BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Persons Convicted of Pedophilic Crimes Should be Treated and Not Incarcerated in All Instances

I do agree with you in the sense that NOT being officially incarcerated in the correctional system does not contain the same message of punishment, but being sentenced to commitment centers for indefinite amounts of time definitely involves some message of punishment. Being locked up in these facilities does separate them from society, victims and their families. Thus, both parties are safe from either acts of revenge or re-offending on the part of the sex offender. I do agree with you that an investment should be made in treatment centers for victims, but the more "at risk" group is ultimately sex offenders, and we should allocate our resources on making sure potential victims are ultimately safe.
Persons Convicted of Pedophilic Crimes Should be Treated and Not Incarcerated in All Instances

Housing these specific offenders in commitment centers may benefit the offender by providing them with more beneficial treatments and therapists. But it still does not change the fact that these are offenders that have committed a crime that we are placing in treatment centers to treat them from a "so called" illness when in fact they should be punished for their actions. Incarcerating these offenders with the availability of treatment for this "illness" will benefit not only the offender but the the people of the society." The offender is being punished for their actions and the children are safe from the malicious actions the offender has caused." Rather than getting more treatment centers for the offender we should invest in treatment centers for victims by the offender.
Persons Convicted of Pedophilic Crimes Should be Treated and Not Incarcerated in All Instances

Regarding your first point, I still disagree with you because the ability to treat sex offenders does not necessarily depend on the amount of treatment centers that currently exist. Housing sex offenders in jail cost more than the average prisoner because of their "target" status and need for constant protection. Any treatment they receive in prison also adds to the cost. Housing these type of offenders in commitment centers can be costly too, but there are benefits to handling these type of offenders in this way. Simply opening up this kind of facility increases job opportunities for people in the area. Sex offenders will not only get the protection they need, but the treatment they receive will be more beneficial to them because the therapists were specifically hired to deal with these type of offenders.
There is a religious instinct that explains much beyond religion.

I hope my opponent is ready for a snack, because I'm going to begin with some concessions. First, I must concede that there is no reason to expect evolutionary adaptation to ensure long-term benefits for the species, so I will discontinue my "seeds of our own destruction" argument. My opponent has gently but eloquently quashed it. Second, my opponent has presented substantial evidence for the tribal instinct. Having Offered no sources of my own, I must concede that point. Having shed that weight, I'm going to refocus my attention on a contention that was present but less developed in my first round: Religions are outgrowths of encounters with the divine, and not just one of many possible outcomes from the combination of instincts that form what my opponent has suggested is the X instinct. Religion is an attempt to commune with or approach the divine. Almost all cultures engage in this activity not because of a common instinct, but because all people are divine. First, people are a part of the world—they are not naturally separate from it. Second, people in a sense create the world via perception (in the same sense that all perceiving entities create the world), and so they are gods of a sort. People seek to explain even phenomena that are of little practical use because these phenomena are of the world—and people are also of the world. In short, people have always sought to explain the world because this is a way of explaining themselves, a way of gaining self-knowledge. Of course, many people today care little about the workings of the world, but this is the result of bad education. Religions, originally designed to ritualize and facilitate interaction with the world, which is divine, were exploited to give people power over others. By teaching humans that they were separate from the rest of the world, these power-seekers made the divine appear to be Somewhere Else, rather than right here and in us, and they gained and continue to gain power by serving as intermediaries between humans and the so-called divine. Despite the admitted weakness of some of my contentions, the essence of my argument remains valid: religion cannot be explained, cannot be reduced to, a phenomenon resulting from the same causes as the quasi-religious situations my opponent has presented. I presented in the first round what I thought was, when combined with the pleasure-seeking instinct, an alternative explanation for why humans behave as though they have a religious instinct. That argument depended on survival needs, trial and error, and peer pressure. Rather than depending on the three instincts that comprise what my opponent has posited as the X instinct, my explanation combines pleasure-seeking behavior (to include survival) with actual divine experience. I maintain this alternative explanation, of learning-driven activity not dependent on instinct, alongside the possibility (probability) of a tribal instinct. Nevertheless, religion cannot be reduced to the outgrowth of a combination of instincts.
Relying upon science alone is faulty, as it cannot prove anything.

First, just some ground rules:TOPICALITY:Both sides must stay on subject. If someone strays away from topic, it is grounds for forfeit.STRUCTURE:Round 1: Acceptance only. No arguments in this round.Round 2: Openings. No evidence may be brought forward in this round, just give an overview of where your argument will go. You need not rebut the opposing side's opening either.Round 3: Constructives. Evidence is allowed here. Constructives can be rebuttals of the opposing sides opening, statements of your opinion, or anything that helps "construct" your case.Round 4: Rebuttals and closings. First, each side will rebut the other's constructive. Evidence is allowed in this portion. You may or may not choose to do a closing. If you do, note that no evidence may be brought in on this portion. Violation of any of these rules are grounds for forfeit.RULES FOR DEBATING:-Fallacious arguments have no place in this debate. However, if an argument is fallacious, and his/her opponent is unable to recognize it and point it out to the judges, that argument is not to be discredited. However, if the argument is shown to be fallacious by his/her opponent, that argument is to be deemed not binding in a judges final vote.-Slander and rude language are not allowed in this debate. -Vote fairly. In order to do this, make sure NOT to read the comments, as they may favor one side over the other. -Treat this debate seriously. I want to have a good, understandable, profitable debate, not someone arguing with equal signs (I'm looking at you, vi_spex). -The rulebook provided bellow will be used in this debate.Pro will argue that the reliance upon science alone is faulty, because of the reason that it cannot prove anything. Con will argue the opposite, that science can be used as a sole benefactor to truth, because it can prove at least something, and that this "something" is of enough value to make science the only source of truth.Apply in the comments. Looking forward to a great debate!David_Debates Rulebook:http://www.saskdebate.com...
Relying upon science alone is faulty, as it cannot prove anything.

First of all, the resolution is not what my opponent says it is in his last post. As you can see from the title, the resolution is "Relying upon science alone is faulty, as it cannot prove anything." This is different from what my opponent claimed the resolution was in his last post, namely "Relying on science alone is faulty, as it ignores many other realms of truth." These are substantially different resolutions - the former makes the radical claim that science cannot prove anything, whereas the latter only makes the claim that there is knowledge outside of science. Moreover, my opponent has not provided any arguments to support the resolution we are actually debating, which says that science cannot prove anything. I would like to remind readers of Pro's stipulation regarding topicality: "Both sides must stay on subject. If someone strays away from topic, it is grounds for forfeit." Regardless, my opponent has made some arguments for an interesting claim that I disagree with, so I will address those in the remainder of this speech. My opponent's argument is essentially the following syllogism: 1. Science cannot deal with anything that is not measurable. 2. Emotions, morals, feelings, and societal systems are not measurable. 3. Therefore, science cannot deal with emotions, morals, feelings, and societal systems. I will be objecting to premise 2 of this argument. First of all, my opponent claims that science can't just ask a person if they are happy, they have to ask them how happy they are, why they are happy, etc. This is not true - saying "I am happy" is a measurement. Happiness refers to a delimited area on the spectrum of emotions ranging from sadness to joy. When you say you are happy, you're saying "my emotional state is within such and such a range," which is a measurement. My opponent's requirements that we know how happy someone is or why they are happy are entirely unnecessary for scientific study. My opponent also claims that morality is incapable of being measured. I disagree with this - as an egoist, I think morality can be measured, by measuring an action's effects on our long term well being. Ayn Rand defended this position in detail in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics," which you can read below. http://aynrandlexicon.com... To sum up, my opponent has not presented any arguments for the actual resolution we are debating and his arguments for the resolution he argued for are flawed. Thank you.
Relying upon science alone is faulty, as it cannot prove anything.

Opening statements:Relying on science alone is faulty, as it ignores many other realms of truth.First, definitions:Science: The study of measurable data to come to a conclusion based on that data.Relying: dependent upon.Alone: without any others.Truth: what is correct.There are many things that can be tested by science. I won't argue that science is no necessary in life. What I will argue is that relying upon science as the sole guide to find truth is faulty. Science relies upon measurable data. A scientist can't just ask a person whether or not they are happy, they need to know how happy that person is, why that person is happy, what made them happy, etc. A scientist can't just ask a person if they are in pain, they need to know how much pain that person feels, why that person feels that pain, and so on. In short, emotions, morals, feelings, and societal systems cannot be tested by the scientific method. These are still important elements of life, and reliance on science alone is to ignore other realms of truth.Thus ends my opening. Con?
You are God, and I do not exist.

For the philosophers... Okay, by 'God' I mean you are the creator and controller of the Universe, although you may not realize it. Consider this, all of your senses, thoughts, perceptions, and emotions are the result of neurological reactions to various stimuli. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say that your "brain" creates these senses without you actually encountering them in a true, physical world. Everything you see, feel (emotionally and physically), smell, and hear, is nothing more than a product, or fabrication of your own mind, including me. Your computer, this website, this debate, and I have all been created by your mind to entertain itself. In your created reality, you will respond to this debate, and then you will fabricate my response in return. Just because you don't realize this is true doesn't mean you can prove it is false. My [as if I exist, but I don't ;) ] hope for this debate is to produce arguments attempting to prove that this cannot be true. I will say this isn't possible, for everything you've ever read, heard, learned, and believed has just been a fabrication of your own mind. And voters, don't vote based on your personal beliefs, rather vote on whether or not you think the responder has proven the statement wrong, as I have explained it in this opening argument.
Pokemon is racist

I. My point about physical dictionaries counters this, so I see no further need in explaining myself. II. Pokemon does not force certain ethnic groups to have a lower quality of life, it stereotypes. As I have argued the whole entire debate. III. Oh ok, thank you for clarifying this for them. IV. Alright then, 3 and 4 haven't be to major have they? V. Doesn't matter, more people view Merriam Webster definitions via all the mediums. It is irrelevant if printed books are outdated. Which in my opinion they are not. CONCLUSION: My opponent has not proved Pokemon is racist but that it stereotypes. Meaning that it is a matter of definition not a plain fact as he put it.
Pokemon is racist

I. Dictionary.com is better to use than Merriam Webster because more people have learned their version of certain word's definitions. II. It says USUALLY, not always. Jealously could be a cause of racism. For example, the Muslims hate the Jews because they own Israel. The Muslims are jealous that the Jews have Israel. 'belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement,' This part of the definition means that racist people believe that everyone of a certain race is the same. III. I pulled up the definition of stereotype because a small amount of the voters might not know what it means. IV. I was predicting what you were going to say in your argument. V. Real physical dictionaries are out dated.
Pokemon is racist

First off thank you for the quick response, and a informative one at that. Anyways on to my argument: I. It is not a better definition, it is one that suits your argument. Also dictionary. com being better than Merriam-Webster is an opinion not a fact. This is totally unrelated though, onto the meat of the argument. II. Now let me dissect your "definition". "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. " Yes they might show only black people playing basketball and football, that doesn't mean that they are lesser people because of that. Racism is thinking your race is superior, not stereotyping. This definition even helps prove my point, I don't see how this enhances your argument? III. Next, you simply get the definition of stereotype and pull that up to prove your point, you still don't explain how pokemon is racist. Just further argue that it stereotype, which is not racism. IV. "I know that you are going to say that stereotypes are offensive, so I am going to start a counter argument. In the definition, 'A generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group. ' ( dictionary. com), it says that stereotypes are OFTEN offensive, not always offensive. " I have no idea what you mean by this, care to explain? You just defend your sources for no reason. V. Your argument here is that dictionary. com is better simply based upon the fact that more people view it. Despite that another 3x or 4x that read physical dictionaries. Leaving Merriam Webster much more widely read. Thank you for your response I await the final round. Still I think it stands there is no conclusive evidence pokemon is racist. My next post will be much less about rebuttals.
Pokemon is racist

Stereotyping is racism. As an argument to ' Stereotyping is not racism' I found a better definition of racism and stereotyping. Here is the definition to racism. http://dictionary.reference.com... 'a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement' ( dictionary.com) Stereotyping shows the difference between the different races. Here is the definition of stereotyping. http://dictionary.reference.com... 'A too-simple and therefore distorted image of a group, such as "Football players are stupid" or "The English are cold and unfriendly people." ( dictionary.com) 'A generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group. ' ( dictionary.com) I know that you are going to say that stereotypes are offensive, so I am going to start a counter argument. In the definition, 'A generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group. ' ( dictionary.com), it says that stereotypes are OFTEN offensive, not always offensive. Dictionary.com is better than merriam webster. Dictionary.com is more popular. 50 million people visit dictionary.com, while 40 million people visit merriam webster. Here is the evidence. http://content.dictionary.com...=(direct)%257cutmccn=(direct)%257cutmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=60890412 http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Pokemon is racist

Pokemon and Racism: I. You state multiple stereotypes, well yes all of these are true there is one glaring issue. Stereotyping is not racism, my link should support my argument . http://www.merriam-webster.com... A international dictionary brand has defined it as such. If Pokemon had in game laws where, for example. Black people could not own Pokemon, but every other race could. That would be racist, now if this were a debate over stereotyping it would be a totally different story.
Pokemon is racist

Pokemon is racist. The pokemon trainers in the game are based on stereotypes. This link shows the list of trainers in the sports arenas. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... All of the american football players are black. All of the basketball players are black. It is a well known stereotype that american football players and basketball players are black. there is also a black dancer, which is a stereotype. All of the soccer players are hispanic; I know this becuse of they have hispanic names. Their names are Tony, Roberto, and Marco. It is a sterotype that soccer players are hispanic. Another stereotype shown is that French people are artists. There is an artist named Pierre. Pierre is the French form of Pierre. It is a well known stereotype that French people are artists. there is a black belt named Lao, which is an asian name. It is a stereotype that Asians are good at karate. The scientists in pokemon are asian; it is a stereotype that Asians are smart.
The road right-of-way prevails over rights concerning cultural heritage sites.

I would first like to say that your title make absolutely no sense whatsoever. That being said, I think that it is more logical to conclude that this statement is false, than it is true.According to http://www.merriam-webster.com..., the definition of true:: agreeing with the facts : not false: real or genuine: having all the expected or necessary qualities of a specifed type of person or thingI will now compare pro's statement to each of these three definitions of true and show that it is in no way any of them.1) agreeing with the facts: not false Does the statement "The road right-of-way prevails over rights concerning cultural heritage sites" agree with the facts?What facts? Can it even be known from pro's statement what fact he is trying to state? I would say probably not. Therefore, if we cannot understand pro's statement to be something that can even begin to be compared to facts, then how can it agree with the facts? It would be a false statement to say that the facts contradict or even agree with a concept that cannot even be understood.2) real or genuinePro's statement is all smoke and mirrors, to say that it has any real substance is more than a stretch.3) having all the expected or necessary qualities of a specifed type of person or thing.Since Pro's statement does not seem to clearly refer to any type of person or thing, it would be false to say that it has the expected or necessary qualities of any specifed type of person or thing.Therefore I conclude that there is no truth to his null statement.
All should have there right to own a gun

If we didn't have war, we wouldn't need guns and protection from terrorists...so you are suggesting everyone carries around guns just in case a terrorist breaks into a random house and kills everyone in it? there are alot of safety measures in airports and security that keep us safe from terrorists. guns are unneeded for civilians. i think police, security/body guards and obviously soldiers ONLY should be allowed to carry them. again, if we didn't have war... :/ I don't think they should be permanantely banned--again it might provoke more ppl to illegally get guns...but i think we should try and see what happens.
All should have there right to own a gun

Well you say that "what if some hunter mistakes someone for a deer". Well they have hunting areas where you can only hunt and your suppose to have orange on. A gun is used to protect us from terrorists and helps fight in war. I know they shouldn't just sign a sheet of paper and say here you go, but that is why they have courses(training). I think most people should be required to take a gun safety course and be trained how to shoot one ,so if they wanted to own a gun then, they can. If they don't, that is fine. That doesn't mean they should, but a ban on guns. I like to shoot and yes i am a hunter. I like to shoot at targets and I go hunting. I eat what I kill because it isn't right to hunt for i sport and just leave the thing there for nothing. So if I didn't have a right to own a gun, then it would be harder to supply food, because not all people can supply themselves food with just money. If the president did put a ban on guns ,then the under cover cops could be arrested for owning a gun in there vehicles and if the president didn't let the police own a gun, then how would they stop raps, murders, and theft, because sometimes police are out numbered or they are not strong enough to restrain criminal's. Some do have tsars but how far can a tsar go when you try and apprehend someone? They are dangerous, but so are planes, cars, and boats. We do need them, but we also need guns for protection.
All should have there right to own a gun

The purpose of the gun is to kill or defend. The police should have it to protect the citizens. I think hunters should have some kind of protective license. Not something like, oh sign this, here you go. just to secure the safety of the people because what if a hunter accidently mistakes a person for a deer or something? who knows? it could happen. Like alcohol banning, it didn't work and it put up a huge riot, but I think that it could possible go either way with gun ownership, I mean, most people don't own guns anyway nor do many want to, and alcoholic drinks a little different because people drink it for pleasure. you can't really get pleasure with shooting other ppl unless you're psycho. but, i think whoever is president should try to ban gun ownership on some level and see how that goes down.
All should have there right to own a gun

Well most people already do have guns and there is no stopping it. If the law but a band on all guns except for law enforcers, then the crime rate may go up and i don't think the hunters and others would be happy about giving up there guns. That may lead to a riot ,also there will always be suicide by gun, or murder, or shootings in schools because they will never get rid of all guns that are held by the public.