azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Justice can have more forms than you think. Surrendering the chemical weapons will give us no more reason to fight. But a sanction will still be proposed sooner or later.I don't think Assad will face any sort of sanction, other than being strictly forbidden from ever using chemical weapons again. At least that's what Obama said during his National Address last night. This is of course, assuming that Obama agrees to these terms and decides not to attack Syria.No one wants to protect a criminalThats all you need to know.That's all I need to know? What are you some sort of expert now? Corrupt nations have no problem protecting a corrupt ally."Believe". Its not a fact, but I am open to be convinced.You're difficult to convince. You tend to just ignore the facts when they're right in front of you.They are aware that they are ruled by extremists“victory for wisdom, moderation and maturity... over extremism.”You really need to start reading more than just titles.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

That's all I need to know? What are you some sort of expert now? Corrupt nations have no problem protecting a corrupt ally.We tackled this one already. I have no intention of repeating the argument.I suppose this argument is now over, isnt it?Thankyou for the time
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

We tackled this one already. I have no intention of repeating the argumentWe didn't tackle it. I suppose this argument is now over, isnt it?Only if you don't respond to this, but that'll be a victory for me if you don't. I typed up a pretty long argument and you only responded to a small portion. Actually, you responded to a comment that didn't really need a response.You've changed your position little by little throughout this debate. I can only assume that what I said got to you.But the one thing I wanted to say that I didn't get to, is that good leaders make their decisions based off of intelligence, not emotion. Attacking Syria will be an emotional response.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

We didn't tackle it.Read the Russia argument.Attacking Syria will be an emotional response.Violation of UN laws demands right punishment.Fearing the consequences, thats the emotional response.Only if you don't respond to this, but that'll be a victory for me if you don't.Question will be, how long can you fool yourself?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Read the Russia argument.It would be easier if you just provided me with a quote.Violation of UN laws demands right punishment.You're pretty close to contradicting yourself again, but I don't want to stop you. So, please clarify? What should the punishment be?Question will be, how long can you fool yourself?Well, I've already had people on here tell me that they agree with me, so...
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

What should the punishment be?What can be?people on here tell me that they agree with me, so...I feel sorry for your delusions
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

What can be?Huh?I feel sorry for your delusionsI'm serious. How about I make a debate and ask others for their opinion on who had the better arguments?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Huh?I am asking what punishments are availableHow about I make a debate and ask others for their opinion on who had the better arguments?If that is what will end this argument. Then do as you wish.EDIT:Im off to work
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

I am asking what punishments are availableOh, good grief... forget it.If that is what will end this argument. Then do as you wish.Made it!
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

I gotta be honest, I see something odd in your thread that makes me smile, but dont mind it. I will just leave you in the company of your choice"Au Revoir~❤"
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

In other words, you are saying we should play games with other people's lives? Hmmm... interesting. Maybe you should be sent over instead.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

No, I'm saying that we shouldn't ignore the fact that a nation has attacked its own innocent civilians with a weapon that would be near impossible for themselves to defend against. And what's interesting is that you cannot have a mature debate, and offer no true argumentative statement concerning this topic. Other than "playing games with other people's lives", why should the US ignore this situation? Please, enlighten me.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Other than "playing games with other people's lives", why should the US ignore this situation? Please, enlighten me.First of all it's none of our business. If you think the chemical attack in Syria (if they even did) amounts to fly dung then you are mistaken. Syria's situation is baby talk.The situation in Syria is clear. You have a military dictator that rules with an iron fist. Then on the other hand you have the Muslim Brotherhood (a.k.a Al Queda) shooting innocent Iraqi truck drivers because of their belief. YES, THEY ATTACKED OUR OWN ALLY SUPPLY LINES.So now I want to ask you, why should we get involved in Syria?Anyone who wants to go into Syria needs their head examine.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

IM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD GO INTO SYRIA WITH GUNS ABLAZE. I'm just saying the situation shouldn't be IGNORED, SWEPT UNDER THE RUG, HIDDEN IN THE BACK OF THE CLOSET, and other synonymous phrases having to do with pretending a problem doesn't exist. For one thing, giving aid to help Syrian citizens and trying to prevent future actions like this will portray the US as a potential ally. And should the US go back on their word about getting involved if chemical weapons were used? Good politics is all about posturing, making yourself look big without revealing your secret intelligence/weapons etc. So if we go back on our word, it will make US look bad. Duh. And with everything going on now, we shouldn't risk appearing weak.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

So your saying we should support Islamic terrorist?Well you could have just said it.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

NO I AM SAYING THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED. WHETHER IT BE VIOLENT FORCE, DIPLOMACY, OR ANY OTHER WAY, IT SHOULD BE HANDLED. THATS ALL
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

It's no use arguing with him. He thinks by ignore, we mean that our news shouldn't talk about them, our government shouldn't pay attention to them, and our citizens shouldn't think about them. It's actually kind of funny that he has misunderstood us that deeply lol.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Actually its funny that you missed the word "completely" in the debate title "lol"
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Actually, the funny thing is how unintelligent I made you look. You're the only one who looked at the debate title and thought he meant we should stick our fingers in our ears and go "La la la la, I can't hear you!" every time someone mentions Syria.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

That's basically what he said. If he meant something different, how about using a different choice of words or clarifying his debate? And you're the one contradicting yourself, not me. So I think you should look in the mirror before calling someone else unintelligent
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

You're too young. You don't understand. Go play a video game or something. I'm done arguing with you.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Isn't playing video games all the time the problem with todays youth. And age is nothing but a number. There's plenty of old people who lack intelligence and wisdom.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

And what's interesting is that you cannot have a mature debateIt's kind ironic that you would say that, considering the argument you had with me.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Why do you are you afraid of fighting when you know that you are on the right side?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Ignoring the situation wouldn't make us seem weak nor would it cause us to not be taken seriously. The UK has voted against invading Syria and yet they are one of the most respected powers in the world with one of the strongest economies. Although we may not agree with it as a nation, we simply cannot go in and fix every problem in the world with guns ablaze.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

I'm not saying that physical force should be taken, I'm just saying that SOMETHING should be done about it. Ignoring it AFTER the fact that our government has said that if chemical weapons were used, we would get involved would be the reason we, as a nation, would appear weak or cowardly. And yes, we would lose our credibility if that happens.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

We seem to try to do that a lot. At one point we need to take care of us first. We can't be every countries Mama.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Ignoring the situation wouldn't make us seem weak nor would it cause us to not be taken seriouslyUnder this logic, I ask; does not doing bad things equates to doing good?You know that Assad has crossed the line. Why do you refuse to bring in justice?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

First off, what did he do to America? Second off, why are we controlling how the rest of the world lives? Third off, why are we responding to death with military action (fighting fire with fire)? Fourth off, why must we constantly entangle ourselves in foreign affairs when we have plenty of issues at home?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

what did he do to America?America? No, UN laws, yeswhy are we controlling how the rest of the world lives?It isnt about control. This is about punishing those who dare to violate the laws which was implemented for a reasonwhy are we responding to death with military actionIf you have a better solution, I am all earswhy must we constantly entangle ourselves in foreign affairs when we have plenty of issues at home?"When we said never again, it does not mean "once in a while". It means never again" - Barrack ObamaThere is a reason why we created the UN and struggle to keep peace. Being tired of conflicts is normal. But evil triumps when good men do nothing
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

You're actually proving my point! What did he do to America? Nothing. This is not a job for America to single-handedly complete. It is exactly what the UN was created for.Besides, we've been ignoring the conflict in Syria for 2 years now. Why start caring now?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

We ignored it for years because we respect civil wars. But now that chemical weapons were used, it made a mockery of the UN laws. And punishment has to be swift
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

"a mockery of UN laws"Please elaborate how this translates to only America (and possibly France) doing anything about it? The UK didn't have an issue saying no.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Who said only America was mobilized?10 out of 20 nations voted for military strike. The rest are unsure or against.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

If its a normal war, sure. But Assad has gone too far. It is simply human to punish those who abuse their power
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

peolpe who use chemical weapons want U.S intervention.these people have strong hold in Syria . i think the situation will be just like Afghanistan.strong groups in syria will make their own boundaries. one side will work along with americans and other side will control the areas against americans. both groups will use a lot of guns .only civilians will suffer. people in strong groups will make their own governments and rule their areas.Syria will be divided into two or many countries.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

one ARE YOU CRAZY next if we forget about it and Obama dose do this we are tost because one Syria have almost the whole east side we lose in a day
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

I support nature. Nature's cycles gives everyone a chance. After Spring, with all of its bright, cheerful, colors, nature gives Goth kids a chance in the Fall.If the weak are allowed to die off, nature would eventually give them a chance. If the strong are too stupid to keep at least a few nerds alive to solve problems, they will eventually die off and nerds would get their day in the sun. If the nerds don't keep enough cheerleaders around, then the geeks will take over. ;)
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Nature doesn't let the weak flourish during good times. The kind chieftain would attract the most fertile women. Only the strongest could afford to be kind, so the weak and cruel get less offspring. Kindness goes hand in hand with strength. It is a driving force in development.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

Well sure be kind. I'm not some heartless bastard saying go around and steal wheelchairs, bully nerds, and shoot all the deaf people.I'm mostly saying that we shouldn't be kind to a fault. That fault would be as little as spending a cent that could go to better advancements in the society that does't need help.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Things "don't need help" merely because they give you something in return, but there are others with more pressing demands than your own. Malaria has killed approximately half of all humans who ever lived. Charities stopping malaria are effective, but "need help".The problem is that you indeed can steal wheelchairs and shoot deaf people, but by not helping those charities you are doing worse. Sure, you can be selfish, enlightened self-interest alone would carry the world a long way, but the moment you apply a higher standard (such as proposing a policy for the world) you run into problems.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

In the society where people fend for themselves Malaria would be an example of something it's socially acceptable to help out in. This would be to prevent the whole population from dying of a diseases that could eventually reach the individual.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Nature produces adaptations that look to the best possible result despite rationality or sacrifice. Sometimes we are kind despite rational self-interest, because it is the way we can best spread and maintain our population in this specific environment.The fly that distributes malaria depends on a warm environment and can't reach north America or Europe, places that would have the best resources to stop it.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

There's a huge gulf between kindness and cruelty ;)
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

I'm more like the indifferent type. Where does that fall on the scale?
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

By supporting the weak, we allow it to flourish and grow weaker as a society. If we let it die on it's own or thrive on it's own we will grow stronger as a society.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Whatever you say, Adolf. ;)
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

How does that qualify as a dispute? It's little more that a biased, judgmental, statement of opinion.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Says the person who copies Adolf Hitler. Why don't you get a gun and kill these weaker elements of society if they are such a bother? What's that? It is not legal? Case closed. People have rights including the disabled.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

The point I'm trying to argue is that it shouldn't be legal to let our weaknesses thrive.I wouldn't kill the weak people, they would die of their own weaknesses and the next generation would lack those weaknesses.I'm not bothered by people with diseases and ailments, that are suffering but I imagine how much better off we'd be as a whole if that diseases that they have had already died off.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

That is disgusting, you fascist twit. Those people have rights .
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

True. They do have rights. Their rights shouldn't be that we have to aid them. If a mother knows she has Fatal Familial Insomnia we should not try help her get to a point where she can give birth to more people who will have it.Rights also go two directions. She has the right to try, we have the right to not help her.I'm not saying make helping people illegal, that's barbaric. I'm saying stop struggling to keep these unfit people alive, when if they'd simply go the next generation wouldn't have to deal with those issues.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

So I should die because I am disabled? I have agreed to be sterilized and not pass on my genetics, so what is the problem? Be careful who you say that shit to. You just may be calling for their death. Answer both of my questions.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

You continue to twist my words. I never say kill. I say let be killed.The problem would be that you'll be taking up space in a society of scarcity if you're not contributing. I don't know what's wrong with you, I don't know if you help or not. But I believe that whatever your issue is that the public should not be forced to help you.No special treatments basically.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Same fucking difference you fascist piece of shit. To allow the death of is to kill by omission. Now send me a gun so I can kill myself since disabled people do not have the right to live.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

Okay Ismalila let me draw the line here. You wrongfully insult me again. You twist my words again. I will ban you from every debate I make.I'm here to have civil arguments with people, not read the whines of some little girl who can't handle other opinions. I initially thought you to be passionate. I then thought you were either a troll or really an idiot. I am beginning not to care. I tried to simply leave your arguments be, knowing you'd whine, I tried to be civil with you and discourage name calling. All vain attempts. I won't put up with the abuse.As for the argument. Killing by omission. I think not, allowing a person that is doomed anyway to die seems completely morally sound to me.In regards to you killing yourself or your right to live. I continually say, in at least three other posts, that you have your right to life. We just have our right to not help you, and that you should be treated just like all the able bodied people with no special treatments. Anything you need to survive you can do it on your own.I recently began reading a book about Frederick Douglas. As you probably know, he was an ex slave, who got as far as he did in life on his own merits completely.Without the right to read, he learned, without the time to write he learned, with every odd against him. he is a person I would say is truly Darwinesque. he had the biggest disabilities of the time. He was Black, he was a slave, and he in the south for a while. he over came all of that not only with no help, but with people seeking his demise.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Says the fascist who advocates for the death of disabled people. Ban this, you fascist cunt. I have twisted nothing.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

I have the right to a quality life .
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

Perfectly true. No one in this world should be able to tell you otherwise, but we shouldn't have to help you. I don't think you're reading this part. The government shouldn't make special devices for disabled people, devices that'll cost money. They should be birthed, and allowed to live as normally a life as they can without tons of assistance and all sorts of costing aids.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Kiss my disabled ass. I have zero tolerance for fascists .
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

I am reporting you for hate speech. Good night .
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

Well if the people who go over reports checks all arguments between both parties, I'd advise against it seeing as how your comments are pretty negative but in any regard I can't stop you so, good luck.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

The average strength of the individuals in the group is far from the strength of the group. Only by having others to rely on can obstacles be overcome.Furthermore, a weak society is better than an extinct society. Would you rather have Africa be a free breeding ground for viruses? Would you salute a nuclear first strike?
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Consider a genetically fat person, can't run as fast as a skinny person, so they might be seen as weak in a situation where they need to run, such as in Africa with lions. Up north where it's cold however, blubber is a nice thing to have. Evolutionary Strength is the ability to adapt to changing conditions, if you eliminate the weak in a particular situation, you reduce the ability to adapt to new situations, which damages strength of society. Weak individuals in a society, are actually essential to it's long term strength.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

Your examples were perfect examples of how it's good to be Darwinistic.If you are fat and can't survive well in a lion infested area, you shouldn't be there, and people shouldn't have to help you.Just as if you are scrawny but live in a cold climate like Antarctica, you also shouldn't be there so you should either move or adapt.I was never saying kill all the genetically weak people. I was always saying don't foster their weaknesses.