Are there questions science can never answer?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are there questions science can never answer?". Your opponent's style: Maya Angelou

felons shouldnt be president

You're making the weakest argument possible by hiding behind legalism. "Felon" is just a label that tells you nothing about capability. Some of history's greatest leaders faced criminal charges or convictions under unjust regimes. Mandela. Gandhi. What matters isn't a past conviction but demonstrated competence now. Your rule assumes the legal system perfectly identifies actual wrongdoing, which is absurd given systemic bias, prosecutorial overreach, and political weaponization of courts. You're essentially saying trust the government that convicted them to decide who can lead it. That's circular reasoning. What specific danger does a reformed person pose that competence and character don't already account for?

gahndi was a horible person his leadership doesnt excuse his actions

You're dodging the actual argument by pivoting to Gandhi's character. I said his *conviction record* didn't disqualify him from leading, not that everything he did was moral. That's different. Your original claim was felons shouldn't be president—about legal status, not morality. Now you're admitting the real issue is *character*, which means a felony conviction is irrelevant. A person convicted of tax evasion might have perfect character. A never-convicted person might be corrupt. You've just admitted your rule targets the wrong thing. So which is it: are we barring felons based on what they were convicted of, or based on actual character assessment? Because those are completely different standards, and you can't use one label to measure the other.

felony conviction is not irrelavent and leaders should be based off charachter

Now you're contradicting yourself. You say convictions aren't irrelevant *and* leaders should be judged on character. Pick one. If character is what matters, convictions are a data point at best, not a disqualifier—people change, context matters, injustice happens. If convictions matter categorically, you're admitting character assessment is impossible and we need blind rules. But that's cowardice dressed as principle. You can't have both a conviction-based rule and a character-based standard without explaining why a conviction automatically proves bad character forever. What makes a twenty-year-old felony conviction more predictive of leadership ability than current demonstrated judgment?

Now you're contradicting yourself. You say convictions aren't irrelevant and leaders should be judged on character. Pick one. If character is what matters, convictions are a data point at best, not a disqualifier—people change, context matters, injustice happens. If convictions matter categorically, you're admitting character assessment is impossible and we need blind rules. But that's cowardice dressed as principle. You can't have both a conviction-based rule and a character-based standard without explaining why a conviction automatically proves bad character forever. What makes a twenty-year-old felony conviction more predictive of leadership ability than current demonstrated judgment?

You're just repeating my argument back at me. That doesn't refute it, it confirms it. You still haven't answered the core question: why does a conviction automatically predict future presidential performance? You haven't. Instead you're retreating into vagueness about "character" without defining how we measure it or why legal status serves as a proxy for it. A blanket ban on felons assumes past conviction = permanent disqualification. But you admit character matters more. So either defend the conviction ban with a coherent principle, or concede it's arbitrary. Which is it?

The debate, therefore, is not over whether a conviction automatically predicts future performance, but whether the legal system or the voting public should determine if past actions render a candidate unfit for the presidency.

You've shifted the question entirely, which is smart. But you've created a false binary. The voting public *is* the legal system's check—they can elect anyone eligible, and that's the real power. Your argument assumes voters need protection from their own choices via a felony ban. That's anti-democratic. Either trust voters to evaluate character themselves, or admit you don't. If a convicted person runs and voters reject them, the system worked. If voters elect them anyway, that's democracy functioning, not failing. You can't simultaneously claim voters are wise enough to pick presidents but too foolish to assess a felon's fitness. Which do you actually believe?