azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

You've given me percentage of people with disease who smoked rather than people who smoked that got the diseasesThat's because I don't care if people smoke. If smokers get diseases from smoking, its their own fault. No one asked them to smoke.What I care about is the people around smokers, who are affected in a horrible, and sometimes chronicle way.I don't think you understand I don't give a shit about how bad smoking is for smokers, you seem to think that because something harms the user, it should be banned. Go live in North Korea for a while and see how that feels.What I meant is what I just said above.I really don't care about smokers. If smokers get COL, lung cancer or whatever, its their own fault.If a person who fx. had smoker parents, and they smoked around their child, it is horrible to think of, that the child is suffering, or maybe it will suffer from some diseases. That is horrible, and if you don't agree with me on, that it is horrible, than you're horrible too :)And by the way, it's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and I can't find the right way round stats because anti smokers prefer to use backwards stats as they look worse.I don't know what backwards stats are, but those facts I'm coming up with are found on the Internet. If they're true or not .. who knows.But what is true, is that it is dangerous to smoke.And I know its dangerous to drink water too, but you need water. You don't need nicotine.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Once again, you haven't shown that we should ban smoking, you have shown people shouldn't smoke around other people.I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again, if you don't want to inhale second hand smoke, don't stand next to smokers. What do you not understand about that?Clearly, you don't have a firm grasp on what the statistics you have used represent. Reread my previous two arguments for an explanation of what backwards statistics are.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

If you don't want to be murdered, don't stand next to a murderer.That is what you are saying, and that is a pointless argument.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Smokers aren't intentionally trying to hurt you, that is the only thing a murderer wants to do. So your analogy is invalid.And if it was, then it would be absolutely right, you shouldn't stand next to a murderer if you don't want to get murdered.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Even tho you don't murder intentionally, you still murdered. And there is a punishment for that - but that's not the point here.Don't stand next to a smoker? tell that to a three year old kid who lives in a house full of smoke. Tell it to move and keep away from its parents.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

A murderer intentionally seeks out victims and hurts them on purpose. A smoker is just enjoying themselves without any inherent intention of harming people. You can't avoid a murderer by standing away from them. You can avoid smokers by moving away from them.Even if someone was to die from passive smoking, it wouldn't be anyone's fault, as they shouldn't have stood next to a smoker in the first place. Murder is killing with predetermined intent to do so. Suicide is when someone kills themselves. Seeing as it is your choice whether you stand next to smokers or not, you are closer to committing suicide than being murdered.Don't stand next to a smoker? tell that to a three year old kid who lives in a house full of smoke. Tell it to move and keep away from its parents.Do you even read what I've written? Do you even consider the opposing viewpoint? What am I saying, you're an authoritarian oriented Christian, of course you don't. Seeing as you've completely ignored several points I have previously addressed, it feels as if you are arguing with me without even listening to what I have to say, either that or your reading comprehension needs improvement.Anyway, the fact that a few absolute cunts decide to smoke around their kids is no reason to ban everybody from smoking, it's just a reason to not smoke in front of your kids. You don't ban pillows because some parents use them to smother their children, so you can't ban smoking because some parents do it in the presence of children.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

I have read your points.But MY point is, that there are children suffering from second hand smoke - and we should do something about that instead of lowering the age limit.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

The two aren't mutually exclusive. No one's saying you can't help children suffering from second hand smoke. You can do both, you know. This debate is more about America than where I live (here you can smoke and have sex at 16, but you can't buy alcohol and cigarettes till you're 18. You can drink at any age with parental consent). Because the buying age of 21 is ridiculous, and doesn't solve any problems. Some people want to reinstate prohibition, but we all know how well that works, and is working right now, that is, not at all.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Of personal excuses, I really really hate smoke.If I was the king of the world, I would destroy tobacco.People say that you don't have free will until you can smoke whenever you want.But I see smoking as a crime, just like robbery.So when people say to me, they want the freedom to smoke.. I don't see why people can't have the freedom to rob, con, kill and steal.If you want absolute freedom, those are the consequences.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Because smoking is a passive activity. Being harmed by second hand smoke is something you can avoid, the smoker isn't trying to hurt you.All those things you listed are aggressive activities, where the intent is to seek out and harm other humans.That given, you haven't explained to me why we shouldn't ban cars.I think you should read a book called 1984 by George Orwell, brilliantly written, and a good allegory for authoritarianism, otherwise known as fascism, which is what you are advocating (I also love him because his books support libertarian socialism).
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

There is a possibility that you can harm yourself or others with a car.But to smoke is 100% bad for you.. there is no maybe. Its like drinking chlorine or something.I call myself a libertarian, but you would probably disagree.I want lower taxes, and instead more expenses (I'd rather pay my own hospital bill, than pay other's abortions, because in my country there is 100% free abortions for all people - and I am against that, but I am forced to pay for them)Where I live, people pay up to 70% of taxes (depends on how much they make, millionaires pay like .. 70%)That's is why I am a libertarian, not because I want freedom.don't get me wrong.. I want freedom in a way, where everybody can eat what they want, have the sexual orientation they want .. and you know. Those stuff.But children can't decide for their own.. to lower a smoking and drinking age is in my eyes stupid.. because they are simply not mature enough to drink or stop when they had enough.I know, I am a young person myself - I am only 17. I party with people that drink till they must go to the emergency room.I see minors drinking everywhere .. and if we lower the age .. they'll probably drink more, and younger people are gonna drink too.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

A "true free" society would be anarchy. No enforced rules.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Anarchy is not what I am advocating.--------------------------
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

You imply it. Unless we want to debate a "true free" society.To be completely ("true") free, there would be no enforced limits/restrictions; free to roam as it pleases. And that's essentially the definition of anarchy.Anarchy as a political ideology is very utopian. One which states there is no use for rules, no need for government because everyone acts within a moral and productive manner, I would argue this to be wishful thinking but innately unrealistic.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Wrong, what I am advocating is Anarcho Capitalism where there would be laws and contracts, this is not anarchy.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

My concern is not about what you do advocate.My concern is over what you stated. A "true free society".My argument is about what you stated. Not advocate.I argued that your post (what you said), implies anarchy (by the logic and definition of "true", "free" and "society").
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Anarcho-Capitalism is a example of a true free society, which differs from Anarchy. AC has law.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

1) Freedom. In it's purest form would be the ability to do what one wills at all times, without restriction.2) Therefore a society which is described as being truly (purely) free, would be one without restriction, which includes laws.3) This describes anarchy.4) Anarcho-Capitalism has restrictions, therefore cannot be a truly free society.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Anarcho-Capitalism has no restrictions because libertarian law has no use of violence or coercion except in cases of murder and other violent crimes, and as far as I can see anarchy has the same punishment system.So, AC still stands as a true free society. The only difference between anarchy and AC is anarchy will be in the stone ages and AC would be advanced society, otherwise, if anarchy was an advanced society, it would be AC.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

If your political ideology has any laws or rules at all, then it has restrictions and thus cannot definitively be called a "true free society".
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

AC is not a political ideology because politics implies government, and AC has no government.AC is based on common law rather than statutory law.AC has no restrictions because it implies force, there is no force in AC except cases of murder and rape.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Does AC enforce no rape or murder is to be committed?What happens if someone commits one of those two in an AC society?
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

They are prosecuted for the act of violence or aggression. What happens if someone commits murder or rape in anarchy? Is it a congratulations.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

They are prosecuted for the act of violence or aggression. Then AC has restrictions and thus is not a true free society.What happens if someone commits murder or rape in anarchy? Is it a congratulations.If anarchy were to exist in it's ideological form, no murder or rape would ever occur. While everyone has the freewill to do it, no one would ever choose to do so.In it's realistic form, an anarchist society has no consequence for murder or rape. But vigilantism would come forth and disrupt the anarchism for a short period of time.As a side note: I hope you realize I'm not arguing for or in favor of anarchy.What I'm trying to show you is that it's meaningless to call AC a "true free society" because it's only an unrealistic Utopian idea.It's like trying to sincerely argue something as absolutely perfect by all means.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

The prosecution of the act of violence is not an restriction on a truly free society because of its ex post status. Banning smoking would be a restriction of freedom due to its ex ante status, but don't worry, there is no cigarettes in anarchy society because they don't exist.It is impossible to think that in anarchism, murder wouldn't ever occur considering there is no wealth being created, people will plunder including acts of violence to get what they want because it is impossible for wealth to be created in anarchy because there is no property rights.AC is not just some utopian idea, that is only your deluded perception, to even suggest that it is impossible is imperious.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

The prosecution of the act of violence is not an restriction on a truly free society because of its ex post status.Incorrect. To restrict is to keep something from doing something else, to hold in a limited space, etc.If you punish someone for a deed, you disfavor the action in which you are punishing them for and obviously would rather them not do that deed. But if they do commit that deed again, they will yet again be punished.This is a restriction. You are attempting to keep them from doing something simply by a human consequence being attached.Banning smoking would be a restriction of freedom due to its ex ante status,That is another example of a restriction, yes. but don't worry, there is no cigarettes in anarchy society because they don't exist.In an anarchist society, everyone would have to either be in favor of smoking or at least consent everyone smoking. If not, then smoking would not exist in the society of anarchists. This is why I said anarchism is utopian. It's unrealistic because cigarettes do exist and all that is needed to break an anarchist society from being purely unrestricted is to restrict the cigarette usage or be in existence there while people disagree.It is impossible to think that in anarchism, murder wouldn't ever occur considering there is no wealth being created,Wealth (or lack thereof) is not solely responsible for the existence of murder. people will plunder including acts of violence to get what they want becauseNot in a (utopian) anarchist society. People would have the freewill to do so...all the choice in the world to do that... but they simply wouldn't. That's what anarchism banks on.it is impossible for wealth to be created in anarchy because there is no property rights.Again, that is up to the hypothetical people in the anarchist society.AC is not just some utopian idea,I did not state that AC was a utopian idea, I said the phrase "true free society" is an unrealistic, utopian idea. that is only your deluded perception, to even suggest that it is impossible is imperious.I have been nothing but friendly in this discussion but if you proceed to make such insulting claims and refuse to (at least) flex your (possible) presuppositions, then I have no choice but to decline continuing debate.My entire argument from the beginning was simply correcting you on your usage of "true free society" and that using the phrase is pointless and unrealistic. Nothing else.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

I have been nothing but friendly in this discussion but if you proceed to make such insulting claims and refuse to (at least) flex your (possible) presuppositions, then I have no choice but to decline continuing debate.Well, unfortunately, the insulting claim actually came from yourself with the suggestion that a true free society is unrealistic, utopian idea, yet history shows cases of anarchist communities. and even anarcho-capitalism. The American Old West is the best example.My entire argument from the beginning was simply correcting you on your usage of "true free society" and that using the phrase is pointless and unrealistic. Nothing else.Again, a true free society is not pointless and unrealistic because it has happened before in the past.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Well, unfortunately, the insulting claim actually came from yourselfIncorrect. The insult came from your post. Your post, you. Not me. It didn't come from me. with the suggestion that a true free society is unrealistic, utopian idea, yet history shows cases of anarchist communities. and even anarcho-capitalism. The American Old West is the best example. Again, a true free society is not pointless and unrealistic because it has happened before in the past.Simply because it has existed does not refute the claim that it's an unrealistic utopian idea. Anarchist communities existed, either not in their pure form or in very small communities. When I speak of unrealistic utopian, I was applying it to your label of "true free society" which I imagine would be claimed as the solution to each community.This is what I said to anachronist, and it's another analogy that may help you understand what my initial objection what about:I was arguing pure 100% freedom (absolute freedom). I was arguing that someone cannot claim absolute freedom of a society that has laws.It's like arguing the pure blankness of printer paper. Someone cannot claim the printer paper is absolutely blank of marks when they have a pencil line or dot on the paper. Even if it's small, it's still there and refutes the idea that the paper is absolutely 100% blank of marks. This is what I have been arguing the entire time with the other debater (PrayerFails).
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Incorrect. The insult came from your post. Your post, you. Not me. It didn't come from me. No, it started with you.Simply because it has existed does not refute the claim that it's an unrealistic utopian ideaActually, it does refute the claim. Utopia is an visionary of perfection in a political system, but AC has no politics because there is no government; on the other hand, communism was seen as an utopian society, but it failed and still is.I was arguing pure 100% freedom (absolute freedom). I was arguing that someone cannot claim absolute freedom of a society that has laws.Not sure what you don't understand, but AC doesn't have statutory laws, it is founded upon common law; hence no government. Therefore, absolute freedom is attainable.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

No, anarchy means a society with no leaders. You can be free and still have a leader, it is just what that leader does that changes. I do not support right wing economics in any way, I find them to be selfish, greedy, and inconsiderate. However I do sympathise with the libertarian viewpoint. I'd quite like to live in an anarcho-syndicalist society, like this one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, there are still leaders, they just serve the people instead of the people serving them.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

No, anarchy means a society with no leaders.That's what a lot of anarchist society's are like. Anarchy can be used in various ways, one pertaining to no leaders. One to lawlessness. One to both.But I think one could make a fairly solid argument that without leadership of any kind, lawlessness is inevitable. At first someone may reject that argument, imagining a group who decides on what is acceptable together; my contention is this, what if someone goes against what is acceptable or unacceptable? Is there enforcement? If there is, that's where a leadership (being singular or plural) is enacted. If there isn't enforcement, then it's essentially lawlessness.You can be free and still have a leader, it is just what that leader does that changes.I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing pure 100% freedom (absolute freedom). I was arguing that someone cannot claim absolute freedom of a society that has laws.It's like arguing the pure blankness of printer paper. Someone cannot claim the printer paper is absolutely blank of marks when they have a pencil line or dot on the paper. Even if it's small, it's still there and refutes the idea that the paper is absolutely 100% blank of marks. This is what I have been arguing the entire time with the other debater (PrayerFails).I do not support right wing economics in any way, I find them to be selfish, greedy, and inconsiderate. However I do sympathise with the libertarian viewpoint. I'd quite like to live in an anarcho-syndicalist society, like this one in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, there are still leaders, they just serve the people instead of the people serving them.I'm not very versed in economics. But I have liked the idea of a capitalistic barter society. The problem being, any ideology we have come up with to run a society has it's flaws.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

they had some alcohol in their diet seemed to survive it just fine.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

The drinking age being at 21 is absurd. We can go and get our heads blown off across the world and we can't drink a few shots of liquor?
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

I find the statement "a few shots" to be, at the best, a major understatement. You honestly believe that minors will have the self control to stop at a "few shots". There are plenty of adults who don't have that much self control.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Do you really think that a couple of years is going to make a great difference, especially seeing as the person is an adult in both situations?
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Do you think a couple years of waiting is doing any harm? No it isn't.And if the person is an adult in any situation is depends on the person.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Do you ever support arguments, or is it just "dispute town" up in this bitch? :PSeeing as you've kinda irritated me with this P.C bullshit, let me rant for you:May I ask you who's body it is that I inhabit? In case it wasn't blatantly obvious, let me tell you; my body. Is it the police's body? No. Is it the government's body? No. Is it Michael J. Fox's body? No it most certainly is not.So what right does the government have, and the police to enforce, to try to stop me doing things with my body? As long as I'm not harming anyone else, why shouldn't I be able to do what I want with my body? AGAIN, it is my body. Want me to repeat it? My body. Mine. When a child is under the care of their parents it should be just that; under the care of their parents. It shouldn't be the government coming in and parenting the kids for them, and then continuing that on when they turn into adults anyway. Granted, the government should step in if the parents are fucking pedophiles or some shit, but that's a given.If I want to drink (I can legally anyways, but for this example I'm talking about before I was legal) I'll drink, if I want to hit a bong I will, if I want to take acid or shrooms or some shit, I fucking will.Not one person on this Earth has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body unless what I'm doing is physically hurting someone else.Cheers.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

I hardly ever support arguments.Yes it is your body when you're 21 :)
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

No, it's your body as soon as you're born.What you've said is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

I'd rather be ignorant than die, because others smoke and drink.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

You die either way.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

When you are born is it anyone else's body? Who's body could it be unless it was yours?