azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

So, the only argument you are left with is the cost? Well, since you're banned, I really shouldn't be bothering since you cannot reply, but I need the rebuttal practice, so I'll go ahead.It is a great expense in the beginning; that is a given, but this is going to save us money in the long run.1) Online Law Enforcement is no longer a major requirement, and therefore, no longer requires major funding.2) Unnecessary websites are no longer needed, and therefore are not wasted upon or created.3) Taxpayers are paying for their online protection, and the protection of the entire Nation. It will draw harm, but it will create far more good.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

"1) Online Law Enforcement is no longer a major requirement, and therefore, no longer requires major funding."An online filter will not replace law enforcement. That's like saying because we have speed cameras we no longer need police cars on the streets. Because we have alarm systems, we no longer need security guards. The filter actually does nothing to prevent online crime, it blocks a few pages selected by the government because they contain controversial information."2) Unnecessary websites are no longer needed, and therefore are not wasted upon or created."I'm confused, do you understand how the internet works? The government has absolutely no control over the creation of websites whatsoever. Bocking a few webpages doesn't stop webpages being made, and why would we want it to? Stopping webpages being made wouldn't save the government any money either. Just to put things into perspective. There are several trillion unique webpages out there, increasing drastically every year. The current blacklist contains 1,000. Compare those 2 figures. And tell me just how much of an impact do you think this censor is going to have."3) Taxpayers are paying for their online protection, and the protection of the entire Nation. It will draw harm, but it will create far more good."The censor provides no online protection from anything. It does not block child pornography, child pornography is destroyed by the federal police long before the ACMA can blacklist the webpage its on. In fact, its not even actually traded on webpages, most traders of child pornography use private networks and the like. It does not successfully block other webpages either. Anyone and everyone can circumvent it at will. And no-one was even forcing them to go to a "harmful" webpage to begin with."Well, since you're banned, I really shouldn't be bothering since you cannot reply,"That's the spirit, way to encourage a good debate, ban dissenting opinions.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

Don't get involved in something that you know nothing about (Regarding your last comment).
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

"The governments have rights to create a filter for us."The government has the right the introduce law, They also have the obligation to introduce laws that reflect the will of the public. The entire purpose of the government is to serve the public. We tell the government what we want to have in Australia, the government doesn't tell us what they want us to have in Australia."They are the ones who we elected them for our benefits. We choose them. We elected them so they can help us to make Australia, a better country"We elected them to deliver the policies that they outlined in their election campaign. The internet censor is not one of them. The internet filter was introduced at the last minute of the last hour right before the election. Most people don't even know it exists, so how can you claim that we elected them to do this."We all needs to put a faith on our government"No, we do not. This is the purpose of transparency and accountability. So that we, the people who elected the government can see how they are handling the policies that we elected them for and make a decision about whether we want to elect them again. Simply putting 'faith' in the government and taking it for granted that everything they do is for our own good belies the purpose of a democracy."to know that they are going to put a vote of which internet sites are good for all of Australians and the sites that everyone hates will be banned"This policy involves no voting on what material is banned. In fact, the list of banned materials will not even be available and will be kept secret with no accountability."will be banned to look so there will be less people who will make crimes or get affected by the internet."There has never been any link proven between the viewing of violent, sexual or controversial materials and the perpetration of criminal offences. Forgetting that for a moment, the censor will not even stop people from looking at these materials. Most 12 year olds posses the technical knowledge to circumvent these filters. Home PC based filters have always proven to be a far more reliable and effective method for screening out unwanted materials in a household and do not require infringing on the liberties of those who do not want their information censored.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

The government has done the same thing for the Chinese. Yet when you hear about the citizens they can't even type in 'freedom'. Australia is known as a country to be a free for all to have a say in what they believe in. If the government begins something like this, it will show they distrust us and most off all they will take our freedom away. Even this website could be taken away because of some of the issues brought up in it.Anyway, we have the choice of going on these sites -a choice - is when someone makes a decision about something. So if they choose to go on a website, they are entitled to see and read what ever is there and suffer any consequences that may arise.We are on a school team that will be debating this subject tomorrow and we are obviously on the negative team :D
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

That would be media censorship - a topic of debate I've participated in many times only to find that just about everybody on here is against it.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

The Rudd government's Censorship regime will attempt to prevent access to web pages that have been Refused Classification.If it was about illegal material, they'd say it was about illegal material. But they don't: they say "Refused Classification."Refused Classification does not mean "illegal." It just means that the material does not fit into the MA15+, R18+ or X18+ shoeboxes. Again, if it were truly illegal, they wouldn't be mincing words; they'd just come out and say "illegal." Most Refused Classification material is perfectly legal to possess, and to read/view in the privacy of one's own home, in most parts of Australia.Child pornography? Sure, that's illegal. In every country in the world. So why in your right mind would you approve of a system whereby our government says "Here's a list of child pornography on the World Wide Web. Let's give that list to ISPs and tell them to prevent people from accessing it."I'd prefer them to give that list to the police, who can liaise with their international counterparts and have the filth deleted, and the distributors/perpetrators hunted down and brought to justice.This Rabbit-Proof Firewall will not prevent one single child from being raped.This Rabbit-Proof Firewall will not bring one single paedophile one single step closer to a gaol cell.It should be scrapped once and for all, and the money sent to the Australian Federal Police's High-Technology Crime Unit.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Is Australia following the path of China? Censorship piled over Censorship-----
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

I'm all for law and order, but by George, I'm also for freedom of speech and personal responsibility. So as a responsible member of a democratic nation, I'd like to say that I ain't voting for nothing until I:1 - know exactly what it is, 2 - how it works and 3 - how it affects our lives.Voting for anything before you know the answers to these questions is proof that you're not using your brains and so you should give it away and go join a flock of sheep somewhere in China...The Australian government has been keeping quite a tight lid on the whole thing, so noone knows much about how it works or what exactly will be filltered. Shame on them! I thought Australia was a democracy, oh wait a minute, it is!!! I suggest its citizens use their voting powers and force the government to be transparent about the whole thing and if they refuse, to vote them the hell out of parliament!!!
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

To know exactly which sites will be band... you need to vote... Don't you get it, sir? that everyone is going to vote to say which site is good and which site is bad for them.. and the sites that has not much votes will be banned to look at it... How it works.. Okay.. when you go to the illegal site,, It will suddenly go black and you are not even allow to clik anything on that site.. and you need to click going back, because you can't do anything to put the blocking away. Also I think it is rude to say that I don't have a brain.. what would you say if I said to you that you don't have a brain, sir? You won't be happy, won't you? exactly.. we all have feelings..and in debating.. I don't want to go cross the line of the manners that we should have in debating. This will help us keeping out from those horrifying sites and we won't get affect by those sites, which means, we can finally trust the internet and find lots of good things, instead of being afriad of which site that we might see... :)
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Dear oh dear, when did I say you don't have a brain? Firstly, I didn't address you directly, so just relax about it because it was not said to you personally. Secondly, my actual words were "...not using your brains...", it's very different from not having a brain.And none of what you wrote here is convincing... I mean if sites can be horrible, just switch to another site! Don't look at it! Nobody makes you sit there and look at horrible sites!You'll still need to explain the details of the voting mechanism, don't explain to me how the blocking effects work. I already know how it works, you simply can't access blocked sites! But like I said I can use a software to circumvent the whole system!
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

In regards to how the filter will work, here is my understanding:The public will complain about a site they deem to contain illegal content, but they will NOT get to vote. The Australian Communication Media Authority (ACMA) will decide whether it goes on the 'black list' or not. The black list will be a list of banned sites. The public however, will not be aware of what is on the black list. People from ACMA will decide if a site should on the black list, and we won't even know there was a trial.The sites to be banned will contain illegal content, not necessarily horryifying sites. The problem is that mistakes can be made. A trial blacklist that was leaked, included a dentist's site and a school canteen website.If you don't like a website, dont visit it. For people who want to visit an illegal site, they can easily bypass the filter. Is it worth spending tens of millions of dollars on? I think not.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

If you don't like a website, don't visit it.Fair enough, however, what of those sites which contain harmful software (I.E Viruses) that could potentially destroy an entire hardrive and it's contents? You cannot simply say that "I know that this site contains that software, so I won't go there," because the majority of the time you won't even know about it. Have a good, long think about how this would benefit the webmail system, the online blogging and chatting community, and, especially, those people who regularly download software online.The problem is that mistakes can be made.That is a given, regardless of what the case it may be. An example of this was the governments latest scheme involving home insulation. The person responsible - Environmental Minister Peter Garrett - did not plan things out effectively, and, as a result, four workers died because they were not 'experienced' enough. On top of that, each house now has to have all these new insulations removed, because they have been classified as "unsafe." What you need to understand is that mistakes can potentially happen anywhere, anytime, and therefore can often not be avoided. A National Internet Filter will probably have it's mistakes, but as a democratic nation, we as Australians will be able to work hard alongside the government in order to provide a Filter that will work, and that will make a positive difference.As for the concept of pointlessly costing Australia $10,000,000, that is not entirely so. If you believe otherwise, then answer these questions:1) Why won't this save money in the long run?2) Why don't we support Internet protection?3) Can you put a price on the safety of innocent individuals online?I think we can afford it this time!
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

So that people can actually see what the debate is about:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia http://nocleanfeed.com/http://www.stopthecleanfeed.com/http://www.efa.org.au/2008/10/16/efa-alarmed-at-creeping-clean-feed/ http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/16/conroys-clean-feed-wont-block We didn't get a choice in this. We don't get a say on what material gets blocked. And the info they've given us suggests that they are even going to block things that aren't illegal here, but are merely things that someone decides are distasteful.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

I have had a look at all those sites, and clearly, they make strong points. The government can only get away with things for so long, before Australia becomes louder to the point where they are literally screaming in their faces.You cannot deny that the Government represents the people, after all, we are a democracy. The difference between Australia and China is that the people do get a say in how things are done in Australia, while in China, things are politically handled without consent from the country and its people. If we want something changed, and we prove how it benefits (or helps) a situation, to further boost our economy and/or help save and secure Australian life, then things get changed. If they are not changed, parliament doesn't last in office for long.By distasteful, I'm sure that you don't openly refer to simply pornography, but rather, say racial or even other age-appropriate content. I could be here all day and night naming the many different things that people find distasteful. At the end of the day, there are inappropriate things on the Internet, and the whole purpose of a National Internet Filter is to ensure that these key 'things' are not accessible to the nation. If anyone were to think otherwise, then that is just pathetic, because they are basically crying out for content such as pornography to not be taken away. "Oh no, now I can't see topless women anymore." Sounds pathetic doesn't it?Like I said, bad things don't last forever; if the government goes too far, Australia can call for a change, but when it comes to content such as pornography, well, sometimes its just better to leave things out of reach.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

" The difference between Australia and China is that the people do get a say in how things are done in Australia,"We're saying we don't want out internet censored.Every poll/study/survey done has shown people overwhelmingly against the censor.We have had no say in this policy.We've had no say in what gets censored.The minister responsible continuously cancels media appointments and interviews that involve questions from the public"You cannot deny that the Government represents the people, after all, we are a democracy."Are we? we'll see.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

"We're saying we don't want our Internet censored."Define "we." Don't speak for Australia, speak for yourself."Every poll/study/survey has shown people overwhelmingly against the censor."It would be pretty easy for that to happen seeing as we don't know a lot about it just yet. But when we do, Australia will get the picture, and can then decide whether or not we should make appropriate changes to the Filter, or better yet, to the government."We have had no say in this policy."Not yet anyway."We've had no say in what gets censored."In time Australia can make a statement as to whether or not certain sites can be censored or 'warned of.' We cannot simply say no to a system when we haven't actually given ourselves the chance to make it work!"Are we?"Are you Australian? Do you believe that our voting system proves that Australia believes in a democratic nation which upholds the right to freedom of speech and opinion? Voting proves that we not only get a say, but our say will impact the nation. We tick the boxes and the government responds after ensuring that Australia will agree. If not, well, we may as well not call them the "government" come next election.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Our tax money is getting wasted on a crappy scheme. If anyone who really thinks this filter is a good idea then please download and install your own PC filter and block out on what you want.What the government wants is pure censorship don't let our country go down the toilet even more by supporting such a wasteful embarrassing and expensive scheme say NO to the filter "censorship".
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Australia should not implement national internet censorship because it will not achieve any of the things that the supporters claim it will achieve while at the same time it will cost Australia dearly, both in monetary terms and in non-monetary terms.It will not protect anyone, adult or child, from accidental exposure to adult material.It will not prevent anyone, adult or child, from deliberately accessing adult material.It will not protect children from online predators or online bullying.It will not protect children by preventing people from sharing images of actual child sex abuse.The money would be better spent on educating parents and educating children, and on subsidised home-based internet filters for those who really want it.Most sensible parents understand that technology is not a substitute for locating a PC in a "public" part of the house and supervising children while they are online and educating children about online safety.http://chairmankrudd.com
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

The proposed filter will only filter normal web-surfing activity more commonly known as "HTTP" websites. Not only will it be completely simple to get around the filter for anyone who wants to, but it won’t be able to stop the distribution of illegal child abuse material on private underground networks, where that sort of material is traded. Filtering this is not an option, instead we could spend the money on possible police investigations that are able to penetrate the secretive groups charge those who are creating and sharing this illegal material. This policy will not protect Australian families; in fact, it may put parents into a false sense of security. This could possibly lower their caution when it comes to supervising their children's on-line activities. Parents will begin to think there children are safe. The list of pages that will be blocked is only a tiny fraction of the material on the internet that may be thought harmful to children. Now with no careful monitoring and no watchful eyes. Children will be at more of a risk, especially with not all explicit sites being caught in the filter. What is even more worrying is the fact the biggest risks that children face online are not exposure to inappropriate content, but inappropriate contact with others.In order to properly protect children online, filtration is no competition against proper education. We need more education for parents about options for voluntary filtering for their computers, that can be tailored to allow a household to control their Internet content and more education for parents and children about the risks that children might face online, and what to do about them. This would be a more radical elimination to child exposure on the internet.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

The internet should be a completely open source of information and nothing should be filtered no matter what country you are in.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

I must oppose such a sweeping act of censorship. Free information is needed for a free society.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Exactly. It's plain censorship. And I don't remember the Australian public getting a say before the Government sent the bill to be passes, but correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not sure, after all. So there's the "democracy card" played. This would also have serious economical problems. The Australian branch of Google would be put completely out of business and would be shut down. Putting a blanket censor over our Internet is taking away our freedom of choice, and is the beginnings of an Orwellian disaster.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Economical problems as in computer gurus hacking the filter and then selling their services online, which proves that the whole internet barrier was a waste of money? I agree.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

Censorship? Not entirely. Economically bad? Probably not. Australian branch of Google shutting down as a result? Definantly not!You define an Internet Filter as something that just blocks out whatever it wants.This is not enitirely the case.A National Internet Filter isn't a robotic prison guard, it is a protective software that recommends before it acts!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.