lasting improvement to our poverty level in the US. "Welfare spending increased significantly under Pres. George W Bush and has exploded under Pres. Barack Obama In fact, since Obama took office, Federal welfare spending has increased more than $193,000,000,000 per year. Even with this government largesse, more than 46,000,000 Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly 15 trillion dollars in total welfare spending since Pres. Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago. Clearly, we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem neither has reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient. It is time to reevaluate our approach" (Tanner). Even though the welfare system has gone through many reforms it shows that we as a nation have made no improvements. With all of these reforms to make our welfare system better we are paying more money than ever. It is times that as a country we need to rethink and reform long-term welfare. Tanner, Michael. "The 15 Trillion Dollar War on Poverty Is a Failure." USA Today (Farmingdale). Sep 2012: 10. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 30 Oct 2013.
Welfare

Reed Nelson Mr. Joubert Civics and Senior Project 28 October 2013 Welfare Debate #5 The United States welfare is not consisted of generations of families depending on welfare and assuming such based on opinion does not allow a strong point. My opponent provided, "There is a growing majority of people who seem to think that they are entitled to these services for nothing, and that they exist solely to provide them with the means to survive without having to work all while still claiming more and more children, which is turn will lead to more generations of future welfare dependents" (Feulner). This is a good opinionated statement but it does not include any statistics or proof of this trend being reality. Although one point that is true about the effects of welfare reform in The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is, "By the time PRWORA was enacted in August 1996, the caseload had fallen to 4.3 million. Passage of the national reform legislation was followed by a further dramatic plunge in caseloads By June 2005, the caseload had fallen to 1.89 million, less than half the level at the time PRWORA was enacted" (Rector). These statistics show that welfare dependency has drastically reduced since the act of 1996 and continues to deplete. Another result of the welfare reform is, "Although opponents of reform predicted it would increase child poverty, some 1.6 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995" (Rector). This proves that not only the reform had an impact on the welfare dependency but also the amount of child poverty. Therefore the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 did what it had planned to improve in the welfare system and is still used for any further welfare improvement. Rector, Robert. The Impact of Welfare Reform. N.P. 19 July 2006. Web. 28 October 2013
Welfare

There is no way that the government is applying the right amount of money to every individual that need is and the proof is the cost of welfare for our government is at a record high. Welfare was not created as a career choice, generations of welfare families now exist, the name "temporary assistance for needy families" pretty much says what the programs intention was, but there has been nothing temporary about the system at this point. "There is a growing majority of people who seem to think that they are entitled to these services for nothing, and that they exist solely to provide them with the means to survive without having to work, all while still claiming more and more children, which is turn will lead to more generations of future welfare dependents" (Feulner). The fact that welfare agencies are seeing the increase of generations of families relying on welfare over the past decade shows that the welfare system in America is very flawed. In the same article Feulner explain how to the millions of people that do need welfare for the right reason suffer because the lack of money due to false claims of welfare. ""the people who truly needed, the more and more people that clog up the system making claims means that their is less money going around and not every welfare claim is 100% accurate or deserving. Yet the people who are actually disabled now have to scrap by on less than they could have gotten had only 50% of the actual people receiving been honest and stopped putting themselves into the system on false claims, or creating their own disabilities or welfare qualifying situations intentionally"(Fuelner). The welfare system in America is in need for a reform. The government claims that they are giving every individual the right amount of money they need when they apply for welfare but this is not true. The growing cost of welfare is costing the U.S. billions and is not helping the people that truly need it and is why it is time we rethink long-term welfare. Feulner, Ed. "The Spiraling State of Welfare Spending." Heritage Foundation. 25 Oct 2012: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 26 Oct 2013
Welfare

Reed Nelson Mr. Joubert Civics and Senior Project 17 October 2013 Welfare Debate #4 The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 had been a substantial reform of welfare which has helped the government to spend less on welfare. It was created to lower welfare participation, for involvement in the labor market, and increase earnings, income, poverty and family formation. One of the issues that occurred was the overwhelming amount of people depending on welfare, but this study reveals that: "Between 1993 and 1998, all 50 states and the District of Columbia experienced double digit percent reductions in welfare participation, and in most states the declines were unprecedented (Blank 4). This proves that welfare had created a system that allowed people to become reliant among welfare. Although once the reform was made, it created opportunities for people to rejoin the work force after leaving welfare, which increased employment rates dramatically. In arguing about the thought of staying on welfare, the opportunities of money for a family is much less what can be provided from a steady income job. Blank also reveals that: "studies explicitly compare post-welfare income with the income they would have received if remaining on aid. The scant evidence available in a few states (based on individuals. assessments of their family income situation) suggests that between one-half and two-thirds report higher incomes post welfare." This means that welfare must only be needed by people of low income households or for people with in unemployment. It also implies that the government is now applying the right amount of money to the individuals who need it, otherwise there would be close to the same amount of people still on welfare. Blank, Rebecca M.. What has Welfare Reform Accomplished? Impacts on Welfare Participation, Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family Structure. National Bureau of Economic Research. Mar. 2000. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.