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

But they are just "investigations". These investigations could result in the blockage of a whole website, or more commonly just a section of the website which is considered to be offensive. And most of these blockages are only blocked temporarily until suitable changes are made. For example, the government won't block U tube just because of one indecent video. they will just block the video in question or, more commonly, just edit it. they do that with a lot of songs already, like Lily Allen's song "the fear" where some inappropriate words were sung. A national Internet filter system's purpose is not to block a whole lot of websites but to create a safer environment on the Internet by modifying inappropriate sites and establishing a higher standard of Internet sites that Australians should expect when using the Internet. Blocking a certain website for good would be the very last result
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

'A national Internet filter system's purpose is not to block a whole lot of websites but to create a safer environment on the Internet by modifying inappropriate sites'How would you know this is the case. Do you work for the government? Because the last I heard - they have not even spoke about what they're going to block and whether they're going to just 'edit' things out. If websites are taken away for good, there could be a lot of reasons why, not just that it is inappropriate.'And most of these blockages are only blocked temporarily until suitable changes are made.'What happens if the web maker decides not to change the 'offensive' material on the site? What is the government classifying 'offensive' as?There are just to many questions unanswered!
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

1. I never mentioned anything about the government's filter.2. I don't work for the government.3. Questions aren't always answered, but in this case, Australia, as a democratic nation, will be forcing them sooner or later.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

Are you serious?Do you honestly believe that a politicion is going to look at a debating website as offensive, merely due to one post? Sorry, but I can't help but laugh. You assume that our political system is corrupt and incredibly biased when it comes to the internet. You show no evidence that it is a possibility... and expect us to believe it?Now, if you are making comparisons between Create Debate and other social interaction sites (i.e blogs, chatspaces, etc), then you should again rethink your argument. The whole concept of a debating site is to argue a point, and bad blood is going to flow between users sooner or later. The single fact here on the site which differs us from other sites is that we are able to deal with effective users will show any politician that the site is in fact not offensive towards users, and in rare instances, can quickly deal with anything of the sort that may arise, correct me if I am wrong.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

"Because in the long run, after several thousands of dollars going towards the whole Filtration System, we will find that the Government will be wasting little more dollars in areas such as Internet Police work."Here's a thought: maybe you should be focusing your efforts on decommissioning internet police, if their job is to simply hunt down offensive web content then they are effectively internet nannies paid to take care of you. If it's about illegal web content, you're just giving an excuse for your government to tell you what is and is not alright for you to see. That's how it starts you know, innocuous policies like illegal website filtering, child pornography, etc. then soon it becomes dissident political websites, websites that question certain policies. Don't believe me? Lookup the leaked ISP internet filter lists and the legitimate content they block."We will also see a decrease in the creation of unnecessary websites that would not even meet the requirements, pouring that money, instead, back into the economy, and not into the bank account of an online nerd"Which isn't the job of government in the first place. Government isn't supposed to deny its citizens the right or ability to use a technology like a website creation tool based on its content being too trivial."Australia can define itself as a country that understands what its people want, and can act upon these understandings in further benefit to the nation. Racial hate will drop in one figure or another, and then the progress picks up again. Australia branches out the Filtration choices, decides even further how they will want a National Filter to work in Schools, Homes, Workplaces, etc, etc."Again, not the role of government. YOU can do that on YOUR computer, but it isn't a government's job to legislate the majority's tastes onto you a la censorship. You realise that China proudly spins its censorship much like you are doing, touting its filter as a means to achieve social harmony and prevent low-quality trash that threatens peace.By the way, if this "for side" is representative of Australians' attitudes as a whole, I really feel sorry for you guys. You're just begging for a government that does everything for you, including your thinking. I guess sheep really can bring about a regime.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

1 - Cyber bullying? Offensive sites = internet bullying? You've lost me I'm afraid... About money being shifted over to a better use: I'm not convinced that a filter will all of a sudden increase the number of "good" websites. Think about it, I'm Joe Paedophile and I want to create a website for childporn, but because of the filter I can no longer do that... so instead I will create a website for educational purposes?! That's kinda funny... you give bad people too much credit there my friend :)2 - Without the filter, the community will still come together for online games and those who hate porn will still band together and reject it. The only reason the community will come together more than they already have is to reject this national filter the way it's been presented to them.So... I hope you have better responses in your actual school debate... or hope to God that your opponents can't think of this obvious rebuttal... oh wait a minute you don't believe in God! ;) 3 - The argument for the system being relevant to Australia's culture and needs is pretty easy, but you've made a mess of it... Sigh... You should think about how it will be different to other filters in other countries and how it will respond to Australia's needs specifically, how is Australian culture different to Chinese culture for example...
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

Again, you are asking from me what I already know, I just haven't made an effort to state it.The whole concept of our Internet filter being different to those of China's has already been mentioned; next time make an effort to look. I will actually explore that in more depth in my debate (which happens to be 6 days away).What is it with you and personally consulting me? First it is my sense of logic and now it is my religious beliefs? Are you a debater or a Wannabe-Parent? Actually, never mind, I really don't want to go there..."...those who hate porn will still band together and reject it."Incredible, I'm actually going to assume that you are American or from another distant country. In case you didn't know, here in Australia neighbours don't just band together and say "let's suddenly try and ban pornography," because that just doesn't happen here pal. It takes BIG things for things to happen, and unless pornography has killed a few children recently I don't think that is going to cut it. The concept of a National Internet Filter has been spoken of quietly in not just parliemant. Some of us actually know that we can make it work, despite what anyone says.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

The word is not "consulting". It's "insulting". And no, I'm not insulting you. I'm trying to make fun of you, there's a difference, but maybe it's not working... :]I actually wouldn't waste my time debating with kids (unless they're mine) but I've simply got too much time on my hands at the moment so I can afford to sit here and actually debate with 15 year-old you. I still don't know what you're saying half the time though, so good luck with the debate anyways.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

If you are, then I'll ask nicely for you to stop, so that you can remain here on the debate.Also, please keep posts relevant, I'm actually taking notes, as I am sure that what you say isn't BS, and may actually arrise in the debate. If so, I'll be ready for it. If not, well, it is less for me to rebut.If you really think that I am unconvincing, then perhaps that relates to the fact that I am not trying to convince you. You are practice to me, not an audience. I'm not afraid to test out a few theories and watch you personally "make fun" of me, following with threats to ban me from debates, calling me an "unworthy debater."So, keeping it short and sweet, don't reply, and I won't ban you from the debate (see, I can do that, after all, it is my debate), just throw something at the wall and get over it.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

Ofcoarse! our children are being exploited in this country not only by our government but also by the media, our tv, our advertising, it's all corrupt. No wonder we have violent children who end up in jail. Australia has the highest suicide rate. We have an alcohol problem, we have a divorce problem, we have confused children Why ? Because this government has created its own Monsters>>.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

I'm also in the aforementioned C grade debating competition, from the same school and team as SMCdeBater. I just got back from my debate and , just to let everyone know, we won. We were affirmative and our main arguments were that we need a national internet filter for protection of young people, and that an Australian national internet filter doesn't have to be like China's one because we are a democracy, while in China, the government is in charge of everything. The other team said we would become like china, but I, being second speaker, reinforced the argument that we ae a democracy; if we became the slightest bit like china, we wouldn't elect that government again.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

Okay, starting off, I won my debate, and claimed best speaker, so people like NVYN can take this proof as an example that I actually can debate.Now, getting on topic, I am going to redirect my arguments to better suit some of the ones that my team used at the debate: we should adopt a national internet filter, though it should differ from that of the governments choice. It should be a national internet filter that promotes the right of choice, and therfore, allows for users to not only be granted a warning for particular sites that shouldn't be completely blocked, but to also leave power in the hands of the Australian citizens.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

well,, I am here to say in my debate competition we won.My side was Australia should adopt a National Internet Filter. We won the debate and we really should for everyone's sake. if there is less people who will watch bad things in the internet because of the filter, there will be less people who will commites crimes such as taking Child pornography.. and if there is less crimes.. we will have more peace.. n I think everyone in here, agrees about that we are talkng and arguing about this to have peace and I say if you want peace in Australia, we have to asopt a national internet filter for sure.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

People should be able to look at whatever they want. The government shouldn't have to create a filter, the citizens are old enough to choose what they want to look at.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

how can you say we are old enough when children have acess tio the internet
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Because it shouldn't be the governments job to raise children. All computers have parental control. The parents can block sites they feel are inappropriate and are over a certain level
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

"People should be able to look at whatever they want." Then people are "children" nothing stops children when parents are not home. We are being exploited as we speak every day every hour. If you run a country you are acting as an adult as a parent the government is responsible in every way. Why do you think Muslim countries ban all abusive media and books? So not to corrupt people. So not to create Monsters and confuse our children. Pedophiles love you to choose what you want to watch on the Internet. How do you think a pedophile became a pedophile he was also exploited as a child. Think about it even before computers came about our governments allowed pornographic magazines on the shelf.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

"Then people are "children" nothing stops children when parents are not home"On the contrary. The parents have the option of disabling the internet/computer when they are not home. The parents have the options of installing a PC-based filter on their pc, which will be far more effective, reliable and won't force their views onto the entire population."Why do you think Muslim countries ban all abusive media and books?"For the same reason they ban women from showing any skin and women who are raped are stoned because they invited it. Oppression."How do you think a pedophile became a pedophile he was also exploited as a child."Exactly, he was exploited as a child, it has nothing to do with the internet. Unless you're suggesting the internet caused his computer to grow arms and beat him.plus: An adult pedophile today, would not have had the internet in his house when he was a child. It's a relatively new thing in homes. If he did, it would have been 33.6k/56k dialup." So not to corrupt people"Some of us are capable of making our own morale choices. We're not lemmings who are corrupted by everything we see. When was the last time you saw a porn video and immediately walked outside and thought "boy, i should rape that women". When was the last time you played a first person shooter video game, walked outside and thought "man, it would be cool if i shot that guy in the head"."We are being exploited as we speak every day every hour. "Yes, we are being exploited by our government and by fringe lobby groups who are trying to force their morale views onto the entire country."If you run a country you are acting as an adult as a parent the government is responsible in every way."You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the government. They're there to run the country on our behalf, the create policies and laws that reflect the will of the public (which has proven to be overwhelmingly against the censor, just fyi). Not to run our lives. If you must compare the government to something, they're the caretaker of the property, not the parent. Hired to serve us and maintain our country, not control us.The government is not my parent. My parents are 2 people who i call mom and dad. They decided how they wanted to raise me and they raised me to be a well rounded individual who can decide for himself the difference between right and wrong without being told what to think by the government.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

The governments have rights to create a filter for us. They are the ones who we elected them for our benefits. They are actually helping us by doing this. We choose them. We elected them so they can help us to make Australia, a better country with better people. We all needs to put a faith on our government.they are not locking all the sites. They are only blocking the ites, which might horrify other people and 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 to look so there will be less people who will make crimes or get affected by the internet.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Don't look at sites you believe aren't good, parents can put parental controls on the computers for kids, and people should have the choice to know what sites are out there. If they don't want to see the site, don't go to it.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

What about young kids who shouldn't be exposed to inappropriate sites filled with content such as pornography, and are exposing themselves to it? Are they going to willingly to just not go to it? It is wrong to say that parents do all they can, because if they did, then maybe we wouldn't have as many (or any) adolescent suicides based from cyber bullying, etc.It has been proven that parental controls do not work, as many bypasses have been found for parental controls. Also, these controls are not directly monitored.With a National Internet Filter, people are continuously watching for ANYTHING out of the ordinary, and if something happens, then they will know about it!
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

"shouldn't exposing themselves many know about it!"Are you highlighting certain words hoping to get picked up by the filter? What side will you be taking in the school debate?
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

Haha, no, actually, I am just stressing certain words to get the point across.I am arguing the Affirmative by the way.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

So you're proposing that parents don't have to be responsible for what their children do on the internet and that the government is responsible for it? Some parents are already irresponsible enough, this filter will make parents even more irresponsible thinking that everything is taken care of by the government and they no longer need to worry. That's a false sense of security that will destroy a country inside out one day.Suppose that a website was found to be "bad", how many people need to vote for it to be removed by the filter?
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

"So you're proposing that parent's don't have to be responsible for what their children do on the Internet and that the government is responsible for it?You assume very wrongly.I am stating that parents can always do more for their children in terms of responsibility, they just don't have the time (or in many cases the discipline) to do it, and effectively. With an Internet filter, parents who are actually trying to make an effort, but are lacking the time, can find themselves more relaxed and therefore, reassured. As for those parents who are already irresponsible, then I suppose that they're the ones who need to be regulated, though this could not be easily achieved, nor can this simply be "found" by the government. If you're talking about security, then that involves security, and therefore, parental rights should be taken and moved to a more responsible adult. We cannot blame an Internet filter for a parent's lack of responsibility, that is just the wrong way to turn.Voting? I am assuming that by that you refer to electing which sites stay and which don't. One word: categorization. Good or bad, the public will know, and at the end of the day, majority rules doesn't it? Now, this is different in some cases; the cause of public outburst cannot be without fair reason, and it will also depend on the opinions of those who are against that reason. If all seems fair on one end of the scale, and proves to have a fair and reasonable number, then why shouldn't it be done?
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Not bad! Parents who care but don't have the time! Not bad at all...Ok, how about the voting system? Can you be 100% certain on the voting mechanism? I don't think the government has told anyone how it works yet... You say "majority rules" and "fair and reasonable number" but what exactly does that mean? Majority of Catholics? Majority of people in 1 state? Majority in the whole country? Majority of people who spend most of their time online at night? Don't assert something and leave yourself open for mockery when you don't know for sure! You shouldn't support a system you don't know about very well that and has the potential to restrict your freedom. Your opposition team is going to play this card well, so if you can't beat it, you might be staring at a defeat come 5 day's time.
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULD...

True, I could stare at defeat come 5 days time; anything is possible.As for the term "majority," you would have to consider several different cases: The Type of Site, The people that have a problem with the site, what kind of people they are, how many of these people there are, the type of people who oppose the concept of a problem, who those kind of people are, and how many of them there are.This "voting" concept is complex, and should be handled with care by the government.Now, let's pull out an example, just to make things easier:200 people of African background find the Internet site createdebate.com offensive, because there have been racial topics posted that have insulted their community. This issue was drawn to the communities attention by only 10 young boys who use the site for half an hour every weekday. The community looks carefully at the post and suggest that due to this post the entire site should be shut down to prevent any similar topics from being posted. The government then announce that to the entire nation that createdebate.com has been found as possibly offensive, and ask for a count on how many people disagree with the problem. 10,000 people come forward, all suggesting that the site is not offensive. These people have all been noted to be regular users of the site, using it for one hour each weekday. The government then consider that higher numbers rest with the people opposing, and that the problem only exists in one particular part of the site. The government recommend to the community of those with African background that it is best not to filter the site, and suggest that the community simply leave the issue at rest.This is what I refer to by "majority rules." Not just a number count, but a consideration of many aspects, both with the people and the site (from the one problem to the entire site in general).
Debate: Should Australia adopt a National Internet Filter?
Side: Australia SHOULDN'T...

Really? This is how the system really works? I must have missed the memo about it... What if the community of people of African background number in the 20,000? That's twice as many people who want it filtered than those who want it to stay... I dunno joe, I mean I know you're not trying to convince and I'm only practice to you and everything like that or whatever, but dude, are you sure about this system? I mean it could really stink... y'know? I don't wanna smelly system... definitely not... I mean I'm not even a tax payer but golly gosh macintosh, it's a bit an expensive toy for the government that the taxpayers are paying for isn't it?