azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Still Wrong. GDP measures the different scale of economies among how resources are distributed such as GDP per capita.That's why I said relative. I know that different nations have differing wealth.The outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas is part of an economic movement that promises a better life, indeed, a new beginning for many people in developing countries. It gives technologically savvy young people in countries like India livelihoods that move them into the ranks of the middle classNot really. You'd think that wealthy companies that struck gold here, who move jobs overseas, would improve the lives of the people there because they'd offer good wages and benefits. It makes a lot of sense, you know? But what really happens is that they move to India, Pakistan, Mexico, etc. and then proceed to provide wages that are just a minimal improvement over what the average pay was. Say the average pay was 40 cents an hour, they'll pay under a dollar still. They'll also create sweatshop conditions and use child labour. So, what happens? These companies start to disrupt the local businesses, and become the main jobs. Because they ARE providing better, albeit insufficient, wages it may be the case that local businesses lose workers. In a really bad situation, the local businesses start to vanish and just the sweatshops exist, and there's no chance of improving salaries because unions are illegal, or violence is perpetrated against organised labour, and being that these companies make billions annually they aren't threatened enough that they need to raise wages to compete.THAT is why I support unions and minimum wage laws. I don't want to see a return to low-paying, near-sweatshop conditions to this country.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

That's why I said relative.No, it is not. If it were, China and India would have the first and second largest economy in the world relative to population, and IN, but America is still the number one. Japan is a prime example of how it is not because it is only the tenth largest country in the world in population but the second largest economy in the world. Along with Germany, the fourteenth largest population country, yet the fourth highest GDP. The United Kingdom fits into this reason of logic, 22 in population, 6th in GDP.On the other hand, India is the second largest most populous country yet only 11th in GDP.From the 1950s to the 1980s, India had socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth.GEE, I wonder why?In 1991, the nation liberalized its economy and has since moved towards a free-market economy. With the socialist movement, it severely hurt India economically until it reigned in capitalism, and it is on the rise.WhyBecause of capitalism. It creates wealth.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Sorry to butt in here, PrayerFails.Consumer protection create more competitive atmosphere to avoid fraud or other flimflam practices, and again, consumer protection doesn't fall under the category of destroying tariffs and government monopolies.Um. That's just wrong. Do you really think companies cheer in applause for the greater challenge when consumer protection laws are introduced or added to? I'm afraid not. Individual consumer protection laws are introduced precisely because, without the threat of severe legal reprisal, the free market by design favours companies which only seek a profit. If a company were to spend any money on maintaining any quality standards or safety standards which the consumer is not able to appraise personally then it would not last very long. The free market is just the 'political market' with dollar voting. And the political market favours:(according to michey5321 also posting on this debate)the best liars with the best empty promises, because what they want is an organized and systematic group of soothe sayers to offer them hope and salvation.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I don't think that's a contradiction.The first point is about power distribution where it is true that large power gaps allow a strong elite to serve their own interests at the expense of weaker masses who are unable to even adequately represent their interests. Think feudalism.The second point is about human nature. Some humans are dispositionally dishonest. But it gets better than that: even totally honest people are still able to convince themselves that a certain course of action does serve the purposes of their deliberation and that incidental personal gains outside of those purposes did not play a part in their decision making. Such people aren't liars. They just aren't aware that there can be subconscious influences on apparently completely conscious and honest attempts at rational decision making.And it's even easier to fool yourself like that if you're part of a group of individuals who need to rationalise away the same conflict of interests. The best superficially unbiased arguments for why a 'coincidentally' favourable decision would 'best serve' the claimed purposes is what will be on everyone's lips. No one needs to be consciously dishonest. Circumstances just need to leave the possibility that the group might find itself in this bubble.Straightforward dishonesty is something many people have considered and many observations and suggestions made. The second kind of unwitting corruption is really a much trickier problem that I don't think many people have thought about and is really the mechanism by which good people become corrupted by power. I'm sure there's a solution to this but I just haven't cracked it yet.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Since government is not run by robots, the power distribution and human nature are inseparable in relation with government and corruption.Greed is the foundation of corruption. That is what is corruption is.Greed In Government supplied with human greed.What do Dictators want?Suspended elections and civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personalityWhat do capitalists want?Money and the domination of the market.What do socialists want?More money and benefits without any returns.As long as people run government, as Milton suggests, there are no such thing as Angels.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtsFWnZ38g8
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Well, it's not greed. Greed is an emotion which some people experience more frequently and across many more situations than do others. It's effect is to give priority to personal gain in specific situations over concerns regarding negative consequences or loss to others. It's still possible to exhibit corrupt behaviour without experience a hint of greedy emotions e.g. if you're doing it for a good cause.I think transparency would vastly reduce the corruption rate. We certainly have the technology to track a person's or group's financial transactions. We have the technology to automatically publicise this information to the general public in real time and archive it for later reference.What would the consequences be if it was a condition of taking office that you submit to this kind of transparency instead of making people responsible for public funds and hoping they wont misappropriate the funds? I think there would be odd occasions of corrupt conduct by those whose greed is SO great that it is able to override their basic sense of consequences. But that would be the overwhelming exception and I'd argue that those would be cases of mental illness rather than bad role design. Such people experience greed and act on it even to their own detriment.What I'm arguing is that good design of official roles may be the key to this question. Probably the above transparency measure would be a good basic template but additional counter-corruption measures would need to be added on a role by role basis depending on what the specific powers and responsibilities of a role are.What do you think? (Bearing in mind the question is of whether it is possible to have a government absent of corruption not whether humans are greedy by nature or whether greed is okay.)
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

It's still possible to exhibit corrupt behaviour without experience a hint of greedy emotions e.g. if you're doing it for a good cause.I am dying to read a example of justified corrupt behavior for a good cause.TransparencyEven with all the rhetoric of Obama's transparency, there are still back room deals.Lack of Transparency....1 2There is no system able of absolute transparency nor zero corruption.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

it would be immoral to follow the rule but if you're a government official (or a doctor or a lawyer or whatever) it would be unethical to break the rule. Immoral because you're knowingly doing harm and unethical because you do not singly have the authority to determine whether the rule needs revising and what that revision should be. That is a hypothetical example.In your response, Sorry, but I still don't see actual real life example of justifying corrupt behavior for a good cause.Do you think if 100% transparency where possible then that would ensure 0% corruption or do you think that 0% corruption is impossible even with 100% transparency?0% corruption is impossible even with 100% transparency because if humans are involved and are easily corruptible, which makes it not possible. All it takes is a bribe.My question is of whether or not that lessening can go to zero and what is the justification for the answer.Regardless of the current system or hypothetical system, corruption will never reach zero because if humans are attempted, they will dive in.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

because if humans are involved and are easily corruptibleBut isn't that really what transparency changes? By 100% transparency, I mean that every decision/transaction made by every official ever is archived in perpetuity and is easily available for analysis by anyone at any time. Also, beyond transparency you'd actually need effective laws to severely punish any corruption which is detected. I've already argued that, under such circumstances, anyone who did accept a bribe should probably be referred for psychiatric evaluation because they're unable to curb their greed even where it's not actually in their interest.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

How does the public really know that 100% transparency is occurring as opposed as being told 100% transparency is occurring?The media is the closest watchdog, and they even can't get 100% transparency from public officials because of closed back room deals.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I'm talking about 24 hour public access electronic surveillance systems rather than human news reporters. Also, online access to all banking records and transcripts of all conversations held.Under these circumstances, if any official does anything beyond farting in a packed elevator, he'll get booted out of office and the full force of law applied without leniency.Hm. I'm half seeing a dystopian sci fi thriller in this idea.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

No contradiction, you just fail to see the subttlties in that statement. less corruption =/= no corruptionBasically, he is advocating socialism or communism. Some kind of left wing government.That is a gross misconstruction of what I said. My statement was if anything, PURE capitalism and PURE socialism fail. There needs to be, and there is, a mixture of the two in most healthy societies.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Is a thinker absent of thoughts possible?Government IS corruption.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Sorry mate. Simply stating a conclusion doesn't deserve a point. You actually have to have an argument. I could easily precede my conclusions with things equally lame like "is a bag of marbles empty?" Saying something philosophical sounding doesn't excuse you from speaking to the point. Asserting a conclusion without giving evidence indicating the conclusion suggests a lack of understand of the meaning of the word 'debate'.You'll notice that I haven't posted a specific argument for the notion that an incorruptible government is possible. I don't have one. I intend to explore the topic first. I'm not a big fan of conclusions without justification. Thanks for your contribution anyway.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

1. You claim to not be a fan of conclusions without justification, yet you've written me off without even asking for clarification on my stance.2. If you would have taken the time to actually think about what I wrote you'd realize there's no need for anything else to be said. 3. You haven't posted a stance, you've even admitted to it. How debates work is one person makes a claim, then another goes about saying why said person is wrong, then they go back and forth until someone wins. It would be a waste of time for me to post an argument if everyone already agrees with me... like now for instance.I made the claim, not you, so its up to you to at least say you disagree with me in order for a debate to start. It takes two to tango and I'm not responsible for anything but making a claim if I'm looking for a debate. Perhaps you are the one with a lack of understanding when it comes to the word debate.Why should I go about posting arguments addressed to a ghost? Do you know how much I could write on this issue? I'm not about to post argument after argument after argument for disputes that no one is going to bring up.But since you've taken the time to make a big fuss over it I'll give you this much;Government is based on taxation. Taxation is the coercive extraction of funding for government monopolized services. If government services were optimal, then there would be no need to threaten people with kidnapping and death for not paying taxes because people willingly pay for optimal services. Therefore, government services are NOT optimal as they require both forced payments and the monopolization of the industry to be sustained. If government requires coercive payment to be sustained, then it is corrupt.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

(I'm splitting this exchange up. Our posts are getting too long)Then It's an arbitrary rule YOU made up and didn't tell anybody."Debate or discussion in parliamentary procedure refers to discussion on the merits of a pending question; that is, whether it should or not be agreed to." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_(parliamentary_procedure) )I didn't make it up. It's out there as a concept common to both adversarial debates and collaborative debates.But fine. If you need me to explicitly state the requirement then yes it is a requirement that you provide justifications. OK?
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

When I wrote "made up" I meant you made it up as a qualification for posting, not that you made up the idea itself.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Ah Okay. I'll be sure to add a clear rule about this at the bottom of future debate descriptions. It's a rule I follow without needing to deliberately think about because I used to like logic puzzles as a kid. A puzzle might, for example, have three possible choices available where only one is correct. Someone could just choose the right one but up to that point it's just a guess. How I know when someone has really cracked the puzzle is when they're also able to provide the reason why that choice is the correct one i.e. do they have the right answer for the right reasons?Anyway, there it is. Thanks.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

If you didn't understand what I meant and you "wondered" what I was getting at, then you should ask for clarification.Um. Yes and no. If some justification had been provided and a part of that justification was unclear then I'd have simply asked for more detail. What I take issue with is the stating of opinion without justification. I couldn't be less interested in an opinion poll. I want the best arguments available on both sides.Anyway, justification was provided later so I consider the matter closed.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I provided an analogy. There's no reason to provide more than that before anyone takes issue with my stance.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Ok. Well, if it's an analogy then it's a bad one but I don't think you could've realised that if your focus was not on political corruption. I'll explain:A: Is a thinker absent of thoughts possible?Well, obviously not. That's because a thinker is someone who does think and someone who is absent of thought is someone who does not think. Easy.But this is not analogous to the question:B: Is a government absent of corruption possible?It's good for either:C: Is a government absent of officials possible?orD: Is a corrupt official absent of corruption possible?both of which are obviously not possible.My question is closer to the combination:E: Is an official absent of political corruption possible?combined withF: Is a government absent of corrupt officials possible?Both of which are possible. The first part just refers to officials who never use their legislated powers for private illegitimate gain, and the second part refers to a government composed of only such officials.That basically does answer my question if you only take the question literally but I'm also really aiming for the deeper answer to the question:G: If so then what is the way to reliably construct such a government?You might think I'm adding unfairly to the question but I say this is the nature of exploring the question.You can have a stab at answering (G) but I suspect you're more interested in unpicking either (E) or (F).
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

When I wrote about the thinker and the thought I was talking describing government on an entirely different dimension.The thinker is the byproduct of thought. It too is illusory as it only exists to the extent the thought does. So, truthfully there is no thinker as the word "thinker" is a noun and implies it is a static thing. If something is static, it can't exist. Atoms need motion to exist, if all the atoms in an apple stopped spinning the apple would phase out of existence.Take out the static "thinker" and you're left with only the dynamic "thought".So, the question "Is a government absent of corruption possible?" in analogous to the thinker and the thought in this way. The government is the thought, but it is synonymous with corruption. I don't make any distinction between the government and government officials because it's not a matter of cause and effect, but of simultaneousness. Government is not a static thing, it is like a thought, constantly progressing. Government officials are like thinkers, but in this case I would call them corrupters (corrupter-ing-ers to be completely honest, but this isn't a proper word in English). It's a complex thing, a cause causing a cause and an effect effecting an effect. This is something that needs to be understood rather than explained.They are dependent on each other, just as a thought cannot exist without a thinker (and vice-versa), government cannot exist without the corruption of the government officials (and vise-versa). Government is something born out of the corruption of corrupt people. I say corrupt people and this too implies something static, understand it is a flaw in the English language as even a corrupt person is not a static thing.In truth, there are only thoughts and there is only government (corruption), but I say thinker and government officials only as a bridge to connect the gap between these two ideas. As I said, this is more something to be understood rather than explained. I did my best, but if this still doesn't make any sense I'll try again.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Then you ADMIT to using uncommon rules, especially uncommon for this site.I said no such thing. Both adversarial debates and collaborative debates are common and used for different purposes.I'll offer a quick distinction off the top of my head: the first, to advance the viewpoint of one group against an opposing group; the second, to actually arrive at a reasonable decision on a question.In the first kind, everyone is like a lawyer who is recruited to one side and their job is to argue that side only. In the most extreme cases, you might be expected to do this irrespective of the facts of the matter.In the second kind, everyone is like a judge who has to appraise the merits of each side and render a justifiable decision. Ideally everyone presents evidence or arguments for both sides to some degree but participants are free to only present on one side if they've already made up their mind. However, in order to be intellectually honest, even a participant who has made up their mind should present any evidence which they have against what they believe to be the stronger position.I hope I'm making the difference clear here. Adversarial debate is for advancing an agenda. Collaborative debates are for arriving at reasonable decisions.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I said no such thing. Both adversarial debates and collaborative debates are common and used for different purposes.But not on this site. Sure, when I first started out on this site I used to post tons and tons of arguments for my position. It didn't take much time before I realized that this is a waste of time since people didn't always take issue with my position. Sometimes people just don't care so it's only logical to post something short, so it doesn't take much time to write/read and teases out an opponent, rather than assumes one. It is for this reason that I and most others start debates with as little as necessary. That's all.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Ok. Sounds logical. I think I'll keep going with providing the initial justifications but I'll bear your approach in mind if it really does waste my time. I don't think it will though. I think it occurs often enough that someone agrees with my opinion but does not agree with my reasons for holding that opinion. That makes it more useful to me to present both and hear both from others.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

You assume I haven't debated this issue copious amounts of times in the past. I've written arguments for my stance so many times if there was some glaring whole that could be seen simply by writing it, I would have come across it already.Not necessarily. There are theologians who've based whole careers on bad arguments only to find later that pretty much everything they've ever written is BS. In presenting your argument to fresh audiences who have the opportunity to ask questions of it, you learn new things about the argument. Some will be reassuringly positive. Other things may be embarrassing enough to make you rethink the argument and possibly your stance.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I've never lost a debate on politics, it just hasn't happened. Hell, it's been a long time since anyone has brought up a "new" argument against me, so it would be naive of me to assume anyone will, but I still throw my hat into the ring from time to time just in case. This was one of those times.editIt was actually after reading this that new arguments (that is, ones I haven't heard before) stopped coming up.http://fringeelements.flux.com/foranemergentgovernance