BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date

My opponent's points were not correct as the day all the states in Australia united was in fact called Federation Day and was actually on January 1st 1901. My opponent also mentioned how Australia Day is a very historical day, which it is but today's generation sees it as a day that does not fully represent all citizens in Australia. To reaffirm my previous arguments, Australia day does not represent the multicultural country we live in. Every year many migrants and refugees enter our country and become Australian citizens. It"s 2016 and Australia day still doesn"t recognise the many other cultures that live in Australia, as we are a very multicultural country. According to (http://www.skwirk.com...) 25% of Australian"s were born overseas and since 1945 six million people have migrated to Australia.Currently Australia Day really only represent the day Europeans arrived on Australian soil. Moving into the future I believe we need to recognise all cultures as well as the original owners of the land. Currently Australia day being on January 26th doesn"t work for our population and there are numerous other dates it could be held on. Such as Federation day (January 1st 1901 when Australia became one country), when Indigenous Australian"s were allowed to vote (27th Of May 1967) and when the government apologised to the Aboriginals for the Stolen generation (February 13th 2008). These alternative dates would be better choices for the date of Australia day and are days of great celebration without being about only one culture. In Conclusion, January 26th should not be the date for Australia day. It does not fully represent the original inhabitants of Australia"s land as well the multicultural country Australia has developed into.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date

Before my opponent suggested that Australia day is a time of grief and sadness for the Aborigines but in fact it is a happy day that should be celebrated as we now reconcile with the aborigines and reflect on how we acted towards them back in the days. Australia Day 26th is a very historical day as it is the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain and the rising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove commanded by Captain Arthur Phillip, in 1788. Although Aboriginals call this day "Invasion Day" this was when Australia actually became Australia. Countries, for example America have their "National Day as 4th of July" because it was when they received their independence from Great Britain.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date

My opponent talked about how Australian"s have done a lot to reconcile with Indigenous Australian"s, but my opponet failed to mention how Australia day brings sadness to the Aboriginal people as January 26th 1788 was the day their land was officially taken off them. My next point is that, Australia day is a day of grief and sadness for the Aboriginals. Between 1788 and 1900 the major effects of European settlement took place. Colonization came with it"s horrible impacts on the native people of Australia and occurred in stages. The major killer of Aborigines was disease, Europeans brought smallpox, influenza and measles to populations of native Aboriginal tribes that had never encountered diseases before. Quickly these diseases spread through densely populated Aboriginal tribes, claiming many lives. As well as this European settlers didn"t recognise Aborigines as owners of the land and quickly began farming and building infrastructure while not considering Aboriginal culture. Europeans also brought alcohol and tobacco to Australia and Aborigines soon became addicted and lost touch with their culture. Not only does Australia day bring back days of sadness for the Aboriginal people but also loss of people particularly Aboriginal children. Australians now recognise this period (1910-1970) as the Stolen Generation, when Europeans took Aboriginal children away from their families. This was due to new government policies that tried to get rid of Aborigines all together. Europeans taught the Aboriginal children to reject their indigenous heritage and to adopt white culture. Their names were changed and they were not allowed to speak their traditional language after this some were adopted by white families, others were put in institutions and were regularly subjected to abuse. So the date of Australia Day should be changed so that Aboriginals don"t have to be reminded of the abuse their ancestors went through.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date

I believe that we shouldn"t change Australia Day. Reconciliation means the restoration of friendly relationships. In Australia"s case, the restoration of friendly relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. In the article "Day of Shame" by Andrew Bolt's it suggests that we non-indigenous have done a lot to make up for the wrongs we made towards the Aboriginals and made events to prove how sorry we such as: National Sorry Day (May 26), granted Aboriginal land rights, formal apology for the stolen generations, introduced Koori courts and spent billions to lift Aborigines out of poverty. Andrew makes a clear statement saying "No to the race-baiters. No to laws dividing us by race. No to those who want to shut down debate on all this and let's say yes to judging each other not by the colour of our skin or the race of our ancestors, but by the content of our character. As individuals." This statement clearly states that we should not debate on changing Australia day and to stop labelling people as racists just because of this one National day but say yes to judging other by who we are not our background, race or religion.
Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date

January 26th, Australia Day. It"s different for everyone but traditionally it is a day of great celebration for Australian"s to reflect on what happened 228 years ago. When Captain Arthur Phillip lead the First Fleet as well as 759 convicts to the Great land of Australia. The First Fleet arrived at Sidney Cove on January 26th 1788 and changed Australia"s history forever. Now Australia day, previously called Anniversary Day or Federation Day is a day which does not fully represent all Australians. I believe January 26th is not the right date for Australia as it does not respect Aboriginal culture or recognise the multicultural country we live in. My First point is that Australia day does not recognise the original custodians of our land. Before the Europeans came to Australia, Aboriginals were living off the land we now call home. After the Europeans arrived many Aboriginals were killed and taken away from their families, and soon most Aboriginals lost their sacred culture and connection to the land. Typically the history of Australia day has been a cause of unrest amongst parts of the population as they have commiserated with the Aborigines with regard to the plight and misery the day brings to their culture. Australia day each year marks a day when a population of people lost their homes, families and culture. The date of Australia day needs to be changed to include the inhabitants here before the Europeans and should include Aboriginal culture.
Believing Evolution theory is to call Christ a liar.

1) A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. 2) Jesus Christ believed in the literal beginning of creation shown in Genesis, revealed in Mark 10:6 (above) 3) To believe otherwise, for example evolution theory, is to call Christ a liar. My opponent must either; A) show Christ did not believe in a literal Genesis creation. B) show Genesis does not teach a literal 6 day creation. C) Show Mark 10:6 does not mean Christ believed in the Genesis account.
Believing Evolution theory is to call Christ a liar.

Evolution theory (here the broadest possible definition; that over millions/billions of years all life evolved from a single cell amoeba) is incompatible with Biblical theology in general and with Christian doctrine; specifically with the words of Christ: Referring to divorce, Jesus said " But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female'. " (Mark 10:6) Round one is for acceptance/definitions etc.
Believing Evolution theory is to call Christ a liar.

Arguments:Genesis 2 could not have referred to a new creation because: '(4) These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth:(5) And every plant of the field before it spring up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth. (19) And the Lord God formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. ' - Genesis 2:4-5 and Genesis 2:19 Every plant of the field, every herb of the ground, all the beasts of the earth, all the fowls of the air. This is clearly not some small-scale personal party. My opponent never specified a Biblical canon, so I feel fully justified in using the Wisdom of Yeshua ben Sirach, which is in the Catholic canon as affirmed by the holy Synods of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome. My verse from Sirach has never been treated with, accordingly the argument from it ought to be extended. Conclusion:While it is true that my response does not agree with a literal reading of the text, it would still be sufficient to negate the resolution, given that it should be my opponent's burden to show that I am very likely wrong (thus implicitly calling Christ a liar). Sirach and Genesis having been considered, I do not think that potential creation can be ruled out, and I have not seen tremendous affirmation of a literal six day creation.
Believing Evolution theory is to call Christ a liar.

ROUND 3 REBUTTAL. My opponent has not addressed my rebuttal concerning Genesis 2: A genuine response could have begun; Genesis 2 could not show another new creation because.. The book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible only has 12 chapters and so the verse above is extra Biblical and not relevant to this debate. My opponents response concerning Jesus' meaning concerning 'God created them male and female' to be a potential male and female does not agree with a plain reading of the text. CONCLUSION. My opponent has provided no evidence to show that Jesus or the Bible teaches anything but a literal 6 day creation, or responded to my rebuttals.
Believing Evolution theory is to call Christ a liar.

Rebuttals: Contention One As I wrote before, Genesis 2:4-5 and Sirach 18:1 disagree with a six day creation. '(1) He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever.' - Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 18:1 '(4) These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: (5) And every plant of the field before it spring up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.' - Genesis 2:4-5 In the day (singular) that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: and every plant...' He made heaven, earth, and every plant in the same day according to this. Yet, the literal six day creation according to Genesis chapter 1 says 'In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.' (1:1) and '(12) And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.' (1:12-13). The first day and the third day, if they are literal days, cannot be the same day, yet it is said that every plant and the heavens and the earth were all made on the same day according to Genesis 2:4-5. Therefore, you must either concede that the six day creation is not literal, or you must provide some other way to harmonize these. Contention Two I was saying that God made humans male and female potentially from the beginning of creation. Before they had actually come to exist, He made things such that they would become male and female. Conclusion I do not think my first contention has been adequately addressed. Thank you.
Believing Evolution theory is to call Christ a liar.

ROUND 2 REBUTTAL. 1) My opponents confusion over Genesis chapter 2 is readily explained; it takes only a literal reading of the text to do so: As seen in Genesis chapter 1 God created everything in 6 literal days and rested on the 7th day. Chapter 2 goes back to the 6th day to give us an in depth view of the creation of man: God places Adam in a garden (a controlled environment) and had a BRAND NEW MINI CREATION just for Adams benefit. Hence Adam was accountable to God and Eve was not. This explanation refutes all of my opponents Genesis verses. 2) My opponents contention that Christ (when referring to God 'making them male and female in the beginning' Mark 10:6) is not referring to humanity but to animals, is exposed as false only when we view the text within the context of the preceding and following verses: Mark 10:2-9 2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God "made them male and female."[a] 7 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh."[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." The context here is obviously humanity, not animals.
Pokémon Battle: Kyogre vs. Groudon

As I have noted in the comments section, Groudon's HP EV count is actually 192. This is logical, because it fits the stats that were given, and maximizes EV's. Groudon's HP was initially 389. I have talked with my opponent, and he has agreed that critical hits are negligible enough that we are going to ignore them. The scenario involving no critical hits shall end up having a probability of greater than 50%. Groudon used Bulldoze! Kyogre took 81 damage! Kyogre's HP dropped to 261! Kyogre's Speed fell! Due to the decrease in Kyogre's speed, Groudon is now faster. It is my turn again. Groudon used ThunderPunch! Kyogre took 136 damage! Kyogre's HP dropped to 125! I shall note that due to the fact that no moves in this battle are based on luck, and nothing in this battle changes after a turn in which nothing happens aside from Kyogre using Protect and Groudon using some other move (aside from a loss of PP), Protect will have no effect in this battle. Any turn during which my opponent uses Protect, I will simply use the same move I was going to use previously: ThunderPunch.
Pokémon Battle: Kyogre vs. Groudon

My opponent's calculations for Groudon's stats are incorrect. With a Base HP of 100, 102 EVs in HP, 31 IVs in HP, and a level of 100, Groudon should have 100 * 2 + 100 + 10 + 102 / 4 + 31 = 366 HP. Kyogre uses Water Spout! 6.25% chance: It's a critical hit! It's super effective! Groudon took 506 damage! Groudon's HP dropped to 0! Groudon fainted! 93.75% chance: It's super effective! Groudon took 252 damage! Groudon's HP dropped to 154! Groudon used its held Sitrus Berry! Groudon restored 91 HP! Groudon's HP rose to 245! Your move, mongoose.
Pokémon Battle: Kyogre vs. Groudon

Species: Groudon Type: Ground Ability: Drought Nature: Sassy Attacks: Bulldoze, Thunderpunch, Earthquake, Stone Edge Held Item: Sitrus Berry EV Spread: 102 / 64 / 0 / 0 / 252 / 0 Stats: 389 HP / 352 A / 316 D / 236 SA 306 SD / 194 S When a battle begins with two Pokemon with weather abilities, the ability of the Pokemon with the lower speed wins. Therefore, it is currently Sunny Day. My Pokemon is slower, so my opponent gets to attack first.
Pokémon Battle: Kyogre vs. Groudon

This will be a one-on-one battle between two legendary Pokï¿½mon. I will use Kyogre, and my opponent will use Groudon. Each turn, we will each choose one attack to use from our respective Pokï¿½mon's movesets. We will each declare all information of our Pokï¿½mon before the battle begins. All information must be compatible with the 5th Generation of Pokï¿½mon's rules, invoking no glitches of any sort. I will post Kyogre's information first, and my opponent shall do the same. Species: Kyogre Type: Water Ability: Drizzle Nature: Modest Attacks: Ice Beam, Surf, Water Spout, Protect Held Item: Lum Berry EV Spread: 4 / 0 / 252 / 252 / 0 / 0 Stats: 342 HP / 212 A / 279 D / 438 SA / 316 SD / 216 S Rules 1. No use of semantics. 2. Each Pokï¿½mon may only attack; there is no running, switching Pokï¿½mon, or using items from the bag. 3. Both Pokï¿½mon are at Level 100 with maximum IVs, and a Nature and EV spread specified in Round 1. 4. The winner of the debate is whoever's Pokï¿½mon manages to Knock Out the opposing Pokï¿½mon. If neither Pokï¿½mon manages to Knock Out the other Pokï¿½mon in the alloted rounds, the debaters must argue that their Pokï¿½mon will, in the long run, win. 5. If my opponent's Pokï¿½mon is faster, they may start this round with an attack. Otherwise, the fight will begin in Round 2. Both Pokï¿½mon may not have the same speed. 6. In the case of any random events, every possible scenario must be debated. The victor would be whoever wins in the majority of scenarios, weighted by probability. For example, if Groudon were to use Fissure, he would have a 30% chance of victory, but if missing would result in Kyogre having a 100% chance of victory, then Kyogre would have a 70% chance of winning, thus winning the debate. All attacks that deal damage will deal the average amount of damage, although critical hits count as random events. I ask that any possible confusion regarding the rules be clarified in the Comments before accepting the debate. Good luck!
god or nut

unbrekable nutshell creation and destruction is impossible in reality, make an apple nothing imagination is false belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it I'm not sure what point you're exactly trying to make here, since you did not directly address any of my points. I'll address your arguments individually. "unbrekable[sic] nutshell" Well, if a nutshell is unbreakable, then it logically follows that the nut inside it can't be taken out; therefore, it must have a nut inside. Similarly, if it is unlikely for the universe to be created out of nowhere without divine influence, then it logically follows that the universe was most likely created. "imagination is false" Pro does not use any evidence to back up this point.
god or nut

the existence of religion=theists believe there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, and atheists believe there isnt, while the agnostic accepts he dosnt know, and that they ofc dont know either is it resonable to believe that there is a nut inside the unbrekable nutshell, when it could just be an empty unbrekable nutshell?There is an issue with your argument, as according to what we already know, it is unlikely for there to be no nuts in an unbroken nutshell; if a nutshell has not been broken, then it is impossible to take the nut out of it. As such, the analogy you used is, in my opinion, flawed.Alternative analogyHowever, we can use an analogy similar to yours, except instead of the nutshell, we have the entire universe, and instead of the nut, we have God. We must first establish several assumptions:1.It is unlikely for an entire universe to form via random chance combined with physical laws and gravity, as only quantum fluctuations can create matter out of nowhere natually, and quantum fluctuations are rare and their effects only last for a short time. [1]2.God can violate physical laws, such as the first law of thermodynamics.Then, we'll look at the two sides of the argument. It is unlikely that the universe was created by random chance, but it is likely for an intelligent entity to break physical laws and create the universe.SOURCES1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Argumenetive Essay Contest

Through the course of this debate, both my opponent and I will write three different short argumentative essays. The prompt for each essay will be provided by either opponent before the start of the round. The first, and last rounds will be off the flow in terms of judging, and will be for clarifications, greetings, and comments. Also my opponent should post my essay prompt in the comments section before posting his or her acceptance round. We will both follow this pattern, and post the essay prompts in the comments section. Also it is important to note, that positions for this debate are meaningless. Either of us may accept the Pro or Con position for our essays based on the given prompt. The prompts given my be silly or serious, the only real rule is that they be clean and appropriate. It is also important the prompts given should be on things that anybody would have access to information to. This debate, will not be a traditional debate in terms of rebuttals and argument extensions, but will focus more on the arguments made in the essays. Accordingly, when each side writes their essays, the focus will be on creating as persuasive an essay as possible. Not in refuting their opponent's statements. The format of what is written in these essays should be clear, easy to read, and have solid grammar (punctuation, spelling, organization, etc.) Make sure a thesis statement is included in each essay, but is not awkward or too obviously stated. Remember these are essays, not "speeches". No debate jargon. Each essay should be at least 6000 characters in length. And that's the essay itself, not counting sources or comments unrelated to the essay. If there are any questions or misunderstandings, please let them be made known in the comments section prior to acceptance.
Abortion is always wrong

The claim by religious groups that "Abortion is always" is a too dangerously simple phrase to use, as every abortion situation is different and the fact that the Catholic church recognises the tragic situation women are in that want to have a abortion, does not show compassion and understanding, but instead shows quite the opposite. Knowing someone's suffering but not helping them is not a moral thing to do in my eyes. In fact in any religious persons' eyes it should be seen as failure to act morally, as all religions have the idea of the sanctity of life in some sort of from; human life is sacred and belongs to God. Surely, in concern to Catholics, the teaching of "love thou neighbour as you love yourself" is more than enough reason to allow abortion in situations which are justifiable and a "lesser of two evils" ; mother is a rape victim as an example. However this does not mean I am a Methodist because I don't see abortion as always evil because in my opinion life doesn't begin at conception but rather at the point the foetus gains consciousness because that is when we start to develop as a person. Furthermore the idea of a potential person being equal to a living wrong is fundamentally flawed; how can a acorn be the same worth as a oak tree (Peter Singer). So I urge any religious fanatic to reconsider the topic logically and put themselves in that situation instead of referring to a book written thousands of years ago when abortion procedure didn't exist, or even referring to a religious official, as they have no more authority on this as you do as a individual.
"ADHD" is no more than misunderstood children, parenthood problems and a bad society.

"ADHD is not a problem. Its a symptom of a problem." Every debate has a common ground. This is as close as we got. though I'd like to modify it to say "ADHD is not a problem. Its an advantage". It is not negative, or a symptom of anything, it is a special way of operating that only a few get.