BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians.

Australian is far from equal as you previous stated, Aboriginals health care and life expectancy is a not worse then those who are non Indigenous. According to Authoritative information and statistics to promote better health and well being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males born in 2010"2012, life expectancy was estimated to be 10.6 years lower than that of the non-Indigenous population for males Australia Day should be changed to a date that is inclusive to all ethics and cultural groups in Australia especially the Indigenous people who have lived on the land for centuries. The new date should recognise and celebrate the sacrifices and traditions of both European and Aboriginal Australians. Firstly, for many Indigenous Australians, Australia Day represent a day of mourning and loss.For over 30,00 years Aboriginal people lived in harmony and it wasn"t until the first contact with Europeans did things started going horribly wrong.For started white settlers brought new diseases which killed many Aboriginal. Even worse European began to massacre thousands of Indigenous Australian in cold blood. By 1920, the massacres ended and the population of Aboriginals drop from over 250,00 people to only 60,00. In Victoria only 5.7% of the the original Aboriginal population were living in 1901. References: Australian aborigine 2015, Cultural Survival, accessed 18 May 2016, <https://www.culturalsurvival.org...;. ABORIGINAL POPULATION STATISTICS 2007, Australian Government, accessed 18 May 2016, <http://learnline.cdu.edu.au...;.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians.

My name is Jessica O'Connor, and today I will be arguing against the statement that 'We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australian's'. I believe that Australia Day is a day symbolic of the reconciliation between European Australian's, and Aboriginal Australians. Australia day, is a day celebrated by Australian's on the 26th of January every year. The day marks the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet of the convict ships from Great Britain, and the raising of the Union Jack on the soils of the Aborigines land. Australia Day is celebrated by the majority of Australian's, and we are able to celebrate the country we are today; the landscapes, the diversity, the multicultural side and the traditional side. Whether you celebrate the day by having a BBQ with your family and friends, or watching the fireworks sparkle in the sky at night, we must realise that Australia Day is much more than that. The 26th of January is a day for Aborigines, Europeans, new citizens of Australia, and many different people from different backgrounds from around the world to celebrate the free country we are and the many achievements we have made as a country. Australia Day is a time to celebrate the equal country we are today, and to continue to apologise to the Aborigines, and try and move on as much as possible from what occurred in 1788. It is also a time for Aborigines to celebrate the country they love and live in today, and try to accept what happened 228 years ago and see how much we have moved forward since that time and that something like that would never happen again. We as citizens of Australia have to see Australia Day as a time to celebrate the country we are today, not the one we were 228 years ago when the Europeans invaded the Aboriginals land. Australian's today would not let what happened 228 years ago to happen again, for we now recognise as a whole that we are all equal, and all as worthy of living in our beautiful, exciting and free country that we call Australia.
Hamas is more at fault for the current suffering of Palestinians than Israel.

1. There were weapons there. 2. Yes this is something unexpected. Israel found them searching for the teens. If they did not there was suppose to be a massive terror attack by Hamas terrorists dressed as Jews to kill and kidnap thousands of Jews on the Jewish new year. 3. Hamas was the one that broke all the cease fires. During one they killed three soldiers. 4. Once again Israel targets Hamas and they have every reason to target them. Unlike you I do not hate Palestinians. I hate terrorists like Hamas. I actually think their just stuck in the middle of this conflict with Israel and Hamas. PS: You have never even said the issue you had with this debate.
Hamas is more at fault for the current suffering of Palestinians than Israel.

You closed messages, I will change the system of this site if neccesary but I wont go back in my opinions. 1-Israel didn't just bomb Gaza, They bombed UN hospitals. 2-Israel have the technology to discover underground for years and they learned those tunnels now? did you actually believe this? 3-They truced 2 times and each went to trash because Israel used another bomb. 4-Israel kills Palestinians for decades and they actually have reasons for those murders NOW. PS:I hate Palestinians because of what they did to us in WW1(I am Turkish) but YOU CAN'T KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE OF SOME TUNNELS AND INACCURATE ROCKETS.
Hamas is more at fault for the current suffering of Palestinians than Israel.

Wow I can't believe I am actually responding to this. If you have in issue with the debate message me. 1. It is not even confirmed that Hamas is responsible for the death of the three teens and while Israel is investigating it is not the main reason Israel is in Gaza. Since you clearly are ignorant about the current situation Israel is taking the measures that they are taking because rockets have been fired at their civilians and they discovered tunnels that lead to Israel that is suppose to be used for a massive attack on Israelis. 2. At this point I, and hopefully everyone else, cannot accept anything else you say considering you agree with reasoning of a mass murderer who murdered millions of people not just Jews. 3.
Hamas is more at fault for the current suffering of Palestinians than Israel.

I said Hamas in the title and that is the focus but this also includes other terrorists like them such as whoever was responsible for the murder of the three Israeli teens. By current I mean in the last few months. Just to be clear it is still permitted to bring up an occurrence before if it is relevant. Other than that I think the title says it all but I will define fault. Fault- Responsibility for a problem, mistake, bad situation etc. source: Merriam Webster dictionary.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

Your argument rest on the pont that no historian mentioned jesus. This is a blatent falsehood. The talmud talks about jesus decieving the jewish people. Tacitus says that they where started by a man called christ. It is interesting to note that not a single anti christian historian in antiquity ever said jesus was fake. Your other point is that jesus is just like other pagan gods. No other pagan god has a claim of existing in a historical timefraime. Also jesus wasn't born on dec 25, it was just a converted pagan holiday.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

Point's pro never touches on.1. There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime 2. Christianity was plagiarized from other pagan gods and myths. 3. There is no real evidence for Jesus. 4. the gospels make claims that are against the known historical record5. Jesus' crucifixion on passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically 6. Nazareth did not exist during the time of Jesus7. There where many belifes that jesusnever existed on earth in the flesh 8. Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if Jesus never existed . Rebuttals notice CON SOURCES NOTHING. HE HAS NOTHING TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIMS MINE REST UPON MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE. CON GETS ONE THING RIGHT "Just a bunch of cooks trying to start a new religion" Yes. Con's one and only argument. "You claim that Jesus is just another pagan god that people made up. Other pagan gods were not in historical settings. That way people could not tell that it was a lie. "What? The gods i listed existed BEFORE the new pagan god called Jesus. My sources prove this. Conclusion . Jesus Christ never existed and it relies on much more than simply stating that we don't have evidence for his existence or that the Gospels are unbelievable. It rests upon mountains of evidence. We have sources and traditions that not only provide all of the material for the Jesus story, but it is clear that the Jesus story is developed from these sources, and this fact undermines the possibility that the stories are based on observed historical events. Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if Jesus never existed .
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

It shocks me to find that some deny that Jesus ever even existed. Sure you can say he was just a minor holy man or false prophet, but just a MYTH! Who made this myth anyway? Just a bunch of cooks trying to start a new religion? If so, how could they have possibly convinced people to follow a religion that they knew hadn't existed. No one would have belived that. As for "no historical sources" we have, Tacitus, Pliny, the Talmud and Josephus. You can try and say that Josephus was elaborated but then why would no one call it out until 100s of years later. While the passage may have been embellished, the core passage is probobly correct. By the way Josephus was born around the time of Jesus's death, he was not governer when jesus lived. Pro tries to get around this by saying that no historian at the time tells about it but the only historian at the time was livy and half of his work is missing. The other historians wrote about Jesus only 30 to 50 years later, that means there was little time for the embellishment of the myth. Futhermore we know that Luke used an older text for his account of Jesus's death. That older text has been dated to around only 7 years after Jesus's death. It seems ridiculous to think that people would die for what they knew was a blatant lie they made up. You say the bible is unhistorical, but the book of acts has been called the most historically accurat text of all time and we have affirmed that pilate and Caliphas did exist. You claim that Jesus is just another pagan god that people made up. Other pagan gods were not in historical settings. That way people could not tell that it was a lie.
Resolved: Prohibition should be made law again

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you on this subject of prohibition. Just wanted to make my opening statements in this round. Alcohol accounts for so many jobs and so much tax revenue in this country, it would be an economical disaster to make it illegal. Another point that I would like to make is that Prohibition was not successful in the 20's with a booming economy and a more conservative populace. How could we enforce it in a nation with an unstable economy and a populace that is much more liberal than 90 years ago?I am going to make many more points. This is just an opening statement. Looking forward to a very controversial debate.
Resolved: Prohibition should be made law again

Prohibition: the legal act of prohibiting the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The term can also apply to the periods in the histories of the countries during which the prohibition of alcohol was enforced. I'm not sure if I totally agree with the Pro position, but I thought this would be an interesting debate. I expect sources as well as an opinion from my opponent. First round is acceptance with main points. The second round is your arguments with points. The third round is your rebuttal. My main points for Prohibition becoming law once again. - The number of drunk drivers is increasing. - The only reason Prohibition was repealed was because the government wanted to increase taxes. - If Prohibition was enforced, it would have worked. - The laws for drunk driving are not consistent as it is, and there needs to be a change.
Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media

I apologize for my forfeit of the last round as I haven't been on in a few days. My opponent also forfeited a round so I suggest that neither of us receive the conduct vote. To summarize, my opponent has merely ranted about how dangerous cigarretes are without regarding how truly dangerous are other products or things advertized such as automobiles or the navy. My opponent also tried to argue that nothing good comes out of cigarretes except for short term pleasure. I don't actually see this as much of an argument in that if we just extend the time scale that would be true for pretty much anything. This argument seems a bit relative to me. My opponent brought arguments which I have refuted and has not provided any legitamite reason for cigarette adds to be banned from the media.
Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media

You are not getting my point. You just keep re-posting what I wrote and you keep doing your best to negate it all. You seem to want to debate the fact that cars are harmful to human beings when in reality, everything is. Automobiles are a necessity in the life of a human, cigarettes are not. My point is that the advertisement of these harmful products are putting a positive image in children's minds.. it's not right. Children are starting to smoke at younger and younger ages, but you usually don't see a 12 year old behind the wheel of a car. Cigarettes are being advertised as a positive product, when in reality there should be pictures of lung cancer and yellow teeth to show the real effects of smoking. And you're probably going to debate that car commercials should have pictures of accidents, but showing a picture of a crash isn't going to stop anyone from driving. It is an essential and necessary part of life. We would be no where without transportation, people would not be able to function in the way they do today and many lives would be hindered by the lack of transportation. Many lives would be different. Showing a picture of lung cancer or yellow teeth, maybe gum disease, might lead someone away from smoking. It might even get someone to consider quitting. Without smoking, life wouldn't be any different and ciilization would be the same exact way it is now. We need cars, we don't need cigarettes. What the debate was actually supposed to be about was the influence that these commercials and ads have on young children. They are sending a positive message about a negative product. You can tell me up, down and sideways that a cigarette can make you feel good but how long does that last? About as long as the cigarette does. There os no need for smoking in our society and there is no need to advertise them in a positive way. These commercials are influencing youn generations in a negative way. There is absolutely no good thing to come of smoking. No parent is proud to say that their child smokes, while others may be proud that their child drives. The outcome of driving is in the hands of the driver. Safe driving is up to the person behind the wheel while the outcome of smoking is not up to the person. People are not going to stop driving because they might get into an accident, they might drive safer or slower in that case but they will not stop driving, but some people may not smoke if they know the dangers involved. Cigarettes are being advertised as a positive product when all they do is kill people, they do nothing else.
Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media

Being trapped in a car can make it hard to breathe but it does not hinder someones breathing over the course of their lifetime. Car crashes are unexpected and most of the time unwanted. No one gets in their car and says "I want to cause a car crash today," but people do intentionally light up a cigarette. So no one actually knows when or if their going to die in a car crash but they know very well that they will obtain some sort of health problems from smoking. You say that both automobiles and cigarettes provide a service to the user. What exactly is the service that is being provided by the cigarette.. Is it the terrible addiction? The lung cancer? Bladder, Kidney, Pancreas, Cervical Cancer? Blood clots? Potential heart attacks? Strokes? Iron deficiency? High blood pressure? Emphysema? Bronchitis? Fertility problems? Asthma? Macular degeneration, (which leads to gradual loss of eyesight)? Cataracts? Gum disease? Bad breath? Yellowing of the teeth? Shortness of breath? Voice change? Mouth ulsers? Wrinkles? Reduced blood supply to the skin? Not one of these has any positive effect on a human being. And this debate was not about the differences and similarities between an automobile and a cigarette.. it was about the positive image of negative products that are being put in the minds of young viewers by radio, television and magazine ads. There are pros and cons to EVERYTHING in this world, but the cons of those things should not be compared to the devistation that is brought on by smoking. You can choke while eating a strawberry. Does that mean strawberry ads should be banned? No. A person can die from a football injury. Does that mean the game of football should be illegal? No. I'm not saying that there aren't other things on this planet that effect the lives of humans, I am saying however that cigarette ads are putting a positive image in the minds of young human beings. An image that should not even be portrayed to begin with. What good can possibly come of smoking? Does it actually make one happy? Or relax them? Maybe at the time of use but in the long run, there are no positive outcomes to smoking a cigarette. Thats why the advertisement of these products should be banned.
Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media

Okay yes, people do die in car crashes but they do not give you cancer, make it hard for someone to breathe, or reduce life expectancy. When automobiles are advertised, there is something positive to say about them. They transport people from one location to another, manufacturers are coming up with more fuel efficient models and the safety of many vehicles is being improved. When cigarettes are advertised, there is absolutely nothing good to say about them. They influence children in a negative way and put many lives in danger; people that don't even smoke. 53,800 people a year die from second hand smoking. Banning the advertisement of them will not "make children automatically decide that cigarettes are bad" but it will reduce the positive influence that they give off. Some children are not lucky enough to have guidance from a parent or guardian, so how are the supposed to know any differently if they are told by television commercials and radio ads that cigarettes are good? There is a way to prevent car crashes if someone drives, there is no way to prevent health problems if one smokes. If a product is harmful to a person's health it should not be advertised in a positive way.
Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media

You say that cigarretes should not be advertised because cigarretes kill people. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a report stating that every year in the U.S. more than 40,000 people die in automobile crashes. http://www.foxnews.com... This is equivilant to a plane full of people crashing every day. But surely you would not suggest that car commercials should be banned. After all they do pretty much the same things as cigarrete adds. They show cars and trucks as a good thing, as a source of happiness and joy. These car ads could attract children to try and drive and those children could potentially be hurt or even killed. This is the same thing as cigarrete ads. They are ads for a dangerous product which children should not be using. But it is up to parents to educate their children about the dangers of cigarretes. Every person over the age of eighteen has the right to smoke a cigarrete if they please and every person with a license has the right to drive a car if they please. Banning cigarrete ads will not make children automatically decide that cigarretes are bad. It should be left to parents to teach their children about the dangers of cigarretes.
Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media

I think cigarette ads should be banned from television, magazines and radio adds. They advertise a deadly product and influence people in a negative way. There are ads in magazines that show joy and happiness, when they really should be outlining the harmful effects of smoking. Nothing good comes of smoking a cigarette. The ads on television may be viewed by a younger population of children; at such a young age, this could give them the idea that smoking is okay. These ads send a positive message for a bad product. They should be banned and kept away from the media. A large variety of people listen to the radio, including young children, middle school aged children and teens. These ads send the message that these products will bring good things and can make you "feel good" and "be happy." When in reality, all these products do is kill people. The positive advertisement of cigarettes should be banned, from all forms of the media.
God is one, not three

Well, I have proved my case...I used the Bible to establish that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all full Divine yet distinct persons. The One God exists as 3 persons - plurailty within oneness. Sure sounds like the BIBLICAL doctrine of the trinity to me.With that said, let me provide you with quotes of some of the earliest Christian writings outside the NT text, namely from Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp; both of whom were pupils of John the Apostle, which means they passed on to us what they were taught by the Apostles concerning Jesus Christ, and here is what they said about him:Ignatius of Antioch (35 AD - 107 AD)"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 7)"Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes." (Ignatius' Epistle to Polycarp, ch. 3)"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)Polycarp (69 AD -155 AD)"Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and steadfastness and patient endurance and purity, and may he give to you a share and a place among his saints, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead." (Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 12)The Deity of Christ or the Trinity wasn't invented at the Council of Nicea as some people falsely claim. Praise be to God the Father who has saved us through the Eternal Son Jesus Christ and redeemed us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Amen.