BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Australia Day

thirdly changing the date of Australia day won"t fix anything. Those aboriginal"s where killed no matter what, so its not like changing the date of our national holiday is going to fix all that. It"s understood that our government did some horrible things to aboriginals, but that was long ago and it doesn't mean we should change the date of our countries national day of celebration. Sure we should remember what we did wrong all those years ago, but we don't need to change the date of Australia day and ruin all 228 years of tradition as that would be senseless.
Australia Day

Australia day must change. Its a day where aborigines are reflecting on there life and past. Australia day is a day of sadness for the aboriginals. they should have a day of happiness not sadness. everyone deserves the right to be happy and so do they we are making them feel worst less when we say Australia day. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THAT?""". To be fare its not really Australia day. They came and took the lives of so many people and so many lives and children and ruined generations. Thats enough to make me feel sad for them.
Australia Day

How can someone come and take land away from someone who have been there for 1000s and 1000s and 100s of years. Why wouldn"t we change it. We ruined the lives of so many. They wanted to "breed" out the colour. WHO WANTS THAT. they were used them to get land but we never apologises for what we did to them until "Kevin Rudd" said sorry to aborigines for taking there land away. They killed him and took their children away from them because there were seen as different and that"s so wrong on so many levels.
Australia Day

Australia has been celebrated as a national holiday for 228 years! Why would you want to ruin 228 years of traditional celebration? It marks the day that the first fleet arrived on port jackson and discovered our land. If this event never occurred then Australia might not have been shaped into the country that we are today. Who knows I mean if that event didn't occur we might not have even been living and breathing on this land and the day that starting the shaping of Australia should not be changed over other people's opinions.
Marvel is better than DC

Marvel is better than DC because DC characters are very stupid and lame. DC needs a better back story than just having everyone's parents die. Be original. And with their names? Batman? Superman? Get creative guys. What about Captain America? Incredible Hulk? Cyclops? Mystique? Super cool names. And they all have better back stories. Black widow trained her whole life to be an assassin. Captain America only ever wanted to help his country so he underwent a dangerous transformation to fight for it. MARVEL IS SO MUCH BETTER. DC CAN GO TO HELL.
Atheists enjoy the same relative quality of life as Christians.

It's a tired assumption in our culture that Christain's are happier, more moral, enjoy more successful marriages etc but I disagree. I'm also considering employment, the built environment, physical/mental health, education, recreation, leisure time, and social belonging to be important indicators of quality of life [1]. I want to limit discussions on morality to actions that cause clear harm and exclude sexual immorality since we will likely disagree on this issue and I don't want to get side tracked, infidelity is still fair. I'd prefer a Christian opponent and have limited who can accept. PM me if you're interested.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Fighting

Your examples are very persausive. But I still believe that noone should get involved. They know that there will be consequences for The fight and get they still put The will forward to conduct the fight. If they are willing to fight then they have to be willing to face The consequences. And yes someone will get hurt in a fight that is the point. That is why teenagers or adults do fight. It is up to them to decide what happens in their life and nobody should interfere. If they do get into a fight and someone does get seriously hurt then The person who caused it will go to jail. There are multiple reasons why people fight and if you don't know the reason stay ot of it. Other wise you will be involved and then their friends will come after you. It is just simplier to fight them on The spot then have to worry about them trying to do something more drastic. If they are going to fight let them. You don't need to save someone because you don't know what they did to instagate this fight. It is their choice to fight not somebody elses.
Fighting

Your previous statement is just absurd. You just said that you agreed that you should tell someone, but it depends on how serious the fight is. You then said if it is fist fighting, that no one should get involved. Are you kidding me? Do you realize no matter what type of fight it is, that in school or even outside of school, fighting is unacceptable? You can get arrested for fighting, and you can go to court for it. Even if it is in school. In my school, multiple children have already gone to court for fist fighting in the school locker pods or cafeteria. No matter what, they will get in trouble. So why let them fight, when it is just obvious that someone will be seriously hurt, and the charges will just be more severe. Lets use an example. A fight starts in the cafeteria, but right before they start throwing punches, someone tells on them and a teacher breaks it up. What would happen then? They probably wouldn't even get suspended. Now, look at what happens if the teacher didn't break it up. They start throwing punches, and one of them walks away, having lost three teeth, and his entire body being bruised/broken. What would happen then? They would both get in severe trouble for fighting, and they would probably be spending time in jail. This is why no matter what type of fight it is, an adult should be informed right away, so action can be taken.
Fighting

Yes. You can tell a adult or gaurdian. But , even if they do break it up it will stil end up happening somewhere else. It is best that you leave it alone because maybe the person deserve what they got. I agree that you should tell someone but that also rests on how serious the fight is. If it is fair fighting , just fists , then noone you shouldn't get involved. In contrast if they boring out guns or knifes then yes tell. But fir them they just need to fight outtheir problems ir else it will escalate to something way more serious then it already is. Once you fight them its over. So there fore it is better to let them fight instead of telling a parent or gaurdian because that will just make The issue worse.
Fighting

I am going to have to disagree with you. It is not cool to fight either way, wether or not it is in school or outside of school. If you see a fight going on, it is best to tell an adult or guardian, considering you will get in trouble if an adult finds out you witnessed a fight and said nothing. A good way to do this is to stay anonymous, so that even if it's your friend who is the one fighting, your friendship would not be ruined if you tell an adult.
Fighting

I believe that if someone is going to fight and someone knows about it then that person should not tell a teacher or a authority figure. Because all they will do is get involved. It is not there position to handle it. The people that are going to fight should He able to. Because either way , it will be handled. Whether it is in school or outside of school. People will always be looking for you Ecspecially in this generation. It is better to duke it out then be worried about getting shot by their friends or something. It is way better to handle it in school and get suspended then out of school where way worse can happen to you.
All things considered, modernity did more harm then good

1. Pornography is *not modern. You can see it from the ancient Egyptians to the Indians (even have temples devoted to sexual positions), etc. 2. Kids not paying attention in school is their own problem. Obviously if they pass the tests given in sex-ed class (after sex ed is teaching modernly) then they know their information. If not, they fail and have to take it again. Done. 3. Drug use and suicide are also not modern. The war on drugs, however, is. Modernity has made life easier for us. It has created cures to diseases that at one time destroyed half of Europe, has taken us far into space, has given us the tools to find out the existence of elements. As for divorce, it is a modern life saver for some individuals. The American Institute on Domestic Violence states that, "The health-related costs of rape, physical assault, stalking, and homicide by intimate partners exceed $5.8 billion each year." If one is not allowed to divorce such a partner, then I'm afraid you will be having more problems than if they do.... So, we can assume that the more humans know about the world, the better. Knowledge and time both progress upwards. Therefore, the modern world should be smarter than the world before it. I would also like to request that my opponent give statistics for his reasoning. He does, after all, as Pro have the burden of proof.
All things considered, modernity did more harm then good

I know I wan't really clear but yes i did mean modern sex and they desotry family and friends because its every where. There are subliminal messeges in alot of products (few examples: http://www.youtube.com... but not everything is sexual related). I meant all drugs that are used illigaly and thoes drugs don't always depend on the users mood. At this site there is a story about a drug addict that was suicidal http://www.facingthedragon.org... Everywhere you look there is some sort of pornography that you can find. Which leads back to subliminal messeges and how they influence the mind because basically sex sells. Yes it is his freedom of choice to look at porn and other stuff but once you do its like a drug and hidden messeges are influencing that porn and stuff like that is alright. Yes i will agree that sometimes familys do split up because the other half was acting in unnessasary manner to another person, but sometimes that unnessasary manner is acing sexualy to the same or opposite sex. Yes sex education in school is helping us learn about the dangers of sex and how we should avoid it, but some kids don't even pay attention because they could of heard about it in 5th or 8th grade. Then those same kids end up having sex, getting a STD or getting pregnat. It helps lower it but there are still STD's and under aged pregnacy all over the world.
All things considered, modernity did more harm then good

"sex, drugs, wars, diseses, ect. are destroying familys and friends" None of these things are new to society, nor have you shown any evidence to support such a notion. What type of sex, modern sex? You need to be clear in what you are stating here. How does sex destroy friends and families differently to how they would of "before modernity"? Diseases are a modern construct? No more than previous generations. In fact modernity provides a secure base in which to fight and cure disease, treat and prevent. "Drugs make people more aggressive and suicidel" What drugs, all drugs? Only some? Some of the time? Recreational drugs? Illegal drugs? Drugs do not inherently make people more aggressive or suicidal(I am assuming we can discard steroid use in this debate), drug effect depends in part on the users mood and expectation before use. For an example take alcohol, in itself classed as a mild depressant, and yes some people drink and if mood relevant, it will act as a depressant. However also consider its recreational party use, and the high it provides if the expectation is there that its use is an artefact of a "good time". "It desotrys familys because if the husband or wife is caught looking at porn anywhere they could be fired or get a divorse and then the kids would go without a father or mother." One does not necessarily cause the other. Assuming an individual is "caught" there is nothing about individuals where discourse cannot solve a marital issue like this. You do however make the erroneous assumption that it is the artefact of modernity (porn) that is the cause here, when in essence it was the individual's free choice to engage that activity, and the dynamic of that activity within a relationship. It has nothing to do with a modern creation, or ease of access: that removes responsibility away from the individual where it belongs. Secondly, another wonder of "modernity" is the way in which relations may be fluid. A divorce does not remove the rights of both parents to be engaged in the life of any children. Additionally, a single parent family, may be beneficial to the child depending on the behaviour and personality of the other half. Freedom of divorce is a modern social trend that in some cases can be advantageous. "Also in the news and talk shows we hear about teenage girls who had a baby and we hear about the hardship it is to be pregnat and go to school. So i say that modernity is doing more harm than good." Yes it is difficult in these situations, but you will find the American school system teaches outdated conservative, models of sexual education. Their lack of modern ethos in education is a direct link to the behaviours you list. Modern sexual education programs, reduce, pregnancy rates, transmissions of STIs, BBVs. (sex-education in schools, relevant link: http://www.iwpr.org... )
All things considered, modernity did more harm then good

I think modernity did more harm then good because sex, drugs, wars, diseses, ect. are destroying familys and freinds. Drugs make people more aggressive and suicidel. Also sex is destroying family, friends, ect. It desotrys familys because if the husband or wife is caught looking at porn anywhere they could be fired or get a divorse and then the kids would go without a father or mother. Also in the news and talk shows we hear about teenage girls who had a baby and we hear about the hardship it is to be pregnat and go to school. So i say that modernity is doing more harm than good.
Hitler was a christian

As wolf has said, to ignore the fact that Hitler was a Christian means you are in denial. I'm not saying that 'God' told Hitler to kill hundreds of people, I'm stating the TRUE fact that he was a Christian. When Hitler said he was protecting himself and doing God's will by exterminating the Jew makes sense, as Christianity is a monotheistic religion and God doesn't want anyone believing in anything/anyone but himself. In Hitler's book 'Mein kampf', he explains his fanatical beliefs in God and country. Also, the priests, popes and nuns in Germany were large supporters of Hitler so the religious people in Germany would have been influenced to support Hitler. Without Christianity, Hitler would have had a much harder time getting to power. I win.
Hitler was a christian

Hitler believed that he was invincible because he was 'chosen by God'. This is because in WW1 he escaped death so many times. To ignore the fact that Hitler was a Christian means to completely ignore history. "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." This quote was written by Hitler IN HIS OWN WORDS. So, carry on ignoring historical evidence or admit I win.
Resolved, Just governments ought to ensure food security for its citizens

His forfeit means that he doesn't get the opportunity to refute my case. This is damming to him because most, if not all, of my arguments function as responses to his case that means it's pretty much game over from here.Extend contention one talking about the practical problems of food welfare and how it never ends up in the intended hands of those who need the food or has actually just made the situation worse overall. This means that it's not actually going to be possible to protecting people's rights to life as pro's case is arguing for. Extend contention two which is talking about all the rampant corruption within the USFG and how it doesn't do anything and won't do anything to correct itself. Furthermore, extend contention two where it's talking about even if it tries to correct itself, there will still be other loopholes that people can abuse and it's not feasable to be able to close every and all loopholes and prevent other loopholes from opening. This means that the problems of the affirmative aren't things that he can solve for, which means that food welfare will never work in his favor.Extend contention three which is talking about how not giving food to people who need it keeps it out of the hands of hungry insurgents, which means they have less energy and capability to harm other people and kill innocents. This means that by negating we're also protecting lives, meaning we're doing the affirmative's goal of protecting life better than they are.Extend contention four which is talking about how our world is heading straight for a massive overpopulation brink, and providing food security to people without it will lock us on track. This overpopulation will result in us almost immediately running out of food once we hit that brink and being unable to reproduce it. So while, even if he manages to work around contentions one and two and outweighs contention three, he doesn't factor in long-term feasability and I'm outweighing in lives saved through contention four. By affirming we damm civilization in the long term by ensuring that massive numbers of people starve when we inevitably run out of food.
culling of animals

Culling of animals in control is a vital necessity for our survival as humans. It helps control the animal population growth if done under control and promotes environmental sustainability. It is natural selection, survival of the fittest or law of the nature if u may call it; predators will kill and eat prey and there is nothing we can do about it. In a way we are predators, are we not? Let me ask you this Where does the meat we eat in many parts of the world as a staple food come from?
"Women are dying to be thin" media influences badly on women's bodies

In addition, I wanted to continue my thought about bad influence on adolecents. According to the article "Adolescent Girls" First Diets..." it says that "research is progressively shedding light on the prevalence of dieting to lose weight and associated factors, little is known about the actual decision on diet and the initiation of dieting ". It means that those teenage girls do not even know why they are dieting. In my opinion, mass media and friend"s words, make some of adolecents feel unsatisfied with their body. First of all, they easily submit to the influence of somebody. For example if someone said something about appearances of one girl, everyone from their company would agree and believe in those words. Moreover teenage take as an example their idols and think that all people should be as models or actors from television. Because of their age, they can only accept the information, but not make any conclusions. Besides, those kids do not think about other children"s feeling. They might say or hurt someone unintentionally and do not feel any guilty or shame.
"Women are dying to be thin" media influences badly on women's bodies

Perhaps you are right. However, I think that it is a freedom of choice of an indivudal. If an indivdual wants to be thin it is his decision, no one can judge him. Every person has its own mind and own life. Even if he or she wants to put his life at risk being on different fiets, it is what they wanted. About media influence, I think that there is increase of not so thin stars on television at present time. For isntance, singer like Adele who is icon for everyone now. Perhaps, she will change an idea of beauty in future.
"Women are dying to be thin" media influences badly on women's bodies

People want to look like a celebrity or a model and most of those are skinny and pretty on the TV shows, commercials or movies, that is why people are influenced by media. According to the statistic, one in every three women and one in every four men are on a diet. It is shocking to realize how many people want to change their body after see the commercials "thin-internalizers higher negative affect after exposure to advertisements featuring thin models is fully mediated by weight-related self-discrepancy activation". What I mean is that there are a lot of evidence like statistics or survey that confirm media influence on people and especially on adolecents.
"Women are dying to be thin" media influences badly on women's bodies

Every person in our society felt unsatisfied with the body at least once in their life. Nowadays, people placed beauty in one of the important place for society. The ultra-thin models, fashion, cosmetics and pursuit of ideal figure became a race on "myth perfection". Fashion industry with mass media have negatively influenced on the preoccupation of physical attractiveness. People are trying to reach the ideal appearance with various diets or plastic surgeries. Moreover, they are doing fake nails, hair, eyes, lips, and etc., in order to be as their favorite idol. Since beautiful and curvaceous ideal Marilyn Monroe in 1950s, models have become much thinner, but women"s bodies larger "women"s bodies are almost invariably larger than the media ideals". Nowadays, the typical models suffer from 20% underweight, which is abnormally for every person. We should change the idea of ultra-thin models and make beauty achieveable for everyone.
John Adams should replace Jefferson on the nickel.

My opponent dropped my following contentions: 1, 2, 3, and 4 in Round 3. My opponent preceded to drop contentions 5 and 6 in Round 4. He didn't even address my first four contentions after the second round. >Thus, all my contentions stand. My opponent said I dropped his following contentions: D, E, F, G, I, K. >I actually did refute them. D: "He was a man of sacrifice..." --- So is every single soldier in the history of the world. Does that mean that a random soldier should be on the nickel? E: "He was Ambassador to Britain..." --- So what? Just because he served as an Ambassador to a country that the U.S. defeated in war, he deserves to be on the nickel? Should the Ambassador to Italy, Germany, and Japan after WW2 be on the nickel... because they also served as ambassadors to countries that the U.S. defeated in war. F: "He never waived in the face of public opinion..." --- Another normal characteristic. My mayor also never waives in the face of public opinion. Nor does Ron Paul or countless other politicians. G: "He was against slavery and never owned slaves..." --- I also am against slavery and never owned slaves, do I deserve to be on the nickel? I: "Adams created the Navy..." --- He created the name of the Navy. The Navy obviously existed before Adams. K: "[Jefferson] is on Mount Rushmore, has a memorial at DC, has college named after him, and is on the two dollar bill. What does Adams have at national scale? Nothing." --- Hmm... If I was a lay-person looking at this debate and saw the above quoted statement, I would think that Thomas Jefferson is the much more important person. A more important person deserves more recognition than a no-name (John Adams). === >I have proved that John Adams successes were not unique, he was just a player in American History who had a much lesser impact than Jefferson, which my opponent conceded. >I have proved that the cost of changing the nickel would be foolish in a recession. It is just a waste of money. >The resolution has been more than adequately negated.