BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Change the date

There is no other date that best reflects both origins of our country. There is also no better day to celebrate the strong nation Australia has become. People say Australia Day is about the "British Invasion and Occupation" they are just words that reduce the significance and importance of this day as a nation we should all celebrate and it is a day many appreciate. Australians have done many things for the Aboriginal and Indigenous communities our nation. The 26th of January best represents the day we became one and as a country this consist conflict isn't going to help anything and we all need to come realisation that we are all in it together. Australia day should remain the same but out of respect their should be a day that highlights significance the of all of the Ingenious communities and people of our great nation 2015. Australia Day should remain on January 26, but move to a republic must begin. [ONLINE]. http://www.smh.com.au... . Accessed on the 18th of May
Change the date

What"s so great about the 26th of January? Just because it"s a tradition of many years or because it"s a great time to have a swim or a barbecue. It is the day that the first fleet arrived, why should we celebrate the day that we invaded the Aboriginals land? Why can"t we move the date to another date? Why does it have to be January 26th? It should be on the 1st of January, the day in 1901 that Australian colonies united to form a single nation. Or why not the 27th of May, the day of Referendum that recognised Aboriginal people in the constitution. I believe that Australia Day should be changed to another date.
Change the date

Australia day marks the day the first fleet arrived on our land in 1788 and it was the beginning of our strong nation. It marks the day of what it means to be an Australian and what joy and pride comes along with it. It"s also a reflection of how far our nation has become. Australia stands for the day we came together as one and it shouldn"t be a day for mourning, so people see Australia Day as a day but it is a day to be thankful for many. We cannot change the past but we can bring hope for the future, let's not dwell but be happy for the future. Australia Day is our nation day and it is the largest civic event held. Reference http://www.smh.com.au...
Change the date

Most people don"t even care about that actual date, they just want a day off work, or to have a few drinks or to have a barbecue or to wear Australian colours or whatever it is that people do. None of these things can only be done of the 26th of January, and if it was on any other day then maybe more Indigenous people would feel like celebrating with the rest of the nation. Changing the date would show that we have aspirations for this country to become greater than it is. Our treatment of Indigenous peoples, of asylum seekers, of the homeless, of the unemployed, of women, of veterans, of pensioners (the list goes on and on) is not great. It is not something that is worth celebrating, and there is nothing about the arrival of the First Fleet that gives pause to reflect on what it would take to become great. BTN. 2016. Moving Australia Day. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.abc.net.au.... [Accessed 19 May 2016].
Change the date

Australia shouldn"t be a day where we dwell but a day we commemorate as one! It"s a day where we recognise all the good things about our country. There is no denying it is a difficult day for many Indigenous and Torres Strait Island people but there many reasons to celebrate and be joyful for, if that day never happened Australia wouldn"t be the place it is today, the 26th of January is a huge day of historical significance for our nation. There would come many problems by changing the date of Australia Day. Australia Day is to recognise what a great nation we are living in and that we all live together as one alongside each other, should really be the main focus of Australia, but at the same time we respect the Aboriginals and their reasons for equality.
Change the date

There is heaps to celebrate about Australia - the food, the beer, the sun, the beach and all the different cultures. But why does the 26th of January have to be the date of "Australia day" or as Indigenous people call it "Invasion Day" marking the day that the first fleet arrived, when white settlement of Australia begun, and the decades of injustice Aboriginal people faced at their hands. The Australia Day website also claims that "On Australia Day we come together as a nation to celebrate what"s great about Australia and being Australian." What"s so great about the 26th of January that would make us "come together as a nation"?
television/movies are leading cause of violence in today's society

This will be short, but I only have Thirty Minutes to post my argument for this round, so it will be required to be short. I will be spending less amount of my time researching, and more of my time, typing, so excuse me if I lack an extensive research nor amount of sources.I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to debate with her on this topic.I will be debating that Television and Movies are not the primary cause of violence in society.Opening Arguments In this modern age, we have found violence to be a huge problem in today's society. Contrary to the strong family foundations of a hundred years ago, we live in an age of rebellion and strife. What has changed? What has resulted in the violence that we see around us?My opponent is debating that television is the primary reason of violence today. But is it really so?Could it be our culture, and the mindset of society?From what I see, it is.Television and movies are not good or bad generally. They are tools that can be used to spread one agenda or another, whatever we define as good or bad. Many people in the industry have used violence and sex because now the culture is leaning towards it.With the downfall of family values, people have become more rebellious of their parents, seeking excuses for bad behavior, and not following the advice of their eleders. Many people justify murder with 'it feels good', thinking that their actions is justified by the mindset that you shuold do what feels good to you.Can you make the claim that television and movies will cause murder regardless of culture? No, you can't. Television and Movies are steered by culture, because they are appealing to the cultural majority.Television and movies are like a microphone. They're amplifiers. The speaker is making his speech, regardless of the microphone. The microphone only helps him.In the same way, if cultural mindset is that crime is justifiable, like it is today, television and movies are only an aid. Not a cause. Regardless of television and movies, if the cultural mindset finds justification for crimes, then there will be crimes committed in such a way.Thank you,—The Yummy Cod
Fortnite should be banned

Fortnight is a very violent game and i think it should be banned. It increases violent behaviour among youths and eventhough many people enjoy playing fortnight, It is very addicting and can have harmful effects on the player. Children who are easily addicted to this game are failing in their studies. It offers up a battle royale style of combat, Meaning that it's a free-for-all where players kill or get killed. The players especially children, (below 12) are exposed to a lot of strangers online.
Fortnite should be banned

I do not think fortnite should be banned because It is very popular and it helps you with aim and real life aim a bit of it every day is great help even a lot of it It helps you with thinking and makes you better at trading. And thinking because you think if you should rush at someone and shoot them with aim. And the reason it helps you get good at aim is because the hunting rifle or all snipers really you have to get perfect aim to kill the people and helps you with aim games and everything.
the government should prohibit the producing of alcohol

The issue is simply not that black and white. It's a matter of freedom, and the only people who get the symptoms your talking about are alcoholics, not people who use moderation. That is why we have organisations like Alcoholics Anonymous, to help such people. There should be restrictions on alcohol, but not banning it outright. There are more people who use moderation than there are alcoholics, and that is what should be taught, moderation. And a constitutional right to save its people's health by stealing its freedom? That is tyranny, what the constitution is supposed to protect against! Heart disease kills more people in America, but are you campaigning to ban McDonalds? You have made good points, but the issue just isn't black and white.
the government should prohibit the producing of alcohol

But, what about the terrifying harms of this product to the health of people. Each country which has a constitutional rights of human must save their citizens from the negative things,like alcohol. In this case, a very precious thing is the health of people. I think that you know about that even the less drinking the alcohol has an influence on your brain, nerve system, heart beating and other important limbs. If the government bans the usage of alcohol, there will be less diseases, like pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis, high blood pressure and different types of cancers including mouth, liver, larynx, throat and esophagus. Moreover, the affect of this product has a significant and negative role to the family members. Because of it, there are a great number of families who are divorcing with each other. There is no doubt that this situation will influence to the children, to their psychology. Also, the studies show that the children who come with the families who always use the alcohol always feel the loneliness, guilt, helplessness and so on. The government must look and do some actions which are related to the banning, if it wants to has a healthy population.
the government should prohibit the producing of alcohol

Alchool should continue to be produced because it is a matter of freedom. Once you ban alchool, why not ban chips, or French fries? Once you ban those, why not ban Soda, or coffee? It is a question of freedom, and it is clearly a slippery slope, so I have no doubt that alchool must continue to be produced. As well, when people commit crimes under alchool, they are usually drunk, and it is their choice to end up committing whatever crime they do, and once they become drunk, they are not drinking responsibly.
the government should prohibit the producing of alcohol

currently, the producing of alcohol is increasing year by year and this means the health population is in danger. therefore, the government should prohibit the producing of alcohol. there are several reasons to support this statement. first of all, everyone knows that because of this product we are losing our precious thing-HEALTH. the second argument is that because if it, the crime rate in society is growing. after the usage of alcohol people lose their mind and they commit terrified crimes.
If here today, our Founding Fathers would call themselves Libertarians and vote accordingly.

The Libertarian philosophy espouses getting government out of your wallet, out of you personal affairs, and out of your way. The founding fathers believed in minimal government involvement in our personal live, minimal taxation, and self reliance. The architects of our constitution had the chance to write govenerment-sponsored healthcare into the constitution, but did not. Though they had the chance to impose a federal income tax, but did not. Though they had the change to create a government that offered handouts to it's subjects, but did not. Though they had a chance to impose gun control, but did not. Though they had the opportunity to outlaw certain sexual behavior, but did not. I don't like liberals because they want to uphold only the social freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. I don't like the right-wing conservatives because they want to uphold only the economic freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. Only the Libertarians value the consitution as a whole and as it was written. We will not allow our religious beliefs or our own personal economic situations to cause us to want to rewrite it for our benefit. I think our founding fathers would agree.
If here today, our Founding Fathers would call themselves Libertarians and vote accordingly.

"The constitution was approved by a group of people we call our founding fathers. The constitution was meant to LIMIT governement as much as possible, keep religion OUT of politics, PROTECT individual property rights, and provide equal OPPORTUNITY for all. That is is a far cry from the liberal agenda which proposes national healthcare and the republican ideas that want to legislate morality. These are libertarian ideas." -According to your logic, the founding fathers are all libertarian because they all signed a document you consider to be libertarian based on its purposes which you say are to Limit government, Protect Individual Rights, to Keep Religion out of politics, and to provide equal oppurtunity. The single major flaw in this argument is that not everyone agrees that those are , in fact, the purposes of the constitution. Different people interpret the constitution differently. For example, a democrat would argue that limited government is not necessarily a goal of the constitution, and that a more important goal of the constitution would be to promote general welfare to an extent of providing for the those without necessities. A conservative might say the constitution was never intended to keep religion out of politics. They would argue that it only condemns the declaration of a national or state religion. They would also argue that the constitution was created to protect certain america values they feel are diminishing. The interpretation is all in the eye of the beholder. Also, the signing of a document doesnt commit someone to any set of political ideologies. All of the founding fathers compromised and agreed to sign. That doesnt mean they are all libertarian. Today lawmakers compromise and sign bills that are traditionally against there political affiliation to make progress. If a republican votes against tax cuts, that doesnt make him a democrat. If democrat votes against government sponsored healthcare, that doesnt make him a republican. By the same rules, the founding fathers are not libertarian simply because they "voted" for the constitution. Lastly, your attempt to slash down and alienate those who subscribe to to a certain political preference such as religious conservatism or liberalism is not only rude and ignorant, but it is a HUGE slap in the face of the constitution and your "libertarian" founding fathers.
If here today, our Founding Fathers would call themselves Libertarians and vote accordingly.

Let me get back on track with my "conservative" friend. The constitution was approved by a group of people we call our founding fathers. The constitution was meant to LIMIT governement as much as possible, keep religion OUT of politics, PROTECT individual property rights, and provide equal OPPORTUNITY for all. That is is a far cry from the liberal agenda which proposes national healthcare and the republican ideas that want to legislate morality. These are libertarian ideas. I think if most conservatives could drop their bibles, they'd be libertarians. It's very difficult to find a libertarian who disagrees with the constitution. So my won't appologize for calling it a document that is libertarian in spirit. Those who ratified it obviously agreed with it, so I don't think I'm out of line calling them libertarians (as a group). Regardless of all their differences, when the smoke cleared they ratified that document. Many people in the Republican party disagree with oneanother, but they still call themselves republicans. Look at John McCain. That's my argument in a nutshell. Reread your first argument, and tell me if you sound like a whining liberal or a self-reliant conservative. You implied we need national healthcare because healthcare is an "industry"-- as if that makes any difference whatsoever. If prostitution were and industry (and I think it is), that would be no excuse for government-run whore houses. Then you implied the need for income tax grew out of the fact that it was now plausible since we weren't all farmers anymore with unstable incomes. That's ridiculous as well. The goverment takes no prisoners when it comes to taxes. In today's emconomy, people with seasonal or unstable incomes still have to pay taxes. You get my point. You say you are a conservative (very hard to believe, but maybe if the lighting is just right). If so, hopefull you're a conservative of reason and only in the fiscal sense. If you're one of those religious conservatives we have much more to discuss. True conservatism is right up my alley. I see little differnce between libertarians and true conservatives of the non-bible-thumping type. Both are fighting for a restoration of a government that operates within the ideals set forth in the constitution.
If here today, our Founding Fathers would call themselves Libertarians and vote accordingly.

I was not speaking of our founding fathers as individuals, but as a group. The constitution is a product of their cooperative intent. Don't try to tell me there was no healthcare industry back then, or that people only needed guns for hunting rather than protection, or that they decided against income tax because they felt sorry for unstable farmers. That's bull!!! There were doctors back then that charged for their services.There were criminals back then, just as dangerous as our modern-day gangbangers. People worked just as hard for their money and wanted to keep it. And there were a lot of poor people (even before laziness was sanctioned) that would have loved a welfare state. If any of the founding fathers wanted to argue in favor of gun control, welfare, free healthcare or high taxes, they would have found supporters. I'm guessing you're a liberal: or a person who supports ideals which the founding fathers (as a whole) did not. You probably believe that government is here to create equal outcome, not equal opportunity; to sieze property, not protect it; and to stifle personal freedoms rather than defend them. The founding fathers would turn in their graves if they knew how the constitution (a purely libertarian ducument ratified by the entire group) has been virtually wacked. If here today, I believe they would do their best to restore it to its original purpose, and would take a Libertarian stance on almost all issues. The constitution was not the framework for a socialist state or a right-wing puritanical empire. If you want evidence of what our founding father agreed on, you have it. It's called the constitution. In your argument, you mentioned that many of our founding fathers were not libertarians. I recommend you check the bottom of the constitution (the touchstone of libertarian thought) to see if they might have signed on.
one equals two

Thank you for this debate!Rebuttal"According to the first definition, 1 clearly does not equal two because 1 is not as great as/same as 2."- the statement you gave was that 1=2. The = sign is something I took as the meaning of "like" 1 is the same as 2 because the definition of same is "The same kind or category of thing."http://dictionary.reference.com...1 is indeed in the same categories as 2 because they are both numbers. "According to the second definition, which is the definition pro decided not to fully state, 1 is not the same quantity or value of 2. "- 1 is the same degree as 2 because they are both numbers. Degree means- "Aany of a series of steps or stages, as in a process or courseof action."http://dictionary.reference.com... "Although 1 may be an integer like 2, it is too broad to call them equal. In that case, Communism and Democracy are equal because they are both, types of governments. It is like saying Saturn and the Earth are the same because they are both planets."- I believe what you wrote is what I believed because the number 1 and 2 are alike just like the type of governments and planets. You said, "It is like saying Saturn and the Earth are the same because they are both planets." This is true because same means in the same category or thing.I have found holes in the Con's statements and rebuttal them all!Vote Pro!!
one equals two

Although I would have prefered pro to have proved why one equalled two mathmatically, I will go along with his arguments.According to pro's sources, equal does mean alike or like but he cut off the definition where he believed was necessary for him.His source:–adjective 1. as great as; the same as (often followed by to or with ):The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light. 2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the samerank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance. 3. evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest.According to the first definition, 1 clearly does not equal two because 1 is not as great as/same as 2.According to the second definition, which is the definition pro decided not to fully state, 1 is not the same quantity or value of 2. Although 1 may be an integer like 2, it is too broad to call them equal. In that case, Communism and Democracy are equal because they are both, types of governments. It is like saying Saturn and the Earth are the same because they are both planets. Unless pro agrees that both examples that I have gave are equal to each other, then all his claims that 1 equals 2 is invalid.The last definition from pro's source is not relevant to this topicI have fully rebutted all of pro's claimsVote Con!
This is a good decision.

I shall be extending parts of my case and then addressing Pro's remarks. Pro drops the argument that civil disobedience is effective. Give the historical evidence to support this as well, the argument goes Con. So, once we accept that civil disobedience works, all we have to ask is, is it appropriate in this case? I think it is. Con's only response to my analysis was to suggest that Wentworth may be brutalized and tortured by the Russian authorities if he had done what I advocate. However, Con's rebuttal falls utterly short when we consider that neither Lady Gaga nor Madonna, nor the countless other stars or world leaders that have protested in Russia, have been assaulted. In fact, if Pro references the sources I provided earlier, she will see that Russia took the fairly tame step of filing charges over violating the terms of their visas. I hardly think we can call this "brutalization." In other words, Wentworth's celebrity would protect him, because Russia is unlikely to assail such a high profile individual. And even so, an element of mild risk adds to the powerfulness of the protest. Furthermore, Con also drops the argument that someone with celebrity would be even more effective at protesting, because they draw media attention more easily. Finally, Con also drops the point that comparatively, civil disobedience within Russia would actually be more potent that simply boycotting Russian event of products as Wentworth did. So, when we ask was his decision a good one, I think the answer was no. Going to Russia would have been the correct thing to do; it would have been more personally impactful and would have garnered great attention in the press. Ultimately, Russia could use some more bad press--then it might back off it's cruel policies.