BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.

Also thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation. The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote. You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting. Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections. My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral. There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?
Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.

Thank you, Caseyuer, for posting this debate. I feel this is a topic that I can argue persuasively and, at the very least, a pleasure to compete with another new member. I would flip your statements on you. Felony disenfranchisement is a necessary evil to provide us with a just society. Roger Clegg, of the General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity wrote, "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgement. [. .. ] so the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. " While there might exist special circumstances that might be deemed unjust; there are just as many examples of felons who express a pathological hatred for justice. . http://www.youtube.com... The episode I provide, produced by gonzo documentarian Louis Theroux, gives insight into the thought processes of prisoners who are currently moving through the justice system. Technically, the people contained have the right to vote. Already, a majority of them have a sense of sudo-honor, a vigor for throwing "piss-bombs" and public masturbation (usually pointed at female guards). Members of the public can reasonably come to the conclusion that these people would not vote in favor of the public good. Instead, they would vote, lobby and manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means. And these inmates depicted are FIRST time offenders. You point out that former felons could possibly be in these circumstances because society has not given them the opportunity to give their opinions. While this sounds like a good point, you could also say the reverse. In that if you give them the capacity to vote their opinions to the legislative branch, you would have a chunk of society who would be in a state of permanent dissent. That, being said, I hold a similar premise to the voters of Massachusetts in 2000. In one of the most liberal states in the country, they collectively voted to bar inmates from voting. This showed, even in liberal circles, that public opinion is against serious lawbreakers from electing representatives. My final point regards the constitutionality of barring voting rights. I acknowledge that the eighth amendment bars excessive sanctions and demands that punishment be to the scale of the crime. However, this amendment is ultimately refuted by the following particulars of the constitution: *Article 1, Sec. 4; *Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment. Overall, this legislation provide states the right to strip criminals of their voting rights. So, because of the examples I've provided, Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of just punishment.
Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.

Thank you to the person who accepts this debate. I wish you luck and hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other. Felony disenfranchisement or in simpler terms – denying the right of a felon to vote, has been a long practiced throughout many parts of the world. People who agree with this say that the felon in question has broken their 'social contract' with society and therefore should not be allowed to vote. First off we have to consider the people who this law affects. Many people get convicted in high school of minor crimes that still fall under the heading of a felony. An example of this would being stealing street signs. Then many years later that person who by now has presumably learned their lesson and paid their debt to society wants to take part in one of the greatest and most important acts they will ever do - voting. But because of their past crimes they will be denied their right to do so. What if someone is convicted for a crime like drug possession, but they and many other people think that it shouldn't be a crime. Because of laws that prohibit them from voting you are denying perhaps their only way to disagree with the system that got them in trouble in the first place. It is because of examples like the ones above that Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We have prison sentences and fines handed out by the courts for a reason, which is to pay your debt to society. To add onto this by denying people the right to vote, by saying because of something that you did in your past and now regret you will never be allowed to vote again is heinous.
Lick a 4 year-old girl as if she was a lollipop

I am arguing that here is not enough evidence to prove "Lick a 4 year-old girl as if she was a lollipop". I will prove this by asking voters to lick themselves once without anything with flavor on your body. Perhaps you can try your arm. Ask yourself, "does this taste like an average lollipop? " I have tried this experience, And my arm tastes very different from every lollipop I have tried. I assume that the human girl tastes fairly similar to me. The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that licking the girl tastes like a lollipop, And pro has failed to give evidence of this. Also, In most countries around the world, Licking a girl "even if they don not want it" like pro claims in their argument is illegal and immoral, And it has adverse consequences. I would argue that breaking my moral compass and laws is not a good decision, And there is certainly not enough evidence to prove that it is a good idea.
Lick a 4 year-old girl as if she was a lollipop

You pray for me, I will pray for you, We will help each other along. And if on the many paths of God we travel and find a nice 4 year-old child, I will let you lick her first. Lick her cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. Even if she doesn't want to be licked, It's only fair to give her the unwanted lick. As our Lord says: spare the cheek, Spoil the child.
Libertarian (Pro) vs Conservativism (Con)

My argument still stands. I will have to shortly and quickly summarize my topic though: That legalizing drugs would increase drug consumption, and therefore, have more people to only ruin their lives and affect others. That moral is crucial to society as I proved that with history. Not only did I have to prove that, but history proved it too. Conservatism do like the idea of legal contracts to be enforced and that the nation should have a strong military defense. Defense spending especially in the United States has many contracts with businesses and the private sector, and by reducing the defense spending, increasing unemployment tremendously. Libertarianism tend to focus more on what they want, as Conservatism focus on the outcome at the same time, trying to preserve an amount of freedom to a certain extent because unlimited freedom is basically anarchy. Almost all Conservatives agree with Republicans about economic freedom. It's what made even the United States prosper and advance with innovation. Libertarianism may look good at first, but going into detail, Conservatism is the best way to approach things.
Libertarian (Pro) vs Conservativism (Con)

The government is actually indeed an appropriate way to keep morals high. I will bring this up again, the western Roman empire government never really did try to promote moral into society. The eastern Roman empire did have a government play a role in society to promote morals within their country, which helped them thrive as one of the longest thriving civilizations in history. Ways for the government to promote moral are by keeping heavy immoral acts such as gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. illegal. Also by not having people repetitively curse in the public and disturbing others. Most of the ideas here to promote morals is usually through prevention. As you were saying that criminalizing drugs would only make it harder for someone to put their life back on track, I still do not see why illegalizing drugs would make someone's life harder to get back on track again. Please put more explanation to this if you can. Now if the government was to legalize drugs into our society, obviously, drug consumption would increase tremendously. So by preventing drugs consumption, we are making drugs illegal, thus continuing the war on drugs for a good cause.
Libertarian (Pro) vs Conservativism (Con)

Thank you for starting a debate on a wonderful and interesting topic. Now, I agree with as much as minimum interference within our economy as it can be a waste of money and even hurt businesses. Pertaining to individual rights, yes, every person should have their rights to a certain extent. Topics such as abortion, which is murder in commonsense. In reply to your comments on drugs, we need to remember that drugs such as marijuana and others only ruin lives. It decreases the efficiency to one's life, and only does that. Once you get yourself into marijuana, you are on a fast decline within your life and there's no way to get out of it without heavy rehabilitation. Grades in schools will take a detrimental effect, and so does your profile. It's not where it's like cigarettes, it's a lot worse. Again, drugs will only ruin the lives of others tremendously. You may have stated that the government are not our parents, but drugs have absolutely no promoting effects to one's life, just ruining and trashing lives. It gives the person no moral and no meaning in life anymore, to the point where there is no meaning for him or her to live. So by criminalizing drugs, we're protecting lives from ruin, many lives. I agree with you how America should reduce their status of imperialism, a bit. However, our corporations investing in foreign resources shall be protected by the American army. These corporations make up our GDP and we can not risk having terrorists or foreign threats mess with our American companies. Morals and virtues are very important to society. It's what keeps a society from falling and corrupting itself. Every great civilization has declined through loss in moral within their society. That includes Rome and the Greeks. The cause for the loss of moral was the government. Historically speaking, the western Roman empire declined in moral because their government, began to be led by barbaric kings during the near of their downfall. The eastern Roman empire, was very high in moral due to Christianity. I'm not saying we should force countries or the U.S. to adopt a state religion, it's just that religion promotes high moral. Back to the point, the eastern Roman empire was very high in moral taught and "enforced by their government" which led them to flourish for centuries, even for over a millennium. However, the government does not need to be oppressive in the ways they enforce, they do not have to, pertaining to the enforcing of morals.
Is KingAwesome a D-Bag

What is meant by rifle? If you are using this word the way I think you are, then you are the true d-bag among us. On the front of terrible fashion, I would like to address the fact that unlike my opponent, my closet contains more than just a variety of polos. I guess that fashion is really all opinion, but I think that everyone can agree that some variety is needed in everyone's wardrobe. Now about the bad hair. My opponent is anything but an expert on hair, I don't believe that he even owns a brush. He wakes up every morning and walks out the door. I'm not going to say that his hair looks bad, but I will say that maybe he would be better off bald. Again, these are just observations, not insults.
Atheists believe mythological ideas

I am sorry, but I don't have the time to write a good and detailed argument.The question of our origin or where did everything come from has only two possible answers. Either the universe arose by itself or it did not. If it did then some sort of cosmic evolution must have taken place to account for reality. If it didn"t then there must be a Creator. There is no third option.POINT: Atheism needs Evolution.Yes I agree with you 100% atheists believe in evolution that is the only thing that they can believe in if they don't believe in a deist creator.But, and it is a big but being an atheist doesn't make one an expert in evolution, and it is important to know that evolution is a separate field of science and like in any other such field any expert can have an opinion on whether some creature existed because of the evidence presented or it didn't.Stance of atheists on evolution is: yes we believe that humans and every other life form on earth is a descendant of the ocean bacteria and we do not believe in a creator. That however does not mean that we all spend any great amount of time studying evolution and all the creatures that evolution has created, most of us simply do not care.We reject all other ideas of how we came into existence and believe in the scientific proof, that doesn't mean every atheist spends his time studying the science behind evolution and the universe in detail.I am sorry for a bit spotty argument, we are using a 24 hour clock and I have a headache.
Atheists believe mythological ideas

The question of our origin or where did everything come from has only two possible answers. Either the universe arose by itself or it did not. If it did then some sort of cosmic evolution must have taken place to account for reality. If it didn"t then there must be a Creator. There is no third option. POINT: Atheism needs Evolution. "Richard Dawkins wrote that his discovery of evolution had enabled him to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist." http://www.bethinking.org... -Many people seem convinced that the theory of evolution is based on an analysis of brute facts that clearly prove evolution has been a real process throughout history. As arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins said: "You have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute." ----- "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." -Richard Dawkins ----- Whale evolution has been the monumental "prover" that evolution is true and real. The Atheist Mythological creature: The Walking Whale The best-known protocetid, Rodhocetus is known from two partial skeletons that taken together give a complete image of an Eocene whale that had short limbs with long hands and feet that were probably webbed and a sacrum that was at immobile with four partially fused sacral vertebrae.[3] It is one of several extinct whale genera that possess land mammal characteristics, thus demonstrating the evolutionary transition from land to sea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... The Science behind Rodhocetus In this video the finder behind Rodhocetus tells about how he figured it had a fluked tail and flippers. This was one of the connecting creatures, a rare intermediate, to show progression of evolution. It turns out, the tail was a guess. The flippers were a guess and dead wrong. http://youtu.be...
Atheists believe mythological ideas

I have a hard time disproving any of the things that you have said in your opening argument because they have nothing to do with atheism. According to Merriam - Webster : Atheism: a. a disbelief in the existence of deity b. the doctrine that there is no deity Atheism is not a religion, or even a group because atheists don't have any rituals to tie them together as a group if anything what makes a person atheist is the fact that they don't have rituals of submitting to a higher power. Basically words can be used to point to the presence of something, or, point to the lack of presence of something and atheism is a negative word used to point at individuals lack of belief in divine power, so by definition atheists cannot believe in any divine creature because the do not believe in anything supernatural and the lack of that belief is what makes them atheist. The mythological creatures you have mentioned were not worshiped by atheist (because atheist don't worship anything) they were worshiped by primitive societies like the native americans. And those societies were polygamous like all primitive societies and tribes they worshiped all manner of creatures some real and some fictional, but they worshiped so they cannot be atheist. But the main point I should point to is that you have got something confused, and you do not understand the meaning of atheism.
Atheists believe mythological ideas

--Atheists believe in mythology "The giant birds of Native American mythology" http://www.native-languages.org... -Cigwe (more commonly spelled Chequa or Chequah) is the Potawatomi Thunderbird, a giant mythological bird common to the northern and western tribes. www.native-languages.org/cigwe.htm -Culloo was a giant bird of prey, said to eat humans and be large enough to carry off a child. www.native-languages.org/culloo.htm "Terror birds" https://en.m.wikipedia.org... "Titanis" giant bird http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com... It was once believed that Titanis became extinct in North America around the time of the arrival of humans, but subsequent datings of Titanis fossils provided no evidence for their survival after 1.8 Ma. Still, reports from Uruguay of new findings dating to 450,000 and 17,000 years ago, would imply that some phorusrhacids survived there until very recently (i.e., until the late Pleistocene); but this claim is debated. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com... The Water Leaper, also known as Llamhigyn Y Dwr, is an evil creature from Welsh folklore that lived in swamps and ponds. It is described as a giant frog with a bat's wings instead of forelegs, no hind legs, and a long, lizard-like tail with a stinger at the end. It jumps across the water using its wings, hence its name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... A flying frog (also called a gliding frog) is a frog that has the ability to achieve gliding flight. That is, it can descend at an angle of less than 45" relative to the horizontal. Other (non-flying) arboreal frogs can also descend vertically, but only at angles greater than 45", which is referred to as parachuting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... During an archaeological dig in Sayre, Bradford County, Pennsylvania"a number of human remains were dug up. The skeletons of these artifacts were all anatomically correct for human beings, but they had one odd feature, projections (horns)"protruding"from the skull above the eyebrow. The fact that they had horns and that they would have been seven feet tall in real life provides people with reason to doubt the "authenticity" of these remains. However, this was not the first time skulls like this were discovered. Similar skulls have been found in Wellsville, New York and El Paso, Texas. The remains were sent to the American Investigating Museum in"Philadelphia, were they were"conveniently"stolen never to be seen again. Another mysterious case of skulls, are the notable Peruvian skulls excavated near Nazca. Similarly to the horned skulls, they were believed to have been very tall, up to nine feet! This odd"phenomenon was also found in Mexico, just as the horned skulls were found at other locations. The difference though, is that these skulls" cranial portion are elongated to an unbelievable extent. anthropology.msu.edu/anp264-ss13/2013/04/25/mysterious-skulls-found-around-the-world Human skulls with human horns http://locklip.com... http://godinanutshell.com...
Veganism is not better than eating meat

I established my position in the first round that people who choose to be vegans for their own health reasons should do so nor did I state that they should be "persecuted" or shouldn't be allowed to choose to be vegans. I simply think that the moral reasons for eating veganism are ridculous as well as doing so for environmental concerns. In short, I disagree with vegans and apparantly so does my opponent. I was hoping the debate would be about how veganism was not necessarily morally, environmentally or dietary superior to diets that involved meat, not about the personal liberty to choose to be vegan. Since this debate was not supposed to be about the personal right to choose your diet and my opponent apparantly doesn't agree with the vegan lifestyle, I really don't know how this debate is supposed to carry on. I apologize if I caused any confusion.