BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The date of Australia day should be changed

Many indgenous people, particuly those living in remote areas have very little to celebrate on australian day. The reasons they wont be celebrating have nothing to do with the name or date of January 26 but more to do with the extreme poverty they live in. to merely focus on the date for Australia day will not bring about any long-lashing meaningfl change to the real problems that many indigenous people face; their health, education, employment opportunities etc. It would be a very simplistic view that changing the date of Australia day would solve the very serious and difficult problems that face the indigenous community. For those wanting to change the date of australia day i challenge you to visit indigenous communities where people are poor, sick unemployed and ask yourself how will changing the date of Australia day significantly help the people in this community For many indiginous and non- indigenous australian January 26 is a day to celebrate. For many refugees and people from war turn countries they proudly celebrate be coming Australian citizens on January 26, for them this date signifies a new bieginning living in a great nation where they can live safely free from persecution, while there is a historical significance of january 26, there is a greater awareness and wish to celebrate modern Australia
The date of Australia day should be changed

Would you celebrate the date that your ancestors were removed of their land, were killed and their children were stolen? Aboriginals say "It is a day of mourning because it does symbolize the invasion of our land. It makes people angry in our community, that Australians are celebrating on a day that is negative for us." The celebration of Australia Day is seen as a concern as it marks the date of colonisation unlike other countries which celebrate their national day on their day of independence or on another special day. For example New Zealand celebrates Waitangi Day on 6 February, commemorating the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi between the settlers and the local Maori people in 1840. The only significance of Australia Day is that it marks the date the white people came to Australia. That makes the use of January 26th a race-based data for celebrations. White's arrival at Botany Bay to celebrate their new beginning away from old England. The celebration was blind to the effect on Aborigines then as it remains the case today. Kevin Rudds sorry speech is more on an important day to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, had finally apologized to the Stolen Generations and said "sorry on 12 February 2008. The National Australia Day Council, founded in 1979, views Australia Day as "a day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation," How can it be a day to celebrate as a nation as we can not all come together as it doesn't target all Australians as equals.
The date of Australia day should be changed

New South Wales first celebrated January 26th which was referred to as the First Landing Dar or Foundation Day. From the first time this was celebrated it was a time to reflect on the great country we live in. according to historian Dr Elizabeth Kwan the traditional toast on this date was "to the land boys, we live in". The intention of the celebration was not to exclude others but to join in the united celebration of a great land. By 1988 states had accepted January 16th as the official national day. Celebrations of the day has increased considerably since the 1980's. There are arguments from the same members of the community that the date of January 26th should be named invasion or survival day. There are claims that this date signifies damage to indigenous peoples relationship to the land. However many inf=diginious people are achive within Australia day commitees and view this date as an opportunity to recongnise the honoured place indigenious australian in our nations history
The date of Australia day should be changed

The date of Australia day being the 26th of January should be changed to any other date. This date on January 26th brings out the divide of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians into focus. This date is meant to bring all Australians together where as is separates us. Indigenous people look at this day as invasion day, the day non-Indigenous people stole their land and killed their families. Although for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australia Day is also an opportunity for them recognize the survival of their people and culture. There are better dates to change it to some date include the 13th February- The day in which Kevin Rudd apologized to the aboriginals or 27th May- The day Aborigines were finally allowed constitutional rights. For some, it's a celebration of culture.For others it's a day of mourning. I believe Australia day should be a day celebrated by all Australians as equals.
Homosexuals should be able to adopt

Argument 1- Restricting the right of homosexuals to adopt is state sanctioned segregation. If the government restricts the right of homosexuals to adopt, based solely on the fact of their sexual orientation, the state is "or policy of keeping people of different races, religions, etc. , separate from each other"[1]. While they aren't physically separating homosexuals from non--homosexuals, they are separating them based on their rights. Argument 2- Homosexual parents are just as good at raising chidlren as heterosexual partnersExperts say their is no evidence that children who are raised in gay households are any worse off then their heterosexaul counterparts [2] [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com...
The Wage Gap isn't real

Whether income are defined as wages or earnings, a man is earning more than a woman for the same quality, job, and number of hours. Before I reach the bulk of my argument, I'll start off with a few corrections from my opponent's case. The first thing I'ld like to point out is that when they say ". .. the person who operates the heavy equipment with better efficiency and carries more materials will get paid more than the person who does less. .. ", I immediately thought of the example where men and women play a particular sport. Both put in the SAME training hours, both have relatively similar levels of competition, yet the pay gap is massive. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo, one of the most well known soccer players in the world, who makes an average of 5.77 international goals per year, earns $88 MILLION per year, for Christ sake! The highest payed woman in soccer, Alex Morgan, on the other hand, who scores an average of 7.4 international goals per year, earns only $2.8 mil, giving Ronaldo 31.45 times more cash per year! That statistic, to me, is beyond offensive, and into the the realms of mind-blowing. Look at these stats, and tell me that there is no wage gap. I am dumbfounded. I also heard from my opposition that there aren't necessarily boy jobs or girl jobs or boy jobs, but yet he clearly portrays his sexist views when he says that men are always stronger than women, and women are always smarter than men, which is NOT THE CASE. The status quo (current situation), is that women are encouraged by society to have these brain-not brawl jobs, even if they dream of being a sports woman. The main reason for this, is that the pay gap for WOMEN doing these jobs that are predominantly men dominated, is very large, which commonly sways women towards the jobs that society deems, "better" for them. I do think that pay SHOULD be determined by experience, but it just isn't. If we want wages to be based on skill, then we need to fix the REAL wage gap. My main argument, is just the overwhelming evidence and proof. In a report released by the US Senate*, woman earns approximately $10,800 less than a man per year, which adds up to about half a million dollars in a career. A woman will earn on average, 79 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR EARNED BY A MAN. The institute of Women's Policy Research suggests that the pay gap will not close until about 2059. WOMEN HAVE A 2 TIMES HIGHER CHANCE OF LIVING IN POVERTY BY 75 (this is not real according to my opponent). A less qualified man (bachelor's degree) will earn around $5,000 more per year than a more qualified woman (graduate degree), which clearly proves that wages are NOT based on qualification. In summary, my opponent's sexist views ignore the evident flaws in society, which NEED TO BE FIXED and DO EXIST. Thank you. *. https://www.jec.senate.gov... (read me)
The Wage Gap isn't real

The Wage Gap is not a real issue in today's Western culture, men do not earn more than women just because they're men. First of there is a massive difference between Wages and Earnings, wages are the total amount a person gets paid annually and that is a fluctuating rate for everyone within a specific occupation based on experience and skill, whereas Earnings are the amount you receive after taxes including the tax rebates that you receive at the end of the year. The amount that one receives in earnings changes along with how one gives to society, be it via. donating to charity or another organization for the betterment of society. The Gap many people argue about is really just a misconception about the difference in Earnings between people and isn't racial or gender discriminating but just an effect of choices. Say for instance there's two people working at a construction site the person who operates the heavy equipment with better efficiency and carries more materials will get paid more than the person who does less. Its a basic economic system whoever has the better expertise and is doing their job better will get more money for the work they do. Many times when people debate about the Wage Gap they bring up the amount of a certain gender in a job occupation such as more men in blue collar jobs like engineering and construction calling it sexist to think a women couldn't do those jobs, but it is scientifically proven men are stronger than women physically which makes sense why they would do those blue collar jobs. I see far more women in areas such as science and teaching which require a strong mental capacity which women are known to have. Women also graduate college with better grades and high averages than men but end up doing jobs in the Cosmetology and Care taking areas like day cares and nursing homes which are very important jobs in everyday society. Elders and infants would be at much more risk in today's societies if these places didn't exist, all I am saying is these jobs aren't necessarily "girl" jobs just like construction and engineering aren't necessarily "boy" jobs. It doesn't matter the gender you are it matters about the skills and experiences you have for that job.
Blood is Blue

no one has taken any photos because the blood turns red in contact with argon, and since taking a photo from inside your veins is currently not in the area of viable discussion we can only take photos of blood outside the veins or in wounds witch is red due to argon, for the second part you stated that the red color is caused by a protein known as hemoglobin, however hemoglobin is a blue protein not a red proteins, as my evidence please visit. [Link removed by moderator]
Repeal The 200 Year Old Second Amendment - NO Civilian GUNS USA - Bann Guns

Excuse me, but your arguments are twice refuted, to assist allow me to point out the following. The opponents argues what I contests in point 7, that it is not possible to assess mental suitability for a citizen to own lethal weapons. We simply do not possess effective and fool proof strategies to do this. The argument appears convoluted but I will honor the Con and provide persuasion to change. 1. Yes, mass shootings has increased in the last decade - and nothing has been done, thousands have died - but YOU who support the NRL talk only of your CIVIL needs to shoot metal pellets and blame PSYCHOLOGISTS effectively for not flagging and alarming us to POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CITIZENS. This should read as science fiction as. 2. The ONLY way to add restrictions is to assess a MENTAL fitness. Hence, there are two very dangerous issues here. A database would be created with those who can not have a gun. And this data base could be accessed by any group with authority or access. What will the implications of a NATIONAL MENTAL STATUS registrar - does a person say, "Oh, I did not qualify or meet the requirements", meaning, I was too DUMB. What is a background check, there is NO effective measure and check. The guy next door could be the next mass murderer. But if you remove guns, the guy next door has a bad day and does far less damage. You are wanting a national DUMB registrar. If you are on it your are DUMB. And again that can not be assessed. Look a the people who massacred. They WERE NOT apparent at risk, or seemed to be likely to kill. People FLIP and when they do they go for what is readily available, GUN - machine GUNS or rapid fire. They hate the world and want to shoot the world down. 3. GO ahead suggest people will mass make bombs and guns when they cant go to Kmart and get all they need. Some will, it will soon fade, it will be a transitional tantrum. Police will only have to find and shut down the pathways to make illegal guns, and that is far easier than naming people too DUMB to own a GUN. 4. You have not attempted to address my 8 points but have been on a rant, which is to repeat points within your arguments, and to be convoluted, for example, your second point is almost at the end, but it is a repeat of what you said earlier, your argument is impassioned, emotive, convoluted and confusing, it is a immature. Mature people are ordered, structured and balanced. Mentally unfit people are similar, they are convoluted, confusing, emotive, impassioned and get offended, frustrated and feel justified to be irrational. To take life is irrational and a distortion of justice. 5 YOUR argument IS INDEED IRRATIONAL - YOU can not address each of the 8 arguments, but seek to voice your own. 6 the initial 8 arguments of PRO have NOT been contested, they remain unchallenged, this is not a game, it is not a win or loose scenario. NO ONE WINS FOR WE ALL LOOSE WHEN A CHILD DIES, WHEN A BROTHER OR SISTER, MOTHER, FATHER OR FRIEND IS GUNNED DOWN
Repeal The 200 Year Old Second Amendment - NO Civilian GUNS USA - Bann Guns

My opponent had failed to attack any of my points head on and only expanded a little on his points so, therefore, I should win this debate. The right to bear arms is still relevant because we still hunt and have law agencies and a government. It is critical to realize that replacing the second amendment would actually lead to more death because of homemade firearms and explosives. Also, it would most likely lead to another civil war which we don't need or want. Aging we need to amend the second amendment, not repeal it. Buy adding more constraints as to who can buy a gun it would significantly lesson mass shootings and by adding more security to public places it would get the mass shootings down to one every year at the most. Plus we can seriously benefit from a country form the jobs that adding more security would create. If we did increase security fewer people would be killed when a someone attempted a mass shooting. It is vindictive for my opponent to say that dumb people commit murder when it takes a smart person to operate a gun. He says we have a lack of ability to protect ourselves now does he think that we will be able to better protect ourselves if we have no guns and the psychopaths have more accessibility to them then we do? There are times when you have to fight fire with fire and when someone has a gun and does not listen to logic please do explain why we should not fire a weapon to disarm them. My opponent seems to be going outside the parameters of this debate topic and arguing for guns to be taking form everyone not just civilians as is stated in the topic. Before I ask questions I would like to address that my opponent came off as rude and condescending in last speech and no civil. My first question for my opponent is do you realize how many people have guns in America? If what would you suggest we put in place if we repeal the second amendment? Do know what actions would need to be taken in order to make a repeal happen? If the seconded amendment needs to be repealed because it so old then do we need to repeal all the 200-year-old amendments? I would like to remind voters that the set weighing mechanism for this case is on balance.
Repeal The 200 Year Old Second Amendment - NO Civilian GUNS USA - Bann Guns

1. The 200 year old second amendment, was made when the U.S.A was being colonized and 2. Its is NOT relevant anymore.. the threat of Indians is gone. It is an outdated, colonial law. This is an amendment made in the 1790's. It is entirely irrelevant and absurd think it necessary NOW to exist as then. The world was a different place then. 3. America, its over 200 years old !! .... OUTDATED, NOT relevant.. Time to get Civilized. To keep to a 200 year old law is to force an OUTDATED NEED into an EVOLVING society. Its entirely against SOCIAL AND ETHICAL FUNDAMENTAL DEVELOPMENT. Its like FORCING society to be retarded in growth. A retarded society. 4. Grow up, ENOUGH or DIE Young. Massacres occur my those who are able to get their hands on a mass killing machine, and you have millions of them lying around, in stores and in sheds. People kill people, make mistakes and loose it, have mental breakdowns, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Texas... YOU KNOW YOU CAN NOT STOP IT, ANYONE WHO IS A CON IN THIS DEBATE KNOWS IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN AND AGAIN.. GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY 5. The Government buys them back and destroys them! That is a really simple idea. 6. And that is cheaper than generations legal, medical and welfare. Count the cost of mental, psychological, physical damage from 1 person, that should equal thousands of guns, let alone millions of people devastated by your LACK OF ABILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELVES. 7. Only Dumb people with Guns kill, remove Guns and Dumb people just throw tantrums. BUT how many dumb people are there, and how do we know who is dumb enough? Can we measure DUMB? NO.. instead we just become NUMB. We can not measure who can and who should not have a GUN and say YOUR A DUM DUMB, NO GUN FOR YOU DUMBO, that is DUMB. 8. No Community Militia to counter attack criminals, that is NOT relevant anymore. YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT, JUST CHILDISH SELFISH AND IMMATURE WAFFLE FROM ... FORCE pitted against FORCE only results in an EXPLOSION where the greater forces may win, but only with collateral damage. IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN TO INNOCENTS - GUN = HEINOUS Go ahead, in your comment try and justify HEINOUS and GUNS REMOVE the risk and the risk is REMOVED !
Repeal The 200 Year Old Second Amendment - NO Civilian GUNS USA - Bann Guns

I would first like to ask that each voter take time to read each case carefully and chose the best case, and with that will begin to construct my first speech. I realize that in the last decade there has been a record amount of mass shootings, but banning guns is not the answer to the problem. As a weighing mechanism since my opponent did not provide one, I will use on balance, which states the most important issue wins and every argument must be looked at in a comparative method. The first reason banning guns is not the answer is people will simply turn to other means of getting guns and make it easier in turn instead of harder for the mentally unstable to get a gun. Two, by introducing a new amendment requires stricter background checks and gun laws that adequately deal with the problems we face today. Three, by tightening security in public places, were these mass shootings happen will lower them significantly. Going into my first point that people will simply to other means of getting a gun, people will go through almost anything get something they really want especially if they are used to having it. A good example is when we banned alcohol during the Prohibition movent we saw a growth in gangs and death from unsanitary moonshine that was being created because of the banned on alcohol. This event is relevant to banning guns because this will cause growth in gain activity, and this may lead to more homemade bombs and more dangerously homemade firearms. You may say this is based all on probability but we see that any time we banned something that a majority of people use there is a rise in crime and this comes from history.com. Also, the 18th amendment was the only amendment to be repealed because in order to repeal an amendment another one must be put in place and there is a lengthy process in which to do so.This leads me to point two which is, we should amend the second amendment and add more restrictions on who should be able to buy guns. By adding more restrictions and limitations as to who and what kind of gun a person can buy we will make it harder for those unfit to buy a gun to get one. By doing so we would lower the number of shootings and no one would kill themselves trying to make a firearm or explosive. My third point is, we should tighten security in public places because killers want a target that is easy to hit not a target that is well guarded. These shooters are normally mentaly unstable and with more security to recognize these people and stricter laws to prevent them from geting them, there would be fewer mass shootings and not as many people would die because an armed security personnel could shoot to injure. I will reject my opponent's points in the next as it would be fair since they could not defend themselves in this speech.
Repeal The 200 Year Old Second Amendment - NO Civilian GUNS USA - Bann Guns

1. The 200 year old second amendment, made U.S.A was being colonized 2. Its is NOT relevant anymore.. the threat of Indians is gone. 3. America, its over 200 years old !! .... OUTDATED, NOT relevant.. Time to get Civilized. 4. Grow up, ENOUGH or DIE Young. 5. The Government buys them back and destroys them! 6. And that is cheaper than generations legal, medical and welfare. 7. Only Dumb people with Guns kill, remove Guns and Dumb people just throw tantrums. 8. No Community Militia to counter attack criminals, that is NOT relevant anymore.
Repeal The 200 Year Old Second Amendment - NO Civilian GUNS USA - Bann Guns

I will once aging refute the claim that I meant bodily harm to my opponent and will once again explain that I metaphorically stated that I blew a hole in his debate case. Not in reality nor did I wish to case him harm. I know this is not a game because we are talking about lives. My opponent fails to tie his case back to the weighing mechanism and my case compared to his case is stronger and has a better solution to the problem. We need to amend the amendment because a repeal will not fix the problems of mass shootings and shootings in general. Studies show that by banning all guns we would actually see a rise in crime rate. My opponent said it was a mere illusion to have people to recognize the mentally unstable and shooters when in fact law enforcement is trained to read such body language. He also said I said it was okay to shoot someone if they broke into your house I did not state that I stated that we have right to protect our selves and that does not mean murder when you can disarm someone without killing them. As stated before multiple times killers want an easy target, not a well-guarded target. If we amend the second amendment we can have more regulations on what types of guns you can buy and who can buy them. Also, a database for gun sellers that flags people who don't need a gun. My opponents' radical ideas are not supported by the American people and he has tried to twist my words to fit his case. He proposed no new amendment if we were to repeal the seconded amendment and he seems to believe that an amendment to amend the second amendment is not change. I ask for a negative ballot and I would like to thank my judges for judging. Our hearts go out to those who have lost family in mass shootings and otherwise.