BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the mortal instruments better then the infernal devices

For goodreads, I got the average of each series. The Mortal Instruments has an average of 4.24, not counting the last book since it has not come out yet. The Infernal Devices has a 4.45 rating, being .21 higher. It would be unfair to evaluate the boxed set, because by then, the book has already achieved worldwide recognition and that would recieve higher reviews influenced by the fact the book is famous. Books taking place in the present are ubiquitous. Yes, you can relate, but so can you relate to so many other books. And the relations are minimum, with now being 2014 and the books taking place in 2006. Remember: Blockbuster was common then, which is now regarded as a prehistoric fossil site. One of the chief among the"present" day fantasies is Harry Potter. As good as the Mortal Instruments are, it cannot hope to compete with the Harry Potter series. In fact, Cassandra Clare only acquired her fanbase through HP fanfiction. While the Mortal Instruments then only places second at best in their field, the Infernal Devices, if anyone ever wanted to root for it in a "Best-series-in-the-world" debate, would have a flagship point that it was the best fantasy-romance-mystery-action book taking place during the industrial revolution, while the Mortal Instruments would have no chance of accolading itself a "best in field" award. Present is in quotes because it is not really the present. It is relatively present, but if you were to live there after living in the real present day (now) it would be unbearable. Smart phones were not everywhere then, the internet was less notorious, and the world selfie did not even exist. Major sites just began, (ex. YouTube) and they only recieved at most a few thousand views, compared to todays millions, (and even billions). For teenagers, they were only around 7 to 13 years old then. Taking place in the "present" does not make it easier to relate. For mostly everyone, 1900 is just as for away as 1800. And if the Mortal Instruments gives everything the Infernal Devices has, but more, then why would Cassandra Clare write the Infernal Devices to begin with? It would have to have something only a book like the Infernal Devices could offer. One such thing, is the unique settlement of a love triangle, in which both suitors get the girl. This did not happen in the Mortal Instruments, as Simon was just plainly rejected, resulting in many unhappy fans.
Is the mortal instruments better then the infernal devices

While it's true that the Infernal Devices takes place in a different era, this can make it difficult for many readers to connect to. The Mortal Instruments taking place in current times helps us relate even more and make us fall a little deeper into the story. With your Goodreads stars, which specific book did you take that from again? The first books? The third books? And Jace with his piano also helps us to appreciate the "finer things in life" The Mortal Instruments gives everything the Infernal Devices has and more. That is why I believe it is the better series.
Is the mortal instruments better then the infernal devices

While the mortal instruments is a fine series, I believe the infernal devices has really been the better of the two. The Mortal Instruments, although it follows a deeper plot and has more content, it takes on a typical teenage romance genre while although the Infernal Devices is short of falling into the same genre, the idiosyncratic uniqueness that it presents, with the teenagers acting like, well, teenagers, but of a different era. Seldom has this occured in novels, and it presents a fine twist that cannot be find in most other works of literature. The personalities of these characters present more beauty than humor, though Will has enough of both. They let you appreciate the finer things in life, ex. Jem with his Violin and this antique setting lets you have historical awareness as well as an intriguing storyline. Also, according to Goodreads, the Infernal Devices have about a 0.25 higher rating average the the Mortal Instruments.
Is the mortal instruments better then the infernal devices

possible spoilers ahead* I believe the Mortal instruments are better then the infernal devices because there are more plot twists. With the whole Jace's father plot twists and Sebastian. There is also more developed romances. Have and Clary have many more rocks in their relationship then Will and Tessa. I also think this because there are more books. We get to know the characters better and there is more story.
know=physical experiecne of now

A thermostat has an experience. The temperature is the experience. The temperature causes the switch in the thermostat to switch. An experience has happened. The thermostat has had a now experience. The thermostat has no knowledge. Physical experience of now=know(knowledge), your claim is false. You don't have to be alive to have an experience. The thermostat proves that. The switch experienced a temperature change. Your premise is false.
know=physical experiecne of now

know is true, and belief is false my claim is that knowledge is memory the sim characters are in a simulation, in a designed computer, computers cant exist without designers as they are intended, not random like each different branch of a tree springs out in different directions as it grows large over time I have to imagine I am in a simulation and imagination is false belief=be lie a thermostat has no experience, as its not alive I have to imagine I am in a coma, therefore its true to say I don't know, as I have to imagine it, but if you can read this I am as real as you, as I have exist in reality to send this message
know=physical experiecne of now

You BELIEVE your are experiencing things. However, you don't KNOW if that is a true experience. Tell me how you KNOW it is true. Your claim is that experience=knowledge. How does your knowledge KNOW the experience is correct? You don't have to simulate anything to be the simulation. Do the Sim City characters simulate themselves? No. The programs simulates them. How do you know you aren't a simulation? A thermostat experiences now moments. Does a thermostat have knowledge? I don't want you to burn me with a lighter because I will feel pain. But that doesn't mean the pain I feel is real. I might be a simulation. How do I KNOW that my experience of you being with me physically is a true experience? What if this is all just one elaborate simulation? Tell me how you KNOW that isn't the case. What if you are in a coma? What if everything you feel you are EXPERIENCING is happening while you are in a coma. Tell me how you KNOW that isn't the case. "I'm saying I don't know if ants have intent,....." Actually you are making this claim. You are claiming now experiences=know(knowledge) The ants have now experiences. If your claim is true, they must have knowledge. If you concede you don't know the ant has knowledge then you concede the debate. Do you concede the debate? The thermostat has a now experience. When the temperature in the room drops below 70 degrees, the thermostat experiences that, a switch is tripped, the thermostat turns the heat on. The thermostat has had a now experience. Therefore you claim the thermostat has knowledge. Tell me how the thermostat has knowledge.
know=physical experiecne of now

if i close my eyes I cant see reality, and if I think I can see reality I still cant see reality because my eyes are closed, so my eyes being open or closed determine weather I see reality or not I have to simulate that I am a simulation, while my physical experience is real, and I have to believe what I imagine, and belief is false, so its true to say I don't know and not that I am in a simulation, but I know I have to imagine it and imagination is false, I know my experience of now if I am with you physically and I say to you hey man, I am being now, my experience is now, you cant argue with that if you close your eyes you cant see is absolute so your eyes are matter and matter is real, logic is absolute and only truly happens in reality, there is no true logic in my imagination know is not knowledge know=(is)Physical experience of now=true=now knowledge=memory=truth=past im saying I don't know if ants have intent, if they have intent they have knowledge and free will to some extent your physical experience is authentic because you don't want me to burn you with a lighter? would you want me to do that and if not why not, I mean you can imagine I am burning your arm in your imagination, but nothing happens, I can burn your arm off, and nothing happen, no pain and you are not angry, I can do it again, a creation of the mind, a lie my neighbor is imaginary right now, as I have to imagine him to experience him
know=physical experiecne of now

You THINK you are physically experiencing the typing. You THINK you are seeing the letters pop up on the screen. But how do you know the experience is authentic? How do you know you are not a simulation? The Ant. Your claim is that a physical experience=know(knowledge). An Ant is clearly experiencing a physical experience or input (maybe authentic or not) but does the ant have knowledge? Your claim is yes. Please explain how you know the ant has knowledge because it has some experience.
know=physical experiecne of now

i physically experience it, I can feel that im touching each button as I type a letter, and I can see what im typing on my screen I don't know if ants have intent, if they do they have knowledge, if they have no intent and act randomly or based on some natural programmed instincts and have no intent I don't know but then they are not intending anything, so its random and they have no knowledge, no free will
know=physical experiecne of now

It moves doesn't it? The rock. When you kicked it, did it move? Water, when it drops below freezing does the water experience the temperature drop and freeze? If the thermostat doesn't experience anything, because it isn't alive, then how is the switch tripped? know=physical experience of now physical experience of now=know the thermostat experiences a temperature change a switch is tripped, confirming the experience the thermostat has experienced a now moment the thermostat has no knowledge Conclusion, the premise "know=physical experience of now" is false Thank you Pro for the debate. Source: My Brain
Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.

Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.

My main points were: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Statistically speaking, many ex-felons return to prison after they have been convicted of a felony. If many of them return to prison, even after they have been let off on parole, it can be said that these people have invalid judgements and are not capable of making informed and educated decisions. Therefore they indirectly effect citizens who are able to weigh the consequences of their decisions, and should not be afforded this right unless they can prove that their judgement is valid. Once a person commits a felony, it should not be assumed that he/she is of a stable mental state when he/she is released from prison, and as such the right to vote is no longer a right but a privilege. I have proven that revoking this right does not constitute an "excessive sanction" and does not in any way violate the constitution.
Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.

Now into the summary and impact round! No new arguments and refutes as this is the last round :) thanks To summarize, my points were P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Ex-felons cannot be barred from voting on legal premises since disenfranchisement for life violates the Constitution. It violates the excessive sanctions part of the 8th amendment as well as the 15th amendment. America needs to defend everyone's voting rights, but how can we fulfill this if ex-felons are still not allowed to vote? Everyone is supposed to be part of the American Dream. We all should have an equal opportunity at life, but ex-felon disenfranchisement violates this. Voting still is a big part of society. Ex-felons are affected by the results of elections. They should be able to have a say in who leads their country. Once a felon starts fulfilling his/her civic duties, they should have their full rights returned to them. On top of all moral values, ex-felons who actually have a say in their government are less prone to committing crime again. Since this reduces crime rates, it only further proves that ex-felons SHOULD be able to vote. What this debate really comes down to is weighing my opponent's main points (bad judgement and potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes) against the simple reality that ex-felons are people who abide by the law and deserve their full rights. If a person has bad judgement, does that mean he can be denied his Constitutional rights? The fact remains that ex-felon disenfranchisement is illegal. Furthermore, the past is the past; we cannot continue to punish ex-felons for mistakes they made long ago. They are already on lower ground than normal citizens. Also, if an ex-felon has bad judgement, he would not have gotten out of parole or probation -- felons have to be reviewed to get fully free. The potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes are not relevant because studies show that ex-felons who can vote are way less likely to commit crime. This is what sets me over my opponent. He has failed to prove the morality and legality behind disenfranchisement, but I've proven the moral and legal reasons behind allowing ex-felons to vote. I suggest voters cast their ballot for my side because I've proven convicted felons released from prison/parole/probation should be able to vote for both legal and moral reasons. I've refuted all of my opponent's refutations/contentions effectively (his refutations were quite repetitive and can be refuted by my rebuttals in previous rounds) and provided more detailed evidence. Overall, I have presented a stronger case. Thank you. Also, I'd like to say thank you to my opponent for an excellent, engaging debate. Your arguments were very well thought out. It was fun debating with you :)
Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.

I will attempt to construct my arguments in a similar fashion in order to keep the format consistent Contentions: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Definitions: Recidivism- Measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release. P1: With many felons returning to prison within three years, how are we to be able to have faith in their good judgement? These are obviously not simple crimes, and if so many return to a life of crime as soon as they get out, then why should they have the right to vote? The effectiveness of our criminal justice system is for another debate, but as it is now, its not actually correcting anybody, its simply detaining them. Here is some interesting data: "Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)." This would allow all of these felons, most of which return to prison within several years for the same crime, to vote in elections. There is more information on Recidivism rates here [1]. P2: Why should citizens who have been convicted of a felon have the same right as those who have never been convicted of one? Certainly they are not of equal value to society when one was thrown in prison for being a danger to society. If these felons are at risk of recidivism, of which many of them are, then I don't quite think their judgement is valid enough to allow them to vote in elections that could effect the rest of society. P3: Perhaps there should be a system in place for convicted felons to earn the right to vote. I feel that this would be a lot better than simply giving them the right to vote once they had served their time. This would ensure that we do not have voters with compromised judgements, and that they cannot vote before proving that they are able to be productive members of society. Otherwise, they may base their vote on a topic of interest, such as the legalization of a certain drug, etc. [1] http://www.bjs.gov...
Is here on Mother Earth hell as the Pope belives in some sort of vanishing act after death.

Tell me where the new testament got mixed up with the old testament and then read the lost scriptures of Thomas. Then you may have something to say that maybe even considered of being the truth. As yes there is a place for all in the heavens and it goes webeus and weusbe as three and your so-called hell that you must be in charge of if you want it to happen. Captain YeshuaBought. Amen.
Is here on Mother Earth hell as the Pope belives in some sort of vanishing act after death.

This is an AO topic so any under 40 years old leave for your own mental health. Or stall and be strong within your own self. Make a machine to solve this dreaded act of inhumanity shall we and whose name shall be upon it? Cain and Abel, Cain to be able to kill without remorse a psychopath or Abel that just couldn't spare the cane and designed a machine to do the killing the sociopath. I would spare you from this but if you don't wish to know then turn away and stay ignorant and if a child that is unjustly influenced by the AO rating of this topic as, believe me, there should be an AO division upon this debate site. So I will not say of what women do and of what men do. For the sake of the impressionable that take the law into there own hands. This is the dread that evil has used to fill the recycle centre of humanities humane since Eve and Adam got too curious for our own good. So a psychopath that has not the ability to have rational reasoning be them of women or of men. Now don't think that women don't sexually abuse children as they do. Please forgive me for even touch this logical reasoning as to drag the woman of women into this of ugliest affairs. But what it is it is. As to say the same of the man of men. (Spare the children of the influences of dread upon this G rated site shall we) Now the pope says that hell doesn't exist and people of this like just disappear. Now is this something that what Nature has been doing since evolution has raised the question to be questioned? In nature, the weak die and the strong survive. So how is it that psychopaths and sociopaths have not been naturally selected out of existence? We the humane race has been about for supposedly how long? The earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago such as the Omo remains of Ethiopia and the fossils of Herto sometimes classified as Homo sapiens. Idaltu. Beleive me of this truth that it is good men that fall upon the battlefields and what is left over or return, for this is the injustice of war and the crimes of war. The women and men girls and boys of war rape that still go on, and it's called the spoils of war and where is this war upon the streets and within the dread of the depths of our minds inability to consider what to do with an apple that has a grub in it. So who will eat the grub with its evil intent and who will eat the apples ignorant honesties arrogance? Should, would or could our existence creator within our own nature of who our existence creator truly is, as the nature of our creator is not of nature it is Nature. Peace be with you with praise and glory belong to Nature.
History does not repeat it self.

I accept Pro's interpretation of the phrase, namely that it is "used to remind people that the past contains knowledge applicable in future crisis and events, and that knowledge of past events will help a person, and or nation, to overcome potential and current problems. " I would further pose that the phrase "history repeats itself" is an extension of that idea, it being employed most often as a commentary to a situation when someone or some nation, political body, etc, forgets to heed the advice of Thucydides and Santayana. Thus, the advice is not heeded, the past is not considered (or considered and rejected), and history repeats itself. I am glad to see we have moved far beyond the realm of semantic bickering, and I look forward to Pro's arguments for his case, as I am very curious to see the reasoning behind his assertions!
History does not repeat it self.

Let get specific in what history we shall debate to clear things up. I suggest european history, perhaps at the high school or college level only for its familiarity, other suggestions to the type of history are welcome (ancient, middle eastern, latin america, ect.). We can eliminate the semantic technicality by further specifying this argument to social history rather then history of wars, if this pleases my opponent. I wish to have an actually debate about this topic and i don't care to win easily on a semantic technicality (thats a b/s win and everyone knows it). The phrase "history repeats it self" was created for a reason one i believe to be false.
History does not repeat it self.

Definition of repeat as per Merriam-Webster.com: to say or state again I shall debate and prove conclusively that 'history' as defined by opponent as 'a chronological record of significant events" does in fact repeat, in as much as it is possible to say or state again a document outlining a particular portion of history, which, as a chronological record, would meet my opponents criteria for 'history'. I will also prove, as a side point, the futility of attempting to win a debate by deliberately misinterpreting the meaning of a well known statement in order to win by default on a semantic technicality by verbally annihilating any of my opponents attempts to the contrary and applying the very same semantic chicanery he himself employs.