azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

"Censorship? Not entirely"It's censoring out materials. It includes politically controversial material that people wish to have access to. Please explain to me in what way it does not meet the definition of 'censorship'. Until then, i'll keep calling it censorship."You define an Internet Filter as something that just blocks out whatever it wants."It blocks out whatever materials the politicians who legislate it want it to block and the materials that special interest lobby groups want it to block. Both of which have boundless limits to be modified and expanded and they see fit, with no accountability."it is a protective software that recommends before it acts!"Recommends? I'm not sure you understand what the censor is. It's a piece of software/hardware that will block all materials that somebody else thought was inappropriate for me to see, without giving me any say in the process."If you believe that it is a potential disaster, then please demonstrate how so. I would like to see how far you will go with that argument."Millions of wasted dollars.Funds diverted away from law enforcement agencies that actually make a difference in preventing child abuse.Potentially damages the reliability/effectiveness of the internet, a critical tool for our progress.Provides an opening for increasing censorship.Validates the censorship being utilized by countries such as Iran and China.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

In Internet Filter is basically a system that it categorizing specific sites in order to act in accordance to how it has been programed to do so. It does not necessarily "censor" all sites that have been categorized within the filter, but makes decisions based upon how it has been programmed. If the government chose to provide clear, bold warnings for certain sites, rather than block them altogether, that would not be an act of "censoring," but rather a recommendation, hence, it recommends before it acts."Millions of wasted dollars."Incorrect; millions of paid dollars.We are putting our money into a system that actually saves a lot of time and effort when it comes to online law enforcement. Child safety is the big example here, because it is a problem that has existed since the beginning of online activities. If we began to filter out specific sites that do not handle cyber bullying, then we begin to send a clear message to online predators; things are changing, so make the change. Now, the other major point would be directed at dangerous online software that is instantly downloaded from certain sites online. We can never know 100% if a site contains harmful software or not, because it is often disguised in the programs, games, etc, that we download, and therefore, cannot always be detected at an earlier stage. An online Internet filter will aid in the fight to protect our computers, because through the method of "categorization," we can easily "censor" these harmful sites, and give strong warnings to those sites that may contain harmful software."Validates the censorship being utilized by countries such as Iran and China"Validates? I would think not. Australia is a Democracy, countries such as Iran and China are not. Here in Australia we look towards our government for representation, not rule. Voting is what gives Australians the right to have their say, and this is exactly what we look at when we define which sites are "censored," and which are given a warning. This gives Australians more awareness about the entire issue, and therefore, mistakes by the government will not go without a voice of opinion from the Nation.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

You're right in the sense that most Australians do not know that such a plan to implement a filter exists, because after all, the government have indeed said nothing. BUT, you gave mention to the fact that conferences have been called with the minister in charge in regard to public questions; this proves that people know, and soon enough the entire country will know.Now, the government can "try" and be a cunning and quiet as they can, but as a democracy, they need to accept that Australians will get a say soon enough as to what happens with the Internet and the Internet Filter. I cannot stress this point enough, and yet, I feel as if everyone has been circling it. If you need me to be more specific, then I would have to say that Australia has the power to vote a government in or out of parliament, and that sooner or later a change is going to be made if Australia is unhappy.Also, my point on dangerous software is that most people may already have anti-virus software installed on their computer; this doesn't stop everything from getting in. Adding the protection of an Internet filter, we can instantly cut out the majority of sites which do and may contain harmful software. See the relevance yet? And no, I don't believe in some "magic filter" that removes viruses from the Internet. That concept is complete and utter BS and I have no idea where on Earth you got that from.I would suggest to the government that a blacklist is the wrong way to turn, and that a 'categorization' method would work more effectively. Blacklisting would still be an option, but at least we can trim the fat and then begin to work on the core, if you get my meaning. The concept of validating the Internet filters of China and Iran, if existent, would be only temporary. Like... I... Have... Said... Many... Times... Australia needs to voice an opinion towards the government should things turn for the worst. After all, we are a democracy, and if the system fails, we elect a government that can make it work. If that government cannot do the job, then we should deny the system, but we shouldn't just jump out straight away and say "no," when we haven't even given ourselves a chance to make it work!I probably won't get back to this for a while, I have my actual debate to worry about. Don't get the wrong idea; I appreciate the input, but when people like that NVYN guy get personal, then I just don't have the patience.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

"Australia needs to voice an opinion towards the government should things turn for the worst. After all, we are a democracy, and if the system fails, we elect a government that can make it work. If that government cannot do the job, then we should deny the system, but we shouldn't just jump out straight away and say "no," when we haven't even given ourselves a chance to make it work!"Numerous industry experts, several trials and demonstrations have all come out to show that a web based filter based on the proposed technology will fail on technical grounds.The federal police body responsible for combating the materials that the filters stated goal is to block have come out and said that such materials are not even traded on web pages and in the few cases that they are can be destroyed by the AFP in less time that it takes to have the page reviewed by the ACMA and blacklisted.There are numerous concerns about expanding censorship later."we shouldn't just jump out straight away and say "no,""Tell me. WHY should we introduce this policy, KNOWING all along, based on sound evidence, that it will not work, and would not achieve it's goal and damage our internet even if it did somehow work."most people may already have anti-virus software installed on their computer; this doesn't stop everything from getting in. Adding the protection of an Internet filter, we can instantly cut out the majority of sites which do and may contain harmful software. See the relevance yet?"No, i don't. A web filter doesn't affect virus's, most are spread by email and file sharing, not looking at a webpage. Even if it did, virus carrying websites are beyond the scope of the policy. Again, get anti-virus software, keep it up to date. Virus's have nothing to do with a national web filter. and as i already said, most search engines already warn you when you click through to a site believed to contain virus's. "If we began to filter out specific sites that do not handle cyber bullying, then we begin to send a clear message to online predators; things are changing, so make the change."So if anyone doesn't handle things the way the government thinks they should, they just block them? Awesome. I think that sums up one of the major points against the censor.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

"Millions of wasted dollars.""Incorrect; millions of paid dollars."Incorrect; millions of wasted dollars.The filter does not succesfuly block child pornography, since such material is illegal and is removed and destroyed by the federal police long before the acma can process a complain and block a site.The filter does not successfuly block anything, a 12 year old has the technical know-how to get around it.The filter makes it more difficult for the AFP to fight child porn, as they have said several times now.The filter uses up funds that could have been given to the AFP to expand their efforts against child pornography.The filter is taking funds away from the previous governments pc-based filter program, which gave everyone who wanted on a pc-based filter which was actually effective.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

I support you. You are right.. The National Internet Filter is here to help us. They are not here to prison us or anything..:)
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

Exactly.We as Australia are very different from other countries, such as China, who work unproductively with their Internet (or even political) systems.If we work hard and as a nation, we can make this a working system. Like all things, this will take time, but with time comes progress, and we as a democracy will make progress.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Are you joking or just really naive? China has enacted a filter too, under the guise of "protecting its people" with the intent being to control information that they are allowed to see.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

It might be more helpful if you actually offered some kind of argument. Rather than simply saying "we're right, they're wrong" to get a +1 point for your side. It defeats the purpose of a debate."I support you. You are right.. The National Internet Filter is here to help us. They are not here to prison us or anything..:)"I oppose you, You are wrong. The national internet filter is here to infringe on our personal freedoms and push the moral interests of a fringe minority group on the entire population.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

"The national internet filter is here to infringe on our personal freedoms and push moral interests of a fringe minority group on the entire population."Do you seriously believe that? Do you seriously believe that the government what to push Australian rights away? If you believe in a country where no rights exist for its citizens and all actions are made as a result of a lone decision made by the government, then perhaps you should consider moving to China or Iran. You may be happier there...
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

"Do you seriously believe that?"Yes"Do you seriously believe that the government what to push Australian rights away?"In general? No. In this instance? Possibly, it's hard to say if it's deliberate or due to incompetence. Regardless of whether they want to, are they? Yes."If you believe in a country where no rights exist for its citizens"We don't have a bill of rights, if thats what you mean. You have no right of free speech in Australia. Which is why the government (more specifically, sen Conroy and pm Rudd) can push through policies like this that in any country with a proper constitution would have been stopped (America and France have already rejected internet censors based on their constitutional right to free speech)."then perhaps you should consider moving to China or Iran. You may be happier there..."If you want your internet censord to only show you what the government feels is appropriate for you, maybe YOU should consider moving to China or Iran. You may be happier there..."
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

I clearly don't want my Internet censored, nor will it be entirely censored. If you didn't figure that out, or were just too lazy to notice it or mention it, then that's just incompetent.The Australian government want power, to be sure, but they are not going to strip Australia of all rights just for the sake of power. Even if they were, they wouldn't be the government for long...We aren't America or France, we are a democracy, if they reject an Internet filter based on rights of speech, then let's create an Internet filter here in Australia which promotes choice, not necessarily the one that the government intends to create.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Okay, I'm no expert on the subject (I doubt anyone here is) but here is my understanding:The filter will be used to block anything illegal. If you can't see it at the movies or buy it in a store legally - it'll be blocked. This means that it won't be used to block horrifying or distasteful content as 'Julie603' suggested, unless it is illegal (and a lot of it isn't). Ofcourse there's always the possibility that the government will secretely scrap this idea and block whatever they want. As it currently stands, the main things targeted will be child abuse, bestiality, SOME violence and drugs, instructions on eauthansia and exploitative sexual fetishes.If the filter were to stick to those, then it would be a brilliant idea in theory. The problem is it won't work. As 'NYVN' pointed out, the filter can be circumvented. There will be numerous ways of easily bypassing the filter. In short, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on a filter whose only achievement will be to slow down the internet.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

I agree with you, but a few points to add:"The filter will be used to block anything illegal. If you can't see it at the movies or buy it in a store legally - it'll be blocked."On the contrary, much of what the filter will block is not illegal to posses in most of Australia. some of it CAN be purchased in stores."If the filter were to stick to those,"It won't. The initial policy called for all 'prohibited content', which was not limited to any particular classification or law. Pretty much anything they didn't like. It's since been scaled back to "RC" because of pressure and criticism. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from expanding it back to 'prohibited content' after installing it and groups such as the ACL are already trying to push them to ban & block any and all pornographic material of any kind."In short, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on a filter whose only achievement will be to slow down the internet."There are much better reasons to oppose the filter than just the slowdown it will cause.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

Parents are the ones who must decide whether to have a child or not. Without any one of them the birth of the child is impossible. So, i feel, that dad also has a say in such proceedings that affect both of their lives
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

hi, i was in a similar situation, my girlfriend got pregnant and decided to abort without my say. i was mad at myself cause it seems like i was'nt supportive of her decision. but i wonder to myself what could have happened if we kept the baby. i love her to bits and pieces despite what she did to our unborn child. i was angry and not talking to her but i realised that i might be selfish and besides i love her alot.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: Yes

I agree, the father should have a say in the abortion. What gives the mother the right to kill the unborn child if the father wants to have a child? A child doesn't mean you have to stay together forever. Why should a man have to suffer the pain of losing his unborn child just because some bitch is worried about her social status?
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

I believe a father should have a say in abortion. It takes two to make a child. Why should it take only one to abort a child?
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

The creation of a child requires equal participation, and ideally, so would the raising of said child. However, the burden is unequal when it comes to incubating the embryo; the woman does all the work. Therefor, it makes no sense for someone who has no part in the biological process of the pregnancy to try to dictate what happens to it.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

How about we tell women that they are responsible for their actions and that there will be consequences to their screwing around?
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

I love that. sure there are some birth controls do not work every time, but it is there choice to sleep with a man. Even if one does not want the child there are other options than killing it. Saying that you dont want to put your body through carrying a child then your just being selfish and think twice before you have sex.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

it makes no sense for someone who has no part in the biological process of the pregnancyWHAT?!?!?! A father plays an important part in the biological process of the pregnancy. What are you talking about? You even say so yourself in the first sentence, "The creation of a child requires equal participation." And then you go and contradict yourself?Incubating the embryo is part of raising the child. The mother would raise it for 9 months and then, afterwords, the father raises the child until age 18 without the mother who doesn't want the baby. The burden is unequal when it comes to raising the baby to adulthood; the man does most the work. The mother's role is done and over with after 9 months. Now, for your information, it is a lot harder to take care of a child for ANY 9 month period AFTER the child is born than it is to take care of a child while it is "incubating". So , are you telling that you would rather kill the fetus (denying the fetus a chance at life, AND denying the father of his half of the baby) than carry it for 9 months? Is 9 months such a burden to bear for a human life?
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

The father plays an equal part in insemination. The fertilization of the egg. After that, his job can be done until the child is born. This is the platform of my argument; pregnancy belongs specifically to the mother. It takes place inside her body from beginning to end, uses resources from her, and the process leaves her permanently altered. If she does not want to continue it, it is her choice and only her choice because her body is what is keeping the fetus alive, and nobody can force a person to allow anything to use them as life support. In a perfect world, couples would have this discussion before sex, and come to an agreement about what to do in the event of a pregnancy. But as it is, that doesn't always happen, and in that unfortunate case, it is not up to the father. I feel for the men who have lost a fetus they were willing to raise into a child; it is a terrible thing to experience, and I wish it was avoidable. But considering the alternative, which removes a woman's right to her own body, I cannot see a better way. "The burden is unequal when it comes to raising the baby to adulthood; the man does most the work."Yes. In this situation, it is completely his choice, and no one strong-armed him into it. This is irrelevant because this is not about how hard it is to do what, It is about who is being forced to do what.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

And no one strong armed the woman into getting pregnant. What you fail to realize is that there are more than one person involved in a pregnancy and their rights are being trampled on.http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ How_many_people_are_involved_in_a_pregnancy_situation
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

I am sure if couples who had birth control failures had been given a choice between their contraceptive working and not working, they would have opted for it to work. However, this is an act of nature, and no one is really given a choice. I am not sure why you keep offering your own debate as some sort of proof, or source for your argument. There are two people involved in the origin of the pregnancy, but it is only strictly necessary for the woman to be involved in the duration of it. That is a fact.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

If a couple is using birth control get pregnant, then they would choose to abort. The specific and very limited case I'm talking about is where the couple are at odds.I don't know why you keep straying from the subject at hand. Actually that's not true. I mean, if someone gave me absolute power over anything (including life and death), I would never relinquish that power either (regardless of how many people's rights it tramples on) ;)
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

The situation I presented said nothing about their views differing or aligning, only that they find themselves in a situation of a pregnancy they were trying to prevent. How about if you had power to make all the decisions over what happens to your own body? You have that now, and I bet you don't want to give that up. Neither do I, can you imagine that?
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

Really? It depends on your definition of "power over my body." You see, if i get a girl pregnant and I want her to have an abortion and she chooses not to, she can then turn around and force me to use my body in the service of providing for that child in the form of child support. A man is thus enslaved. But I bet you see that as perfectly alright. As long as it's a one way street that favors you, you're Ok with it. Aren't you?Either a man has the right to request an abortion or he has a right to not pay child support if the request is refused, or he has a right to request that an abortion not be performed and that he will take full responsibility for the child.The father has got to have at least one of those rights. Otherwise it is discrimination and his civil rights have been violated.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

I am no fan of the current child support system, although I think it is a separate issue from a woman's bodily autonomy. It is outdated, easily abused, and yes, it is one of the few areas of life that seems to be stacked unfairly in favor of the woman. So, what is an alternative way to provide for the basic needs of these children when their mother cannot afford to?
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

Hmmm..., I think I see the problem. This is one of those "the glass is half full / half empty" things.I mean, I can rephrase your last question as follows:What do we do with irresponsible people who know they can't afford a child but they risk having sexual intercourse (instead of 69 or something), get pregnant and then want to keep the child?
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

Agreed. However, her decision to keep this child, will change this man's life whether he wants the child or not. Her decision not to keep the child, can prevent someone who wants to be a good and loving father the chance.