BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Change the date of Australia day

I believe that the date of Australia day should be changed so that it is more inclusive to the indigenous people of our country. The current date of Australia day is January 26, the day recognised by history as the invasion of new Holland, as it was then known. It was (as noted by the age newspaper in the article the problem with Australia day) "an event which began a chain of disastrous consequences for the indigenous". If it were not for the arrival of "the white man" on Australian shores today"s aboriginal descendants would not have most of the problems they face within society. For example aboriginals were forcibly removed from the land they held sacred and placed into reserves where British ideals were forced upon their culture. In many cases their children were taken from them and their entire communities suffered great emotional turmoil for generations. The Australian Bureau of Statistics states that "one in every three aboriginals experienced high levels of psychological distress, more than twice the rate for non-Indigenous Australians". "Rates (are) particularly high among victims of violence (46%), people with a disability or long-term health condition (43%), and those who had experienced discrimination (44%) or removal from their natural family (39%)." So why should we celebrate everything our beautiful country has to offer on the day that the oppression of the indigenous people began?
Change the date of Australia day

It has been said that it is not worth celebrating but i believe that is false. The 26th of January is definitely worth celebrating because we have developed a lot together as a country since 1788 and who knows where we would be right now. Despite some things that have happened in the past, the Aboriginals should forgive and forget the previous events, as our country has already apologised many times in the past. Despite some things that we have done to the Aboriginals, we have spent billions on them but they still seem to reject our apologies. Australia Day has become a tradition. We began celebrating Australia Day in 1994 and celebrate it every year to recognise the date of when the first fleet came to Australia and also the raising of the Union Jack. In my opinion, the date for Australia day should stay the same because we have been celebrating Australia day since 1994 and so why would we change the date now?Australia day is the day where all of Australia"s states come together to celebrate our achievements as a country and to look at how far we"ve come. Due to the American Revolution, convicts couldn"t be sent there anymore so they were sent over here. When the English decided to move to Australia, they hadn"t realised that the place was already inhabited by other people and they possibly couldn"t understand what the Aborigines were saying and they must've also been confused so they shouldn"t be blamed for the decisions they made. On the 26th of January, everyone gathers to recognise our new citizens and our progress throughout the years and we also think about how we can improve our country so that is why we shouldn"t change it.
Does god exist

1. Just look at the complexity of our world, everything is designed with a purpose, and I don't believe that this all could've happened by random chance. The universe is like a perfect clock, the conditions on Earth are just perfect for life: not too close or far from the sun, perfect size, water, oxygen, stays in constant orbit, perfect moon, oh, and did I say water? 2. First cause: The universe had to have been created by something, the universe couldn't just come from nothing. I'm almost certain that something can't come from nothing. There had to be some creation, maybe like in Genesis, or maybe like the Big Bang, but either of those had to have a cause. 3. When atheists say they have looked for God but never found him: "The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman." 4. People know the difference between good and bad, so in my opinion, there has to be something that is absolutely good: "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." 5. Also, some very smart men (probably smarter than you or I) have believed that there has to be a god, such as: Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein, and many more. 6. The universe operates by uniform laws of nature, someone must've put these into place. 7. God pursues people, he wants people to believe in him. A lot of people have become believers after God has spoken to them, or saved them. 8. Jesus: Jesus' historical existence has pretty much been confirmed, and his Divinity has been documented by many reliable sources, not just the Bible. By the way, I believe that evolution was a possibility, and if so, it would have been a tool that God used, and he had a plan from the very start.
Does god exist

Hello. 1. pro will go first, then in the final round put : "Nothing" to make it fair. 2. The BoP is on pro, to show that god is real. 3. FF's, count as conduct. 4. Anybody who accepts this also accepts that this will be a serious debate. 5. We will be arguing for the biblical god. If pro does not follow all of the rules, pro loses the debate.
Does god exist

I'm very sorry. I was almost positive that pro had forfeited the debate. I have some theories on what happened.,but I humbly apologize and ask that you give him Conduct points. Thank you. Yet because I lost conduct, this will be just that much more interesting. :The Multiverse is just an IDEA, which means that there is literally no scientific proof of it. I thought that was what you atheists wanted right? Proof?" In this argument I asked my opponent to: Say why we should accept god over the multiverse. He has not answered the question. He also conceded to the simultaneous causation theory. Pro has failed to prove why there is a god. The BoP is on him to make arguments, I only have the job of refuting them. Pro is failing. "Have you ever heard of wisdom of the crowd? It states that as individuals, humans are often wrong, but as a group, the average is incredibly accurate. I am comparing this to the fact that for thousands and thousands of years, mankind has believed in some kind of god or gods. Most (if not all) of these believers have been wrong , but it all points to some kind of deity. There have been about 109 billion humans to have ever lived, and I heard somewhere that more than 90 billion believed in a supreme being(s)" Yet not the biblical god. That is what we are debating. Proof of simultaneous causation: "Kant gave the example of a ball resting on a sheet. The cause of the curve on the sheet is simultaneously caused by the ball. Experiments in quantum entanglement by Alain Aspect show that when the spin of one photon is affected, it instantaneously causes an entangled photon to take the opposite spin" Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof. He does however, rightfully deserve conduct. I have proven simultaneous causation is true, so we do not need to assume it's god. THE ABOVE IS VERY SCATTERED, EASILY REFUTABLE ARGUMENTS WITH POOR GRAMMAR INVOLVED. IT'S CHRISTMAS, AND THIS TOOK ME ABOUT 5 MINUTES....
Does god exist

Sorry to disappoint, but I didn't forfeit. "Yet it doesn't matter. He only tells me that he doesn't think it's likely, he only asks if simultaneous causation is simultaneous, (which it is) I still extend my arguments. He did nothing to disprove a multiverse. 1.) To prove that their is a god, there has to be a need for one. 2.) There is no need for a god to show the mechanics of our universe 3.) There is no god." I simply want you to explain how the simultaneous causation is logical. Is there anything in our known universe that's cause and effect is simultaneous? Just think about it using the grandmother-mother-daughter analogy, it simply doesn't make sense. I would like to ask you, why accept the multiverse or simultaneous causation over God. Also, I can't disprove your multiverse or simultaneous cause, but I'd like you to disprove God. 1.) OK, why is there something instead of nothing? 2.) Are the mechanics of our universe just random happenings also? 3.) Have you ever heard of wisdom of the crowd? It states that as individuals, humans are often wrong, but as a group, the average is incredibly accurate. I am comparing this to the fact that for thousands and thousands of years, mankind has believed in some kind of god or gods. Most (if not all) of these believers have been wrong , but it all points to some kind of deity. There have been about 109 billion humans to have ever lived, and I heard somewhere that more than 90 billion believed in a supreme being(s). "I thought for some reason you forfeited... Sorry mate. But I still extend all arguments. Saying it's an idea does nothing to refute it. I asked you why we should accept god over the multiverse/Simultaneous causation." Exactly, and you have yet to disprove God. You have only provided alternates to God, most of which are irrational and illogical. Just because God created a universe that we can't fully understand, doesn't mean that we need to try to think of ways other than God from which it was created. Lastly, I would like you answer one question. Why is there something instead of nothing?
Should we allow a 5th phase of the keystone pipeline? (theoretical)

Heidi Heitkam, with her signature on the quoted letter to Obama, had taken $162,300 from oil & gas donors and lobbyists, ranking that mark at her #4 industry contributor. TransCanada had spent $3,850 in donations and $1,060,000 in lobbying. This is important do to the very possible conflicts of interest that could come from those democrats involved in the letter -- a letter that's sole purpose is to rush a decision. And, while they are correct that energy independence will grow over the next few years, they are dead wrong that it is reliant on, or even as an effect of the Keystone Pipeline. While, upon further study, I have found reason to retract my statement "only a ... small amount will go to America .. ." it is still not the pipeline that will increase energy independence. While experts do in fact say that U.S refineries will be the main buyer, the oil that will be bought and sold by the refineries is not what the rest of the world is buying. Patterns show a shift toward natural gas and away from crude oil -- the kind of oil carried by the pipeline. The price of crude oil is already decreasing due to overproduction, and the pipeline will likely cause prices to rise again. The initial rise I'm talking about is the rise due to the 1973 OPEC decision not to ship oil to western countries. If this were to happen again, the U.S, would still "produce more natural gas ... than the entire Middle East." In conclusion, The Keystone Pipeline, owned by a company with a history of spills, has the capacity to leave hundreds of mils worth of people with contaminated drinking water, and support Fracking, while creating only 35 jobs, producing a declining oil, and possibly create an energy independence that will be reached with out the danger of this pipeline. The passing of any such bill as H.R.5682 would likely impede the progress of the nation.
Should we allow a 5th phase of the keystone pipeline? (theoretical)

I would like to start by saying that the keystone pipeline as some Democratic Senators said and I quote "increase our drive towards North American energy security and independence" - http://keystone-xl.com.... Also the US gets their oil from OPEC meaning we are basically apart of them. I believe I misspoke when I said stops, they did only once in the 70's, but this will not happen again, because most of the oil will come from Canada. Also we will still receive more oil from US soil then we do currently. And as the senators and many others say we will create more jobs, increase economic stability, and move us closing to energy independence.
Should we allow a 5th phase of the keystone pipeline? (theoretical)

Bill Cassidy -- sponsor of H.R.5682 had made a similar claim to the creation of "9,000 American jobs" in a statement saying "If the president wants to be on record [apposing the creation of 40,000 jobs], so be it." Though 9,000 is a much closer number to the reality of jobs to be created, it is still a brazen overstatement. The true number of jobs to be created is a mere 35, where the number claimed only coincides with supported, preexisting jobs. Those jobs also do not lead to U.S energy independence. The pipeline will mostly work to export oil from Canada, through America, and onward. Only a significantly small amount will go toward America, let alone for commercial use. The U.S. not only isn't a member of the OPEC but the only case of OPEC regulation having an effect on the U.S. is do to favored ideas. The Idea that the OPEC is stopping the U.S. from producing oil is entirely misleading, not to mention the implication (at best) that the creation of a private interest pipeline that would need it's own set of regulations would overturn any such alternate reality. This pipeline also would not increase the amount of oil gained from U.S. land. It is merely a way to transport Canadian oil, in fact, the U.S oil mining sites and refineries that will be reached are at the end of the line. In the event that new oil mining sites are created, those are separate projects and will not have price cut down do to the pipeline being their when it comes to construction. Not knowing how to lead into this paragraph smoothly, I will plainly confront my opponent in saying: the company in charge of this pipeline has a spill rate of one a month. Did you really get that adding to the immensely to the chances of a spill will decrease that number? And, assuming that you mean gas prices when you say "case prices" experts estimated gas prices to go up assuming the fourth phase pass. You don't have to take my word for it. Just sift through the links when I add them.
Should we allow a 5th phase of the keystone pipeline? (theoretical)

The Keystone Pipeline is a huge part of rebuilding the economy. Not only will it give 9,000 Americans jobs, but give us energy independents. No longer will we suffer the oppression of OPEC who stops us from getting oil, but we can now drill our own oil. This will also decrease oil spills on our land and decrease case prices. SO it appears Tax payers will get a lot for their money.
Should we allow a 5th phase of the keystone pipeline? (theoretical)

This TransCanada owned, more than 2,000 mile long pipeline will, with all taken into account, take more government money than it will produce, even though only 12% will be "federal, state, or local" land. In fact, it is estimated that local authorities would lose $50 million. This means that the U.S tax payer's money would be going towards private coorperate interests with, at best, only a percentage in return. The financial aspect, though an obvious concern, is not the main concern. What could possibly be worse than taking U.S tax payer money, putting it toward private interests, and putting our government in more dept? The destruction of the environment around us. The environmental risk is so great that, to fully grasp it, you have to realize the connection between the pipeline and a slightly unrelated issue, fracking. The process of fracking is hydraulically forcing chemical cocktails into the earth. By doing this, fracking sites create veins in the ground. This already dangerous process is made even more dangerous when you take into account the Halliburton loophole leading to little to no regulation. As a consequence of this, a 2009 water well explosion led to the known contamination of 4 home's drinking water. When you take into account the more difficult to detect (by the average citizen) carcinogens in the cocktails, the only way to get a better idea of the true effect this had is to look at the cancer rate running through the time of the explosion of 494,000. Even looking at the support this pipeline gives to this process, the surprisingly greater threat this pipeline poses lies simply in it's existence. Turning the 100,000 to 555,000 barrels per day, this substantial number is made even greater when taking into consideration this number represents the stickier, heavier, dirtier tar sands oil. If transCanada's history of "one spill a month" is enough to be cause for major concern, putting that next fact that, in the event of a spill, this pipeline has the capacity to spill 5 million barrels per day into a major river making water undrinkable for hundreds of miles, that the pipeline is not equipped to support tar sands oil, and that the Keystone Real Time Detection System won't register less than 700,000 gpd, the magnitude of concern this pipeline should pose becomes monumental. And, through all this, the thing that can not be escaped is that U.S tax payers will take part in funding that, and, mathematically speaking, will get nothing in return.
Should we allow a 5th phase of the keystone pipeline? (theoretical)

resolved: Those like the previous bill regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline should not pass through government sectors with the current state of regulation. definitions: Keystone XL Pipeline: A Crude Oil Pipeline stretching from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to Cushing, Oklahoma, U. S. A and Patoka, Illinois, U. S. A with the capacity to carry 830,000 barrels a day The previous bill: H. R.5682 sponsored by Bill Cassidy with three republican cosponsors "To approve the Keystone XL pipeline's forth phase. "
The government stealing from you and giving it to someone else.

Morality begins with the choice to live. Because life for humans can only be sustained through conscious action (such as obtaining and consuming food), anyone who disagrees with this choice is not here to debate the matter. In order to secure one's life, it is necessary to have property, i.e. to assure that what one makes will remain under the control of the maker until he gives it away. To imagine trying to live without property, one need merely control none, i.e. don't eat, etc. In order to secure your own property, you must, of necessity, not threaten the property of others- you are not more powerful than they are, and so cannot maintain such a system. Denying one piece of property on arbitrary grounds (which government taxation does to many pieces of property) opens the door to the denial of all property on similar grounds. You say "But I only want to take a little of the pie for the poor..." No. Wealth, you see is not a pie handed out automatically, waiting to be distributed. Wealth is created by volition. To the extent that man can expect to have the fruits of his labor nationalized, man will not create more wealth. You want to help the poor? Allow more wealth to be created. Employment will come down with the inexorability of a law of nature, demanding new hands to continue the growth in wealth. In the modern world, work is not merely a possibility for the healthiest of body, but for any man with a mind. You say your poor are too weak to work? Take a look at what Stephen Hawking has accomplished.They may have a lesser degree of mind, but if he can do what he has done, they can certainly accomplish something, if they have a mind at all. If you claim the poor you are speaking of have no skills, no rational faculty, no ability to do anything at all-- then frankly I can't see why you care about them. An insect has no mind either, but you still crush it. Why? Because morality is derived from man's mind-- and does not apply to those who lack it. A need is not always the same thing as a right. Rights are needs, but needs that are fulfilled by the party possessing them, asking no demand of anyone save to not interfere. The needs your "social programs" demand, are not rights but rather the antithesis thereof- needs demanded at gunpoint from parties not considered to possess them. If you deny my right to exist, and seek to replace me with a mindless automaton in the same body for the sake of providing for other mindless automata, you not only can have no rational expectation of my cooperation, but in the long run if you succeed consistently, you will destroy all minds and have no means left to live. Not only should men not be considered to exist for the sake of others, in the long run they effectively cannot.
The government stealing from you and giving it to someone else.

i guess i'm just confused. Do you honestly in your heart of hearts believe I meant that throwing them to the lions is meant literally? are you kidding? it's a euphemism. mother of god. anyway, let's get more to the point. you skated nicely around my point about "the expense of others." in no way is taxation related to self defense. nice try, but that's in no way the same. of course your self preservation comes first, but OF COURSE if you're in a position of such dire financial distress you won't be taxed. also, behavior designed to continue your life is misdirection. as I said, if you're in such dire financial straits then you won't be asked to give up your earnings to others. Thus, this question of "behavior designed to continue life" is in fact a non-issue, because the question pertains only to those with means not only to support themselves but those with enough excess to be taxed. we're not talking about survival, we're talking about greed. You are unwilling to give up some of your earnings for the benefit of others in need, and it is that simple. we as a society have deemed that it is our responsibility to care for those among us who cannot do so for themselves. The perceived injustice here is that you are being compelled to contribute, when in fact you should be compelled more readily by conscience than law. If you'll forgive a minor digression, I'd like to address an earlier retort of yours regarding Stephen Hawking. It's true that his mind has benefited mankind greatly, but it was not because of this that he was awarded to tools necessary for him to thrive in society. not only would there be no way otherwise to discern his incredible talents, but dispensing that equipment based on ability is a horrifying and terrible policy. It implies that ordinary people (speaking in terms of mental capacity) are less deserving of a fruitful life than geniuses. Speaking frankly, if the world were to abide by your social policy then we would never have the benefit of Stephen Hawking's tremendous genius. In no uncertain terms, I condemn this policy as inhuman, and I would remind you that a policy which rids the society of those who cannot contribute, as in the case of people with mental or physical incapacitation, is not only IMMORAL but was in fact the official policy of the Nazi Party. Taxation does not place your livelihood in danger. If you continue to make your points based on "behavior designed to continue life" then you surrender your credibility from this point forward. the simple fact is that not helping others while it is in your means is not immoral, but trying to stop aid for those in need is. The government has few means to raise funds and taxation is the foremost. More importantly our republican form of democracy ensures that the majority of people in this country believe that safe houses for battered women and food for the needy are more important than a new Xbox, and for that I'm thankful.