BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Australia Day should be changed

Although my opponent has mentioned that Australia Day should be a time to celebrate being a multicultural country, Aboriginals should be celebrated as they were the first people here. As I have mentioned before Australia day is a mourning day for aboriginals. With it bring a reminder of all the horrible events the Europeans put them through and the suffering and pain they received. The date of Australia Day should be changed so the Aboriginals get their say and so they receive the recognition and respect they deserve.
Why Australia Day should be changed

It"s tough when devastating things has happened to the Indigenous heritage. As I have mentioned, many Australian"s are sorry for that devastating era, but let us all co-operate by actually celebrating for the multicultural country we are today. When the first fleet arrived from England on January 26th, this marked the first day of Australia and is how Australia"s population grew to become a country of different cultures. As our country is full of different nationalities, Australia Day helps us to unite and celebrate. I do know the first fleet brought many conflicts, but because of the first fleet this attracted many people from around the world to live her, especially in times of crisis like the Vietnam War, so this is how we became a mixed race. Our diversity of cultures is something we should be proud of as not all countries has a country like ours. We have grown to all types of cultures, that each street in the city represents a nationality like Lygon Street refers to the Italian cuisine and Chinatown sells asian food and goods. In the word Australia, we already know it involves all types of cultures, so Australia Day is just another way to embrace our multiculturalism including the Indigenous heritage.
Why Australia Day should be changed

My opponent has mentioned that the change of date of Australia Day would not make an impact to the way Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals act towards each other so there is no point in changing the date, although they forgot to mention that protesting from Aboriginals will decrease the more respect they are shown. Secondly, after the first fleet a series of events occurred that affected the lives of Aboriginals. The stolen generation was one event that still to this day cannot be forgotten. The Europeans took aboriginal children away from their families. They were taught to reject their indigenous heritage and to adopt white culture. Every year on the 26th of January, these people are reminded of the hard time that were caused. The arrival also brought disease to the country we now call Australia which lead to many deaths of Aboriginals and Terror Staite Islanders. Smallpox, influenza and measles spread through densely populated Australian tribes. Europeans also brought alcohol and tobacco to Australia and Aborigines soon became addicted and lost touch with their culture. So the date of Australia Day should be changed so that the Aboriginals don"t have to be reminded of the abuse their ancestors went through.
Why Australia Day should be changed

But if we always think about the invasion, how are we going to move on from our wrong doings. Of course it is important to respect each of our opinions but sometimes we need to think, how can I help resolve the feud. I know it is hard to forget when the British entered this land, which started the beginning of the stolen generation, the discrimination against non-white people and the day when land and beliefs were stolen, which is why many people and I are sorry. Sorry for not respecting Indigenous Australians before, sorry for taking Indigenous children away from their children and I don"t think there is enough sorrys that can heal the amount of holes in mother"s heart, but I can say this, let us all think of Australia Day as a day where all races are reunited to celebrate the modern country we can call Australia. In order to do this we need to accept what has happened and do something fix the relationship. In my belief, it"s not the day January 26th that is causing all of this commotion, it"s the fact that we"re not all on the same page. We should only have one definition to Australia Day, but yet we have millions of different opinions, "Invasion Day" or "Day of Mourning" is just a few. Either way, people will still reflect on these words even if it is not January 26th. The physical abuse doesn"t just happen on Australia Day, but on days with no special occasions. In school we are taught to become better people to change the humanity of the world, but are we doing this? The amount of tears dropping from people"s eyes is miserable enough, so I ask you a question, if Australia Day was changed would there be no tears in people"s eyes, no violence or any type assault, because I don"t think so. It is the fact that we as humans need to make the humanity of the world a better place by actually uniting and supporting each other, not just for the sake of it, but for the next generation not having to think of one another in disgrace. So let us not change Australia Day to another date, because it won"t change anything, but change the way we respond to each other.
Iphone vs life itself

It seems my opponent is no longer with us, which is unfortunate because the question of the intersection of technology with our lives is definitely one that we must grapple with both as individuals and as a society. In the previous round, I advanced the notion that the choice cannot be between "life itself" and "iPhones" or technology generally because life does not end where technology begins. Rather, technology is an ever changing and increasingly demanding part of our lives. As that is the case, it would seem like even if life ended where technology begun, we would not want to make the choice between either technology (like iPhones) or "life itself" whatever the latter may entail. Rather, the more prudent and indeed desirable choice is of the extent to which social norms and conventions of human interaction ought to be reformed such that those who are physically present with us are not put 'on hold' by the virtual interaction we have with others on a screen. That does not mean that we, as a society, have to relegate technology even to the periphery of human experience. It rather means, that "new rules" of human interaction to account for technology's intersection with our lives need to be written. This assumes that we are not, as my opponent would suggest, choosing between one or the other. That's a choice that simply doesn't have to be made, which is why a ballot in negation is proper here. Many thanks to all judges who took the time to read this, even if my opponent FF'd. Peace and love, YYW
Iphone vs life itself

I'm not so sure that's a reasonable position to hold, because the question is not iPhone or life, but whether technology of various kinds has come to a place of significance in our lives where use of it precludes our enjoyment of other things. Perhaps, in light of technology's dynamic and changing role in our society and culture, that is an important conversation for us all to have -but that conversation can only be had when we're looking at the facts correctly. Here, you have posted an argument against technology which rests on the premise that life and technology are mutually exclusive; that is to say, that if someone is focusing on their iPhone, they are missing out on "life itself." But, that's not true unless we're going to narrow our conception of life to only include that which is not technologically related. This is ironic, because you are here, making that kind of an argument, on a site which is fundamentally predicated upon social interaction vis a vis social media through technology -but that's a secondary point. More salient is the question of whether life ends where technology begins, and that's just not the case because (1) when people use technology, they continue living, (2) even if the scope of an individual's focus may shift and result in people who use technology being distracted from things that are not technological, that does not mean that life ends where technology begins and (3) the solution implicit in your suggestion overreaches -because rather than forcing people to chose between your -narrow- conception of "life" and the technology which has become an integral part of many people's lives need not go that far. Rather, individuals need to chose for themselves when and under what conditions use of technology is appropriate for them and the circumstance they find themselves in -resulting in favorable social outcomes.
Creation vs evolution

im for creation and i believe it makes more since than evolution if you believe in evolution may i ask you a question okay here it goes if you believe that men came from monkeys who created the monkeys and those who say if god created everything at the same time doesnt that mean men lived among dinosaures no because after god made the earth and the plants and grass he made dinosaures and then he made the things like birds and lions and so on along with adam and eve.im looking for some one to debate this topic
Teens should not have to go to school

Thank you for debating with me, I guess I will just go for it. "If a teen doesn't go to school where would she/he go?" Where ever they would like to be, with or without there parents consent. They could just exercise a lot, they could be on this website arguing if that's what they would like to do. As I do realize if a teen doesn't go to school they have a lot of free time on their hands, but why go to a place where you learn nothing truly needed. "Waste of time is a false statement since school teaches you what you basically need to strive in society." And what exactly is it teaching me other than the 1% math/algebra that you could use in quite a few situations, off the top of my head, doing taxes, or working out prices for items. People sure don't need to know what year Christopher Columbus traveled to America to survive in today's society. "I don't believe school is a waste of money since America invest so much more money on useless things such as an endless war." I could argue about how you think the war is "useless" but that is an entirely different debate. "If a teen wants to get an electronics store he and she needs to apply for it by filling out a job application- This is where English comes in." Anyone can learn English, writing, grammar, by doing simple things as watching TV, or just going on the Internet. As far as the foreign language thing goes, there are many programs such as Rosetta Stone that you can learn a variety of languages from, while still being in the comfort of your own home. "You might be walking around a lot" All I have to say to this is that if you get tired from walking indoors for periods of time, it is just sad. "All school does is that it help you prepare for the future situation" How exactly is this? By wasting their time and making them work hard for nothing? "But make friends and team work builds." Yes, along with school you can gain friendly relationships, or more than friendly relationships, but you can also be exposed to fights, drugs, and very bad behavior. An example I have is through my high school years I have seen countless fights, 1 of which a kid had gotten a fractured jaw. I have seen many classmates get into marijuana and skip school, or just get into a lot of trouble with their parents or the police. I know of one who has been into Juvie and jail several times. With going to school there is a higher chance of being injured, having your life ruined by drugs (possibly) or being exposed to gangs, weapons, etc. One last thing I would like to say is that with the internet, school is definitely not needed. There is countless sites where you can learn math, science, languages, music, workouts, etc. Thank you for debating with me once again.
Teens should not have to go to school

Hi Tmass19. Thank you for this debate. Definition Have- to be required, compelled, or under obligation http://dictionary.reference.com... Rebuttal * "I would like to say that school should not be needed for teens. This is because 99% of the information taught is not needed." First I would like to point out that you should at least try to back up your statements with resources. If a teen doesn't go to school where would she or he go? * "The 1% being math/algebra, but only to an extent. Next, school shouldn't be needed because it is a complete waste of time, and money, since most of the stuff taught, isn't needed." School teaches different courses for different students. You just saying the 1% is math and algebra is false. Waste of time is a false statement since that a school teaches you what you basically need to strive in the society. I don't believe school is a waste of money since America invest so much more money on useless thins such as an endless war. School budget - $69.9 billion 2011 Military budget- $1.030–$1.415 trillion 2011 http://www2.ed.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... There is big difference between the two budget, this causes me to believe that School budget isn't costly. School does teaches information needed for the future and the students themselves can choose what they want to learn. * "Now here is my opinion, school isn't needed because I believe that when teens turn 16, they should then have to find a job/career, and with doing so, they should be taught everything they need to know about that job/career, at the place of employment. Example- If a 16 year old gets a job at, oh lets say an electronics store, they don't need to know where oxygen is on the periodic table, or how far earth is from the sun, they just need to know about the electronics." Okay if a teen gets a job at the age sixteen he or she could have learned all that at school. School classes are often broken down to these subjects. -English -Math -History -Science -Language -Extra -PE -ETC If a teen wants to get a job at an electronics store he and she needs to apply for it by filling out a job application. -This is where English comes in. Its an electronic store you might need to fix something. You can use your math and science skills. A customer might speak a different language, if you learned a foreign language you might be able to help. You might be walking around a lot. -PE comes in to play at this situation. The list is endless, you can't just say that the teen is not gonna need education by going to school. All school does is that it help you prepare for the future situation. Reasons School is a vital process in our lives. It is a place where we not only learn, but make friends and team work builds. School gives education that might seem unreasonable or useless, but the truth is that we don't know what we will do in the future and that education gave more variety for a job. School is something that can't be replaced it gives help that is needed in the future.
Teens should not have to go to school

Hello, I would like to first state that this is my first debate, and I am on this website to learn about a wide range of topics, and walk away with more knowledge, and facts then I currently have. With that said, I may not have very well arguments, and may be easily "defeated." Ok, so to start this off, I would like to say that school should not be needed for teens. This is because 99% of the information taught is not needed. The 1% being math/algebra, but only to an extent. Next, school shouldn't be needed because it is a complete waste of time, and money, since most of the stuff taught, isn't needed. Now here is my opinion, school isn't needed because I believe that when teens turn 16, they should then have to find a job/career, and with doing so, they should be taught everything they need to know about that job/career, at the place of employment. Example- If a 16 year old gets a job at, oh lets say an electronics store, they don't need to know where oxygen is on the periodic table, or how far earth is from the sun, they just need to know about the electronics. Hopefully someone accepts this, and good luck to whoever does, even though it isn't needed.
Cheetos are better than Doritos

Doritos are worse than cheetos in every way. I have three points to back this up. 1. Doritos aren't really cheesy anymore. The fact that Cheetos have stayed with the cheese shows that they know who and what they are. Doritos, on the other hand, have come out with many different strange "flavors". Some are alright, but most are nasty. This shows that Doritos are like Hillary Clinton, or like Mitt Romney. They change depending on what the people "want". 2. Dental experts agree that it is much healthier to eat Cheetos rather than Doritos because Cheetos are soft, whereas Doritos are hard tortilla chips. 3. Cheetos come in all shapes and sizes, whereas Doritos are ALWAYS triangles. This makes for a boring snack.
Cheetos are better than Doritos

My oponents first point can be argued. As for saying that cheetos sticks to cheese and flaming hot flavors, that is false. As I stated before, they have a flavor, Flamin' Hot Chile Limï¿½n, which is sprinkled with limon and lime flavoring. Cheetos does not vary taste often but instead, changes shape as a sales gimick. Which is more importiant? Good taste, or "cheesy" shapes? Pardon the pun. As far as dental hygene, both cheetos and doritos require brushing to remove cavity causing debree. Although, cheetos have more sugary ingredients and cavity causing chemicals. So if left unbrushed, it's more harmful than "hard" doritos. Should decoration mark superior taste as in the resturaunts you mentioned before, or should it mark an obvious sales gimick? Cheetos have a 70% success rate with new designes, while doritos have a 100% success rating. Conclusion: Doritos are more versitile, better for teeth, and use less sales gimicks. I have refuted all my opponents points.
Cheetos are better than Doritos

1. This is a major point in the debate, so I'll spend most of my time on this one. My opponent said, "My opponent did not argue with my point that cheetos are just as "fickle" as doritos. He or she is obviously dodging the fact that their main point applies to cheetos as well as doritos." Point One: I am a male. Point Two: I am not dodging the "fact" that my main point applies to Cheetos as well as Doritos. In fact, this is not a fact. I have pointed out that Cheetos have been extrememly consistant with both cheese and flaming hot. I do not use discontinued flavors of Cheetos when deciding whether something is better "now". My opponent does not want to agree to the FACT that Cheetos stick with their guns rather than trying to change flavors so they can sell more. If they were a good snack, they would stick to their guns as well. 2. My opponent said, "Find me someone who eats junk food in order to improve dental hygene, and I'll refute that point." I never said that people eat junk food to improve dental health, I said there is a lesser risk of oral pain with Cheetos rather than Doritos. It's pretty simple to understand. When Doritos break, they break into hard little fragments that can be wedged in between teeth causing discomfort. What do Cheetos do, turn your fingers orange? 3. My opponent said, "On your third point, maybe this is just me but, eating things because of their shape rather than their taste is toddlerish." However "toddlerish" this might seem, it still applies. We should look at this from all levels, INCLUDING toddlers. Why do Cheetos make puffs, asteroids, different shapes based on the hollidays? Because people like to be entertained while eating. It's the reason restaraunts "dress-up" plates for customers by catching it on fire or even a simple piece of lettuce. Conclusion: Now, this is the point when I tell the voters why I should win and all that, but I don't think I'm going to do that. All I'm going to say is not to be biased while voting. Pick who debated best. Thank You.
Cheetos are better than Doritos

First of all I didn't refute your second two points because they are pointless. Find me someone who eats junk food in order to improve dental hygene, and I'll refute that point. on your third point, maybe this is just me but, eating things because of their shape rather than their taste is toddlerish. Besides the triangle is a trade mark. I mean your eating it and it will taste the same no matter what shape it is. My opponent did not argue with my point that cheetos are just as "fickle" as doritos. He or she is obviously dodging the fact that their main point applies to cheetos as well as doritos consider your points refuted.
Cheetos are better than Doritos

No offense taken. I'm not sure where my opponent got "Cool Ranch Cheetos", but on the official Cheeto website says the flavors of "Cheetos Snacks Crunchy", "Cheetos Flamin' Hot", "Cheetos Flamin Hot Limon, with a touch of Lemon and Lime", "Cheetos Twisted", "Cheetos Puffs", "Cheetos Puffs White Cheddar", and of course "Cheetos Baked Snacks". Now that that's out of the way, I will reiterate my points. Please note that my opponent never talked about all points, just the third. 1. My opponent agreed with the fact that Doritos keep changing. If they were really all that good, they wouln't have to change so much. Notice Cheetos has two main staples. Cheetos Cheese Snacks, and Flamin' Hot Snacks. Both might have been put in a different shape and "flavor" (neither veering off alot), but their same principal stays the same. Keep it dangerously cheesy, or in the case of Flamin' Hot, to set your mouth ablaze. 2. My opponent never refuted the fact that Cheetos are softer than Doritos. This is because it is a fact. He never refuted the fact that Doritos can be bad for your teeth (Personal Experience) and that dentists say hard stuff can be bad for your teeth. 3. My opponent never refuted the "boring" argument. Doritos are always trangles, whereas Cheetos are spirals, puffs, sticks, and original club type shapes. This makes for a very boring eating experience. Thank you.
Cheetos are better than Doritos

Thank you for setting up a valid point. Doritos do give people what they want. Doritoes may make a wide range of flavors Blazin' Buffalo & Ranch,Cool Ranch, Fiery Habanero,Nacho Cheese, Natural White Nacho Cheese, Poppin' Jalapeï¿½o, Ranchero,Salsa Verde , Smokin' Cheddar BBQ, Spicy Nacho, Toasted Corn, Zesty Taco,Cheeseburger, and Sizzlin' Picante, but that does not make them fickle, it makes them versatile. Even if versatility is bad it also applies to cheetos. What, with flavors like Flamin' Hot Chile Limï¿½n or Cool Ranch Cheetos, one would almost say my opponent isn't well informed on the topic. no offense.