azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Which is the largest number?
Side: numbers doesn't have an end!!

Numbers have no end. A number can go on for infinity. If someone started on a number today, he or she could still be adding digits to that number 10 years from now.
Debate: Which is the largest number?
Side: numbers have an end!!

That person will die eventually, therefore the numbers will end.
Debate: Which is the largest number?
Side: numbers doesn't have an end!!

There is something called infinite.. Look at this Maths website:
Debate: Which is the largest number?
Side: numbers doesn't have an end!!

God doesn't have an end? Well..., I guess that would explain why He doesn't fart. But that also means He can't sit. So why have a throne?
Debate: Which is the largest number?
Side: numbers doesn't have an end!!

Let's just make this argument short by adding a character...∞ <<<< This has no end. And yet this is a number higher than itself.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

For the lols
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

People have internal drive. Ultimately, the primary drive of humans is to survive. Humans are complex creatures. They can feel threatened in so many ways, thus triggering the fight or flight reaction. For example: I make a strong effort to look smart, for I feel that intelligence makes me strong. Calling me stupid usually causes a bad reaction in me resulting in insults and such.However, in spite of all the bad reactions we have the fundamental effort is to survive. The survival intent is applied to identity, art, family, country, music, science, and other things that humans hold dear.There is an imaginary scale between Universal Righteousness (what is a good for everyone/everything) and Self Righteousness (what is right for self.) We are all somewhere on that scale, where our actions are in between what is good for everyone and what is good for our self.As we realize that what is good for all, is also good for us, our behavior goes more and more toward Universal Righteousness. For example: Family is good for self and good for all. Community is a good for self and good for all.Spirit helps us unify. When people stop trying to defend themselves, but rather have internal strength to be what they want, without defending against or attacking others, government will become less and less necessary for happiness and prosperity.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Eventually, my goal is a "No Government Society."As a religious person, I believe in the power of spirit.Spirit is cool. It has rules, it has benefits, it's motivational, it's empowering, it's results are pretty universal.So for example: The Spirit of Hospitality. If everyone worked on, believed in, and practiced the Spirit of Hospitality, it would have a global and sweeping effort that would unite people in a good way. There would not be any need for government over that.Add to that: Honor: Rules can be rules without the need for government if people can be honorable. There could be billions of rules without the need to "government" if people could follow the rules. Something like the stock exchange. There are administrative costs, checks and balances, etc, that would need to be in place so that people could have confidence in the system, but that is more a system then government. Good systems do require monitoring. But that doesn't mean it has to be government.Because I believe that God is the Great OmniAwareness of the Universe, I believe that improvement of society will also lead to higher awareness. When we realize that when we hurt one, we hurt the whole, and when we hurt the whole, we hurt ourselves. Or to put it simply: What we do to others, we do to our self.It's is pretty much unchanging. Even if the methods are different, the effect is the same. Even if hospitality looks different in another culture, it's still meant to make you feel welcome.The Spirit of God loves everyone, sees the purpose in everything, respects everything, etc. We can do that, and live by that sort of spirit, government will not be necessary. Everyone can pretty much do whatever they want, but as long as they realize that what it is, it will influence them in the same way, then people will quit doing stupid stuff. Projects will be fun, filled with love and passion, but never been harmful.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Wow, that is a whole lot of stupid. Not one little bit of it makes any sense.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

No need to be mean. i agree that the argument is untenable, but let's debate nicely.The word government is interesting, in that it can mean other things besides democracy, monarchy, dictatorship etc. It also has a personal connotation--to be governed by your better nature, for example, or to be governed by your moral compass. But it simply means some system for regulating your behavior. It is unrealistic to expect or hope that we can be governed by Spirit or God, or whatever--but that there would not be rules or some sort of body to determine who has lived within the rules and who has not. Call it what you would, that would still be a form of government. Remember the Pilgrims? They tried to live the way you describe--and look what happened. They became as tyrannical and dictatorial as those they traveled so far to escape.Humans simply cannot live together in an orderly fashion without some governance. It has never happened in the history of human society. The question then becomes: which form of government suits which people the best?
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Even I disagree with you, I am going to support your argument.People can be self governed. It is a lack of faith in human kind to say that we could never be ruled by the "spirit." I use the Word Spirit of God, (if I did use it) because it is the highest form of cooperation that I know of.However, I have seen that is Life is One as some of the old sages and prophets have mentioned. There is a level of consciousness within our subconscious that is not only sympathetic it literally feels the efforts that we have on others.When we get in tune with that layer, we stop hurting others. We begin working as one.I'm not talking about doctrinal rule, I'm talking about Spiritual Rule.As I said, the Spirit of Hospitality isn't a doctrine, it is a idea that actually inspires and motivates people. There are many other Spirits that can have similar effects, such as Team Spirit, Spirit of Music, Spirit of Hope, Spirit of Love, Spirit of Adventure, etc.Humanity is a capable of all of these. When they realize the truth of their existence, it will become natural.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Yeah!And if those homos would just have some faith we wouldn't have to stone them right! I mean they have it coming them being gay and all.And what's with these women crying "wah don't rape me, wah!" Don't they read the bible? If they didn't want to be raped they should have been married at thirteen after their dad gave some 40 year old a bunch of goats! Psh, that's what they get for not having faith. They get totally raped.Oh yea, and don't get me started on kids disrespecting parents! Totally chop their hands off just like the good book says. I mean, have a little faith you bastards!No really, great argument.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Kind Sir,You mistake me.I wasn't promoting any of those things.I was talking about Spirit, such as the Spirit of Love, Hospitality, Adventure, and such.You anger is misplaced with me. Besides, take it where someone cares.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

You should care, and if you don't care for varying opinions, then you should not be on a debate site. There are plenty of religious blogs where you can all reaffirm your insanity.I was not claiming you were promoting any of those things, but those are all things that your religion does promote. Religion is not concerned with humanity, quite the opposite, it seems to dislike humanity. It allows the things I mention in the instances where those things promote its own self-preservation. If a religion finds it can get more zealous followers then it find reasons it is "holy" to be so primitive. When things change it becomes less primitive and more encompassing only when it perceives this is the curve of humanity and what will benefit it.It is a dangerous and powerful thing. We are better not looking to unknown forces which can lead to this. We are better creating our own laws that are concerned with humanity, not the preservation of ideology.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

You should care, and if you don't care for varying opinions, then you should not be on a debate site. There are plenty of religious blogs where you can all reaffirm your insanity.I consider this statement to be hypocritical. You obviously don't care about my insanity and think I should take it somewhere else.I was not claiming you were promoting any of those things, but those are all things that your religion does promote. Religion is not concerned with humanity, quite the opposite, it seems to dislike humanity.Religion, in spite of corruption, has always looked out for man even if occasionally misguided.I was not claiming you were promoting any of those things, but those are all things that your religion does promote. Religion is not concerned with humanity, quite the opposite, it seems to dislike humanity.Unknown to you doesn't exactly define something has as unknown. I am a student of the Gnostic Texts and Faith, making me a "knower." Ideology is more important then mankind. Man is nothing without ideology.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I consider this statement to be hypocritical. You obviously don't care about my insanity and think I should take it somewhere else.Contrary. I enjoy your insanity very much. This is why I am bothering to argue. It is when you cease debating and start preaching that I believe you should find a Christian blog to start a circle jerk on. Otherwise, carry on.Religion, in spite of corruption, has always looked out for man even if occasionally misguided.Always? Inquisitions? Holy Wars? Burning witches? Always encompasses an awful lot. From my perspective the charitable work of religions throughout history is far outweighed by those times they are "misguided." I mean, if the Mormon and Catholic church along with all of these hordes of born again cults were to pool the resources they spend on making sure gays can't marry, that teenage rape victims are forced to have kids, AIDS riddled Africa isn't allowed to have condoms, and that priests and clergy can continue raping little boys and girls, on say cancer research, the world would be a better place.Unknown to you doesn't exactly define something has as unknown. I am a student of the Gnostic Texts and Faith, making me a "knower." Yay! for you? Not sure what that has to do with I was not claiming you were promoting any of those things, but those are all things that your religion does promote. Religion is not concerned with humanity, quite the opposite, it seems to dislike humanity. but okay.Ideology is more important then mankind. Man is nothing without ideology.Finally, we've reached the fountain spring of evil within religion, the notion an ideology is more important than mankind. It is not. Mankind is capable of all sorts of good without ideology. They are not capable at all of atrocities and injustices on a large scale without ideology however. It is ideology which allows the worst in humans. It is the ability to pretend something horrid is the will of a god, and that an ideology is more important than those humans affected.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

It's a funny, I was just reading a quote (supposedly by Einstein) "Smart people often sound crazy to dumb people." Or something like that.I don't care. I gladly embrace my craziness.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

YOU TELL ME?
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Even animals have social groups with complex roles and pecking orders.I think going back to anarchy could be the stupidest reverse in our evolution we could possibly make.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

These groups and orders are emergent from the actions of the individual animals in the system and not imposed from outside the animal through some central authority. This is, by definition, anarchy. This is also proof that order can, and does, emerge without the imposition and enforcement of external rules and that anarchy need not be chaotic.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

And groups and orders within the right government doesn't happen within the system? Today's democracies are by no means perfect, but the entire structure they are meant to convey is that everyone is within the system that forms the authority. If the point of anarchy is to give individuals influence upon the order they live within, then why prefer that over a proper democracy? A truly proper democracy prevents corruption by giving enough power to individuals to the point of politicians and state employees having their own power hanging by a thread held by said normal individuals.This basically ensures that everyone shares power and has a direct influence upon their life and order. The difference is that it also guarantees order, as where anarchy does not guarantee order.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

And groups and orders within the right government doesn't happen within the system? I didn't say that. I was pointing out that the fact that animals form social groups is not an argument FOR forming a government, because the animals formed these groups without forming government; that these groups and orders form in a state of anarchy.Today's democracies are by no means perfect, but the entire structure they are meant to convey is that everyone is within the system that forms the authority.It also allows an individual to exercise authority that is divorced from the actual value that person has demonstrated to society.If the point of anarchy is to give individuals influence upon the order they live within, then why prefer that over a proper democracy?Because in democracy, you trade your ability to influence your life directly, for the obligation to follow the mandate of the majority, regardless of whether the majority voted to do what you would have chosen to do.Pure democracy is slavery to the "general will". Representative democracy is only slightly less so.A truly proper democracy prevents corruption by giving enough power to individuals to the point of politicians and state employees having their own power hanging by a thread held by said normal individuals.(assuming representative democracy)Such a democracy encourages corruption by making the position of the politician dependent upon pleasing only the majority of voters (not producers), even to the detriment of the remaining minority. It grants individuals equal authority in the society, instead of granting them authority based upon their contributions to the good of society, as judged by the members of society who deal with those individuals.This basically ensures that everyone shares power and has a direct influence upon their life and order.No, it ensures that the individual has as little direct influence over his life and order as possible, while concentrating the greater part of that influence in the hands of those who can influence the most people.The difference is that it also guarantees order, as where anarchy does not guarantee order.“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” --Elmer T Peterson (disputed)Greece is a representative democracy. The UK is effectively a representative democracy, as is France. There is much unrest there lately, as their governments try to cut back on financially ruinous entitlement programs. Democracy does not ensure order.I would argue that the goal of a society should be the greatest liberty, not the most order. Prisons are relatively orderly.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

+1
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

+1
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

These groups and orders are emergent from the actions of the individual animals in the system and not imposed from outside the animal through some central authority. In a sense they are. The organizational hierarchy of social animals tends to be very consistent among populations or species for generations on end. It is instinct and evolution that are determining who will rise up the ranks. With humans, it is a much more complex game. We do follow instincts, we just follow a lot more of them and they sometimes conflict. Still, I know not of any naturally occurring civilization that did not have some kind of hierarchy (chief, elders, medicine man) and some kind law/system of punishment to guide individuals in the best interests of the group, and punish those who are not acting in those interests. The actual nature of these hierarchies and law systems has varied heavily from population to the next, but they have always existed in some form, and have tended to become more complex as the society becomes larger and more powerful. THIS is the order emerging, and it will inevitably happen in an anarchy.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

There is no outside force manipulating mankind to create governments. Human governments are as natural as a pack of wolves. The idea that we are even capable of not having a government is absurd. It only would lead to 100% freedom for those with the most to exploit those with the least even further, this would lead to those with the least organizing (government) and revolting.Anarchy is not only utterly moronic, it is quite impossible for any length of time.Human nature is inevitable. Government works when it balances human nature, accumulation of wealth balanced against worker rights, greed balanced against creation and manufacturing, votes balanced against media campaigns, media balanced against government corruption, etc.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

A free market uses the "greed" of the individual for the enrichment of the society.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I know. Are you disputing that governments are natural? That anarchy is stupid?And are you equating a free market with anarchy? Because you are mistaken horribly if so.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

I dispute that anarchy is stupid, that it need not be chaotic. I'm a minarchist, myself, but if given the choice between the tyranny we are headed toward, and anarchy, I would choose anarchy.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

If there is order it is by definition not anarchy. Whether you call a set of rules followed and enforced government, vigilante justice, whatever you call it, it is the same entity. Democratic and representative governments allow the people to choose which laws are followed where historically it is the few who choose laws. Regardless, there will always be laws, there will never be anarchy. The difference is that this recent dangerous rock star popularity of these free-for-all theories do not lead to any more freedom, it takes the ability to determine law away from people, and gives it back to those with the most power.Any anarchy, as stated, would very quickly turn into tyranny.I'm curious, why do you believe we are headed toward tyranny now? This is a very, very odd idea and seems separated from reality, much like your insistence that anarchy of any type would actually lead to more freedom.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

If there is order it is by definition not anarchy.Anarchy is , by definition, a lack of government, not a lack of order. Whether you call a set of rules followed and enforced government, vigilante justice, whatever you call it, it is the same entity. Democratic and representative governments allow the people to choose which laws are followed where historically it is the few who choose laws. Vigilante justice works outside any established law. I agree on Democratic and representative governments.Regardless, there will always be laws, there will never be anarchy. True.The difference is that this recent dangerous rock star popularity of these free-for-all theories do not lead to any more freedom, it takes the ability to determine law away from people, and gives it back to those with the most power.And presently, the gang with the most power is the government, who is steadily taking more from the people. You don't have to have an anarchy, for the thugs to gain and keep power.I actually do dot advocate anarchy. I advocate a constitutional minarchy, much smaller than what exists now.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Any anarchy, as stated, would very quickly turn into tyranny.Possibly.I'm curious, why do you believe we are headed toward tyranny now? This is a very, very odd idea and seems separated from reality, much like your insistence that anarchy of any type would actually lead to more freedom.For the last 100, and accelerated in the last 50 years, the "progressives" have worked to remove the safeguards of true rights (life, liberty and property) in the US government, circumventing, and sometimes outright ignoring, the constitution to push their agendas. This can be seen in several programs.The central banking system which funnels value from savings up to banks, by allowing them to inflate the money supply. This inflation of credit is the primary cause of booms and busts in the stock market and has virtually destroyed our economy.Legal tender laws, which make difficult to keep and trade in monies that could retain their value, by refusing to enforce payment of contracts in other than the legal tender. (This, along with the central bank, allows them to "fund" programs virtually at will, instead of having to ask permission from the people, in the form of a tax to pay for it.)The building of a welfare state through massive entitlement programs (paid for by debt), has made nearly half of the population reliant on the government for some, if not all, of their livelihood or survival. This government interference damages the market, causing less wealth to be produced. This forces people to choose between a smaller government and putting food on the table. Over the generations, it has changed the national attitude from one of self reliance, and pride in one's accomplishments, into one of entitlement, envy and fear. It has caused the government to be viewed as the great provider for a nation of children. In short, a religion of the state.to be continued...