BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

1.In the case of United States v. Comstock, the courts ruled that "the federal government may order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous person beyond the conclusion of his federal sentence." Meaning that even upon the completion of your sentence, if they still feel you may be a treat, they continue to hold you. 2.There will always be good, and evil. But there has to be a place to indefinitely hold people who are deemed too dangerous to be a part of a society. 3.There is no real way to determine if the treatment was 100% successful as it seems that anybody can just fake treatment, leave, and then commit recidivism. Not only is the issue of recidivism a real one, but in most instances these offenders will only continue to escalate. 4.Some of these offenders who are sent to prison rather than treated, do come out a changed person. Some people need to actually get a taste of our justice system to actually change. 5.At the times, some of those treated are not actually cured but somehow start to believe that they actually are. 6.In many instances, the medications given to them can have really bad side effects. What if they have a bad reaction to the medicine and end up worse off? 7.We can give them medicine to help better them, but there is no guarantee that they will stick to them whether it be at freewill, or that they simply just forget to take them here and there. 8.Some people need to be completely removed from society. A rape, and murdered can"t be allowed to be in society. 9.If you can"t control your urges, then you need to be removed. Someone who violated a helpless child should be removed from society and punished for their actions as they should have known right from wrong even if not morally at the very least, legally. 10.Repeat offenders repeat because they are immoral, emotionless, and can"t grow a conscience. 11.We have to sometimes give up on people, and understand that they can"t be helped. 12.Sure we sacrifice their freedom, but the greater good of our society has to always come first. 13.You want to give people medicine, but what if they don"t take their medication? The sacrifices of prison are that it can make people worse, but it also makes some people better, while providing some sort of justice for the victim. 14.Some people exit prison to become motivational speakers, community leaders, and good role models. 15.Prison is good because it helps some people. It represents an idea of cause, and effect. If people represents being stuck for a couple of years with murderers, and people still re-commit crimes, then what will happen if we starting putting them in a place where is no violence. 16.The problem with a lot of pedophiles is that they don"t think it is wrong. NAMBLA for instance always tries to convince society that they are right. The only way to deal with these types of delusional people is to incarcerate them, and let them be surrounded with others just like them. 17.Therefore, persons convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be incarcerated, and not treated.
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

(1) Prison doesn't teach you that you are wrong. (2) People go to court, and they waste months trying to lie and convince people that they are sorry. (3)Treatment is here to show these convicted pedophiles why what they did was wrong. (3)Some people need to be taught that their actions not only affects the victims, but also the victims" families and friends. (4) Treatment would be good because it would help people that are deemed to be helpless. Some people just may need a helping hand. (5)You have to stop asking people to say that they are sorry. First people needs to admit that they have a problem, instead of just demonizing them. (6)People have urges, and they need to be allowed to talk about them. (7)If there are adults attracted to adults, then there will be adults attracted to children. Adults attracted to children need a place where they can talk about it, without fear of disgust. (8)All they learn is that they did something wrong, and now they are wrong. You can"t change how they internally feel. Treatment will be good because its specific purpose is to rehabilitate. It has the same sacrifices as jail. (9) You put people in a place, some learn and grow on to be better people. While others will continue to do what they do. (10) It is easy to just tell the pedophile to not like children, but we have a chance to honestly explore why they have these feelings. It would be good if they can talk, not act on their urges. (11)Therefore, persons convicted of pedophilic crime ought to be treated, and not incarcerated in all instances.
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

You should be afraid to go to jail. Prison represents the idea that if you commit a violent crime, then you should be separated, and put in a place with people like you. Some people say that they can"t help themselves. That they can"t control their urges. Well maybe if they see what their urges might lead them to, then they"ll change. I believe that some people change through fear. People have to understand that their actions have consequences, and jail is the perfect place for people to understand that. People should not commit crimes in the first place, but you can"t expect people to always follow the rules. Jail is good because the families have peace of mind knowing that people who committed a heinous crime are locked away. The sacrifices is that people may not learn from being in prison that what they did was wrong. But prison enforces the idea help people get that shouldn"t harm other people. People know what they are doing is wrong, that"s why they take steps in order to ensure that they do not get caught. Well what do you do with people who are just genuinely evil? How do you deal with somebody who will constantly keep committing the same crimes?
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

First of all they wouldn't be sitting comfortably in a treatment facility. They will be removed from society. So just the simple fact that they had their freedoms taken away, should be the purpose of treatment. Absence of freedom to do what you want, is not being cozy. But this goes further than that as treatment attempts to rehabilitate them. Also there are some cozy jails. There are several cases where they hold violent prisoners in protective custody so that the other inmates don"t bother them. No one is saying that they are living lavish, but there is extra money put aside to ensure that they are comfortable. There are a lot of people with these thoughts, and all prison does is put people away and hope that they suffer enough to learn what not to do. The families would understand treating people if it was just explained to them the purpose of the treatment. The treatment is so that they learn to not harm children, and in the process they can inspire other people to control their urges. Some pedophiles can get away with their crimes
Persons convicted of a pedophilic crime ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

Yes 17, and 15 year olds going out with each other shouldn"t be a problem, and some people would be okay with it. But it is still deemed as a crime in some states. There is no universal age of consent. Also, It is expensive to house an inmate, but providing people medicine would cost tax payers more money. According to "Treating Pedophiles: Therapy Can Work, But It"s a Challenge" by live science.com, "critics of the treatment point out that psychotherapy doesn't work if someone drops out of therapy, or is kicked out. And treatment centers can cost tens of thousands of dollars per person each year. A 2011 government audit showed Minnesota spent $120,000 annually per person in civil commitment." This argument is about criminals voluntarily going to treatment facilities, but your argument is saying that they would have to be forcefully restrained at the facilities. So now you have to take into account that they would need housing, security, medicine, and some good doctors and therapists. So there is no telling how much more money it would take to house these people. How would the family feel knowing that these people are sitting comfortably in a treatment facility? How would the families feel knowing that their tax dollars are funding convicted sexual offenders, allowing them to be cozy in a treatment center?
Minecraft computer edition is better then the xbox 360 edition

Good Luck Con! Hello my name is Emily and I am the Pro side. First of all the computer edition has multiple servers that are very fun to play on with other people, and the servers can have anything such as Hunger Games, PVP, Hide and Seek and many, many more. The computer version also is many versions ahead. The computer edition has horses which you can ride and tame. The computer edition also has many more redstone objects such as hoppers, light sensor, heavy and light pressure plate, etc. I also has better multiplayer. You can play easily on servers, or make you're own, whereas on the Xbox 360 edition to play multiplayer you have to have and HDMI cable or Xbox Live, both of which cost money. Although the computer edition is is 10 dollars more you will actually end up spending much more on the HDMI cable and or Xbox Live. The computer edition also has many unique free skins whereas the Xbox edition's skins are limited and cost money. In the computer edition texture packs are almost anything you could imagine and again are free, and the Xbox edition's texture packs are limited and cost money. Also the worlds on minecraft computer edition are much larger and have different biomes such as Mesa, Birch Forest, Savannah, and many more. The worlds are also larger and you're able to build more things on one map. There are also different trees such as Dark Oak Wood, Acacia, Mega Spruce, and more. You can also enchant many more things and there are more enchanting books and potions. There are also more fish such as Salmon, Puffer fish, and Clown fish. Diamonds spawn more often in the computer edition. In the Xbox 360 edition it's almost impossible to find diamonds. In the computer edition you can also do mods like Shaders, Hexxit, and many, many more. It's much easier to record videos for Youtube on the computer edition. On the Xbox edition you either have to spend lots of money on special equipment, or try to do it with a normal camera which costs money, is hard to do, and has less quality.
Cooperative/socialist businesses(pro) versus Traditional/capitalist Businesses(con)

I will be arguing for a Free market, Competitive, Capitalist established businesses while my opponent will be arguing for a planned, Cooperative, and Socialist businesses. I will not be using my round 1 for arguments, as I believe the Affirmative should show the harms and need for change in any action. As per my opponents rules I will outline my own set of rules. 1st Moral arguments are weighed on impacts. 2nd Stay within your prescribed burdens. If you argue something that is on the fence, prove to the voter that it is topical to today's debate. 3rd No new arguments within the last round. 4th Impact calculation is the only weigh to judge the competing systems, and as such Impact calculation is the highest judging mechanism. 5th State your Impacts round 3 so we can attack/defend them. This should be fun. Good luck!
Cooperative/socialist businesses(pro) versus Traditional/capitalist Businesses(con)

Definitions of terms:"A cooperative (also known as co-operative, co-op or coop) is an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business" Capitalist business: Since capitalism is "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."[2] A capitalist business, is therefore a business that is privately-owned as opposed to cooperatively owned or state-owned. A capitalist business is considered private property of a business owner, and private property is " a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities ."[3] Thus a cooperative is not part of the capitalist system and differs from the traditional/capitalist business.Rules for debate (If any are violated I'll either not type in anymore rounds and let the debate forfeit, ask for the debate to be deleted, or point out that a rule was broken and ask the voters to vote for me for conduct since con would have violated a rule they agreed to)1) If con uses round 1 for debate, they must waive round 4 from any rebuttals or argument in order to keep the rounds used for argument by both sides equal. Simply state something like "I waive this round as agreed upon."2) Round structureA ) The round structure for con should be this if con uses round 1 for debate:Round 1: Main argumentsRound 2: Rebuttal against pro's round 2 argument, ie: point out any fallacies, conflicting statistics/facts, etcRound 3: Defense against pro's round 3 rebuttalRound 4: Waiving of this roundB) The round structure for pro and con(if they don't use round 1 for debate) should be this:Round 1: Outline of rules, acceptance, state your positionRound 2: Main argumentsRound 3: Rebuttals against round 2 main arguments, ie: point out any fallacies, conflicting statistics/facts, etcRound 4: Defense against round 3 rebuttal 3) Google docs or an external link to your argument is allowed if you prefer to use that, but don't go over the 10,000 character limit. A character limit is necessary so that neither of us posts much more than the other unless it's agreed upon, as that would put one at a disadvantage. In addition, the character limit is there so that readers/voters don't have to read an entire book. Pretty much everything is fair game, but keep in mind that if you use fallacies, they will be pointed out and that would weaken your argument. Any unbiased voter would penalize you for the use of fallacies by voting differently for the category of the most convincing arguments. I will be arguing that cooperatives are a better alternative to traditional businesses Source:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
My Application Form is good enough to make me pass the test to join IDS.

Dear sir: Thank you for your interest in our program. Unfortunately, it is my duty to inform you that you will not be accepted into the IDS program this year. Our review staff has analyzed your application and determined that it does not meet our quality standards. Specifically: 1. You have failed to properly fill out the form, having left the name and phone number section blank. 2. You have not lived in an English speaking country or tested for English fluency. We have no way of ascertaining your English language skills without some official document certifying a high degree of competence in English. 3. You have mentioned many online debate sites you attend. Online debates are exchanges in text format. IDS debates are matters of verbal exchanges. Your competence in one area does not assure us of your competence in the other. 4. Even if it did, your win-loss ratio on debate.org would seem to suggest that you are not a top tier debater on that site. Consequently, we find that this site is insufficient recommendation for our review purposes. 5. "Friends" is inappropriate material for developing English language skills. The characters in "Friends" use quirky phrases and expressions that can mislead an English language student. We are not impressed by you use of "Friends" in learning the English language. Moreover, you have at times confused past, present and future tense. Please review these tenses and their forms here: http://leo.stcloudstate.edu... Thank you for your interest in our program. We wish you all the best during your time here at Kyunghee University. Regrettably, we do not presently anticipate that much of it will be spent with us. Sincerely, Lexicaholic IDS President
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

Dear Pro. . . Thank you again for putting yourself out there. I hopefully will do better this time to provide a stimulating opponent. I am assuming (hopefully not in err) that same rules as last time. . . Can you link an acceptable dictionary on line for reference for definitions like “won” and such . . . And a page that references “Pascale’s wager” just the definition, so we have a mutual reference for it. . . . Dealer’s choice. . . I am familiar with Pascale’s Wager; I just don’t want us talking by each other on semantics as I know you abhor them. I am eagerly awaiting your argument. . .
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

Since an atheist asserts there is no God, then the atheist must also assert by default that Pascal's Wager cannot be won, because if it is possible for Pascal's Wager to be won and a person can gain eternal life or heaven by living the best or the most moral and or altruistic life possible, that would mean God is there to honor the Wager. Atheists assert God is not there. so the atheist must assert that it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager. On this, I agree with the atheists. It is not possible to win Pascal's Wager. For my opponent to argue that it is possible to win Pascal's Wager, he or she must agree that God is there to make it possible. If God is not there, it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager, and in this debate my opponent is excluded from saying God is not there in order to argue it is possible to win Pascal's wager. I say it is not possible to win in Pascal's Wager.
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

Dear ProThank you for your views. I would debate you on many things as I truly enjoy your debates, though obviously for different reasons. By the way, thank you for posting a dictionary in the closing remarks, rather than the opening remarks. If you had done it sooner, we might have actually had a debate. Rebuttal 1 - TermsI didn"t want to go forward with ill-defined terms or a statement I felt was misrepresentation of atheist point of view (as theist are want to do in many cases in representing those of others faith or my point of view). Rebuttal 2 - ConcededNot arguing in the way you wanted, you started a debate elsewhere and admitted you don"t take this one serious. Rebuttal 3 - your round 1 claimIn round 1, your statement supporting you is false. Pascal"s wager is not a claim by Atheist. We do not go around Pascal wagering people in opening remarks of debates. It is specific response to a ridicules claim by theist of "what if you"re wrong". It shifts the bop back to the theist to prove you are right, not we are wrong. Rebuttal 4"Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree. " For this to be true, you would have to admit there is no way for you to know your specific faith is right. You however believe in a very specific well defined god who miraculously agrees with you on everything. YOU DO NOT AGREE with Pascal"s wager, which means your original statement is false as you have chosen a ticket(specific faith) for Pascal"s wager. Closing You are pro. You say repeatedly it"s not possible, you believe it is not possible, and chose a single source to support you. You as Pro, not Me as Con, have the BOP, and did not bother to debate till your last round. I feel that my pre-emptive rebuttals are sufficient in previous statements.
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

Dearest and loveliest of Cons, My argument from the beginning of this debate has remained unchanged and unchallenged by you except when you attempted to insist I am not using the proper definition of "atheist". The strength of your misguided position rests on your assertion that I am using an incorrect definition of "atheist" in order to assert that since an atheist believes there is no God, it is not possible for an atheist to win Pascal's Wager; as Pascal's Wager implies it is possible for God to be there while atheism says there is no God. Your accusation of my misinterpretation of the word "atheist" is in your words "If you use the correct definition of atheist your argument and claim falls apart, completely." at the end of your Round 2 argument, and you seem to be standing by this concept attempting to disprove the fact that a person who says there is no God cannot possibly believe there is anything to win for them in Pascal's Wager, because Pascal's Wager is based on the premise that it is possible God is there. Supporting my assertion and definition of the word "atheist" is the Webster/Merman Dictionary which states very plainly the definition of the word "atheist" I am holding to is correct. I never imagined the meaning of the word would have been broadened and obscured by modernists such as yourself, Modernistic evolution of the meaning of the word would require a new word to replace "atheist", and the correct word for the broadened definition you are trying to ignore my argument with would be "agnostic" This debate is not about agnosticism . I do not require any dictionary definition of any word I have used in this debate, but for your sake and the sake of voters who may be trying to make an honest decision in who had the better arguments here, as much as I disdain muddying a debate by denying understanding of simple words, the Merman/Webster definition of atheist is here:http://www.merriam-webster.com....
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

My Dearest Pro... Thank you for your response. I am sorry you’re frustrated over the definition of words. Perhaps if you offered a dictionary in the beginning like I asked, this would not have happens. But thank you for acknowledging that you do not read responses or take them seriously. As you have posted a link in the comments to a dictionary term, I would suggest that you look down where several people actually put in a complaint on the term. Also that was 5th in my link for google, 4 in yahoo search and it didn't even show in the first page of MSN. I do not think you were being intellectually honest when you put that page, but specifically looked for the first thing that confirmed your bias. However I fully admit that most theists have no idea what an atheist is. As for your response. I am still waiting for you to present an argument to your claim.