azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

The money earned on royal estates is passed back to the government anyway so this 'republican' view is a complete waste of time.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

It is of very little consequence, i highly doubt that the royal estates "earn" money comparable by what your people pay in taxes, granted you do have excellent health care though.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

Its not 1649 anymore is it?? I cant believe how many references ive heard to the 16th and 16th centuries i mean come on people its literatley been 400 years ago before usa even declared independence. Im sure things have changed just a tad bit LOL
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

Well said. I'm not English.. but I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

We're stuck in the past, as a nation. I don't believe that the royals should get any tax money- they can live off their tourist industry.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

They're absolutely pointless. No one takes the UK seriously because they still have a monarchy. It is antiquated and ridiculous. Some old bitch shouldn't have the same power as a man who is able to earn his way into presidency or prime minister. They should all be lined up against a wall and shot, and I hope in my life time the brits come around and do just that. I hope it's televised. They are scum, every single one, with absolutely nothing good to give to the country or the world. Anyone with a brain realizes this. They don't see "commoners" (WHY DO WE EVEN USE THAT WORD IN 2012) as real people, we are below them. Well, let's show them who has the real power. Get rid of them, make them live like real people. All you monarchy lovers are idiots. In the words of the Sex Pistols, God Save the Queen, she ain't no human being!
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

Yeah its just crazy to leave it up to a 90 year old woman to make military decisions!
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

Yes, i believe the queen should be impeached. Technically speaking, as monarch of england, she owns over 6,600 million acres of land, thats 1/6th of earths total landmass, and yet we still have things like world hunger. Corn is 150 american dollars per ton with 5-6 dry tons of corn per acre(15 wet tons). Do the math. There is no reason for even a single person to go hungry, yet i watch as the world gets exponentially worse every year, and one of the most powerful people in the world does nothing but soak up the spoils of robbing brits of your taxes. She sits with a jeweled crown on her head while she is a useless puppet to be paraded about by her government. I want to see a world without isis, without watching a quarter of the world starve while 1% of the population controls all money simply to do nothing with it. All wealth should be re-distributed and given to those with dreams. The rich only want to stay wealthy, the poor want to be wealthy, they have the ideas and it was poor people with dreams who made the industrial revolutions, something that will save the economy of the u.s. and our english friends
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Abolish the Monarchy. The monarchy is pointless, it's no advantage to the country and it's costly to keep. Historically it was important for the country but now it's old fashioned. The king/queen does nothing and the tax payers have to keep her going for nothing in return. They are uneeded now, old fashioned and outdated. It's time to move on.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

Did you read any the other arguments on this debate page? Sigh...The monarchy is pointless, it's no advantage to the country and it's costly to keep.The cost is far exceeded by the tourist revenue.Historically it was important for the country but now it's old fashioned.What defines England other than its history?The king/queen does nothing and the tax payers have to keep her going for nothing in return.Tax payers pay about 80 pence per capita. That's nothing.They are uneeded now, old fashioned and outdated. It's time to move on.Keep your filthy liberal claws away from my Queen.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Removing the monarchy would destroy something generations of Englishmen have fought and died for.in my opinion, an American equivalent would be to get all Congress to piss fire on the Declaration of Independence.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

NO NO NO. Independence was to get rid of the Queen, not to support her. So the American Equivalent of removal of the royals is to increase the value of the Declaration of Indepenence ACTUALLY. Its you who is suppporting the Queen not the Americans.Ad NO NO THERE IS NO ENGLISHMAN ALIVE WHO FOUGHT FOR THE MONARCHY, AND THE ONES WHO DID WERE CONNED INTO IT WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO TEND TO THEIR FAMILIES.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

That is a pretty good analogy. The declaration of Independence is a fairly out-dated draft, yet Americans still hold dear it's core message that is represents. I am sure the royal family must have some simlar representation to the british public, like that of British strength and endurance thoughout the ages.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

The American government/congress HAS ALREADY PISSED AND SET FIRE to the Declaration of Independence AND Don't get me started on the Constitution! Literally the WHOLE of America doesn't know that they have changed and altered these documents to suit the agenda of the government.. so they can take away our rights, freedoms and make us subservient - until America is no longer America and Americans can no longer identify with "America, home of the free, home of the brave" .. but more like "America, home of the imprisoned, home of the slave"Where are the true Englishmen who are sitting on the throne? There are none! They don't exist because they are all German and of German descent. Unfortunately, the Monarchy of a TRUE Englishmen sitting on the throne disappeared a long time ago and has long been destroyed. The Monarchy lies.. and they have their secrets.. they've taken generations of Englishmen who have fought and died for their evil and selfish reasons. No more Englishmen need to die for the Monarchy.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

From an economic standpoint, keeping the monarchy is far more sensible than dissolving it. The paltry £50,000,000 that constitutes the royal allowance is far exceeded by the amount of money generated by tourists who come to see them. From a political standpoint, removing The Queen would result in appointment of an elected president, who would play essentially the same role and would in all probability maintain exactly the same powers in regards to military policy. Of course, as a monarchist, my view is hopelessly biased, but I view it as an act of treachery to call for The Queen's removal, in Her own country of all places! Such vulgar sedition should not be tolerated.GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.I thought you were an atheist????
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

Tourists would still come to see the historic buildings that the UK has to offer. If the monarchy was removed all current residencies could be opened up to the public generating huge revenue. Removal of the archaic mechanisms of government would lead to a renewal of politics and the political process. No more undemocratic orders or legal backdoors that politicians could use to hide their activities (see link).
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Tourists would still come to see the historic buildings that the UK has to offer.Without the Queen, Buckingham palace would be a shell. Do not try to impose foreign political values upon a nation which has been a constitutional democracy for three and a half centuries, and a monarchy for even longer. Thousands of people come to England specifically to see the changing of the guard and other royal-related attractions. The monarchy is embedded in the heart of England, to remove it would be foolish in the extreme.If the monarchy was removed all current residencies could be opened up to the public generating huge revenue.The palace is open as it is. What's the point in going to the others? "This used to be the home of the monarchy. Now it's just a tourist gimmick".Removal of the archaic mechanisms of governmentDemocracy pre-dates British monarchy. would lead to a renewal of politics and the political process.That's naive. No more undemocratic orders or legal backdoors that politicians could use to hide their activitiesPoliticians always find a way.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

"Thousands of people come to England specifically to see the changing of the guard and other royal-related attractions" NO YOU SILLY FOOL, THE GUARD CAN STILL CHANGE WITHOUT HER. OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE QUEEN IS NECESSARY FOR THE GUARD TO PULL ON THEIR TROUSERS??"This used to be the home of the monarchy. Now it's just a tourist gimmick" ITS A TOURIST GIMMICK NOW."Democracy pre-dates British monarchy" THEN REMOVE THE MONARCHY, SINCE ITS NOT DEMOCRATIC. THX FOR THE SUPPORT."Politicians always find a way" BUT THE ROYALS WOULD HAVE TO FIND A JOB.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

NO YOU SILLY FOOLBeware, gentlemen! This fellow types with Caps Lock on! THE GUARD CAN STILL CHANGE WITHOUT HER. And what, pray, would they guard? Surely you do not suggest we that replace genuine tradition with spurious pageantry?ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE QUEEN IS NECESSARY FOR THE GUARD TO PULL ON THEIR TROUSERS?Ah, humour. How insipid.ITS A TOURIST GIMMICK NOWI think the political institution of the British monarchy, has existed for longer than tourism has; it's importance to the legislature of the nation, though reduced, has not been relegated to the fanciful embellishment that you claim it has become.THEN REMOVE THE MONARCHY, SINCE ITS NOT DEMOCRATICIt must be demonstrated that democracy is objectively superior to monarchy, or even to a limited constitutional monarchy, before such a recommendation can be considered to be more than the facile and lazy attempt at logic, that it appears to be.BUT THE ROYALS WOULD HAVE TO FIND A JOBThey already have jobs. I would ask if you had ever served as an ambassador, but then I'm sure that you are actually the minister plenipotentiary to the courts of Europe. I might also have asked if you had ever served in the military, but then I'm sure the answer would come "I'm actually a deadly Navy Seal/Paratrooper/Royal Marine/Special Air Serviceman/Spetznatz commando... et cetera.Though I'm quite sure that all of the above roles require a basic literacy test.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

She is a good public figure and attracts many tourists. It really wouldn't concern me if she was removed from power because I live in the USA.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Removing Her Majesty the Queen, would mean confusion and pubic unrest in England. Many people would be vying for power. I can just see a civil war breaking out with the removal
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

confusion and pubic unrest in England.Our pubes are just dandy than you.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

"would mean confusion and pubic unrest in England"good fuck the English, us Welsh, Scottish and northern Irish will get along just fine without some lady sucking up our money.shes a hamper to our freedom.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

HAHAHA?It's you guys sucking money Scotland- free universityEngland- costs 9000 a yearWales- free prescriptionEngland- 7.50 per prescriptionhmmmm?
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

us Welsh, Scottish and northern IrishHave never achieved anything of consequence.will get along just fine without some lady sucking up our money.About 80p per person? You're poor, but not that poor.shes a hamper to our freedom."Long may she reign:May she defend our laws,And ever give us causeTo sing with heart and voice"
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

http://www.britannia.com/celtic/wales/facts/ http://www.magicdragon.com/Wallace/thingscot.html#Ao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_inventions_and_discoveries fuck you we have"Long may she reign:May she defend our laws,And ever give us causeTo sing with heart and voice"well done you can spit out some useless song. shes a danger to our freedom in the way that she can, if I'm not mistaken,· declare war and send troops abroad;· to make international and European treaties;· to make appointments and award honors;· to make major changes to the structure of government that to me, is a blatant insult to the people. and no amount of titles should ever make her opinion and choices more important then the average citizen
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

fuck you we haveEvidently manners were not among them.hes a danger to our freedom in the way that she can, if I'm not mistaken,· declare war and send troops abroad;· to make international and European treaties;· to make appointments and award honors;· to make major changes to the structure of governmentElected presidents can do the same things.that to me, is a blatant insult to the people.As Her subjects, the people have no right to criticize Her. and no amount of titles should ever make her opinion and choices more important then the average citizenNot your decision to make.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

confusion and pubic unrest in England.Our pubes are just dandy thank you.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

The Queen requires only 1-2% of British Taxpayers money to continue her job, not only does she represent great cultural significance but the Royal Family also works as a irreplacable tool of diplomacy. If it wasn't for the Queen the Commonwealth may already have been dissolved causing one of the greatest political, social clubs of history to end.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

1-2% is alot.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

1% of £1 is 1p, it's not a lot of money which she is taking.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

Of £1, yes, of a nation's taxes, no.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Yes, but in proportion to the amount each taxpayer is paying it is not a lot.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

But it could be spent on more worthwhile things- it's about £6bn a year! That's alot of money to spend on one family.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

look at all the "countries" that got rid of monarchy...where are they now?
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

I would have voted abolish a month ago. No one should get to rule solely because of the family they were born into.But now that you voted to Brexit I'll vote to keep them, because frankly you're so screwed right now you might actually need the royals to take charge again at some point.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: Yes

The excepton to when it is unacceptable for a woman to cover her face is when it interfers with the rights and freedoms of others. For example, Muslim women covering their entire face in classroom then this has been held to be a problem as the inhibits communication between the teacher and her students.Secondly, I can understand how it can be argued that hijab is an oppression. To have to wear it is clearly a sacrifice of a woman's freedom. However, it seems to me that many women embrace this in order to also embrace the positive things in the Islamic religion. Despite this though if woman wanted to leave this Islamic way of life then the government should support those women by assisting them to live apart from their family.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: Yes

Governmnet should support people's choices if they don't violate the rights of others but not ban them!
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: No

I suppose I put the argument in this column because I believe it should be unlawful for muslim women to wear it in schools; it should be banned in that context.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: Yes

I have always found the argument that such things are "distracting" to be without merit, there simply has to be more than what might or might not be another person's personal preferences who might happen to be annoyed by something or another while they are in a position of athorithy to make a law, if a teacher or other students are distracted by another student doing anything, should that anything be banned? perhaps they can't focus on school because they are distracted that their sister at home is moving away for college and they won't hang out, should that be banned? Perhaps the teacher is distracted by black or gay students being in his class room, perhaps they should be segregated just in case the teacher is a racist?
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: No

I didn't use the word distracting. It's more than that. When someone has their face covered then they are more difficult to hear and the message they're trying to convey is more difficult to grasp. When you pay some to teach it is essential that they can do it properly.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: Yes

Its really not, and again, this "new" argument fails to my previous argument just the same.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: No

You don't see the difference between someone being distracting and someone being unable to do fulfil their job role? I'll answer each one of your examples in turn then, so you can follow:"there simply has to be more than what might or might not be another person's personal preferences who might happen to be annoyed by something or another while they are in a position of athorithy to make a law,"No. A 4 year old children, for example, does not necessary have a personal perference that would mean that be annoyed by someone. If someones mouth is covered, then the child is less likely to understand what they are trying to say. Similarly, they are less likely to understand what they are trying to convey emotionally if they cannot see the facial expression. It is not distracting, nor based on the childrens personal prejudices."if a teacher or other students are distracted by another student doing anything, should that anything be banned?"I think that you could agree that a student doing something that that interfers with the learning of other students is a negative thing. In some cases it will be just that the student is easily distracted and thus it is not the other students fault. However, thereare things that are objectively distracting e.g. a student shouting all the time so the teacher can't communicate effectively to the rest of the class or a teacher covering their face so they can't communicate effectively to the rest of the class. There is then an argument that these distracted things should bebanned, yes. Many forms of behaviour that are distruptive to a class are banned in the form of school rules."perhaps they can't focus on school because they are distracted that their sister at home is moving away for college and they won't hang out"I don't understand how this is relevant. We're talking about the actions of someone that is responsible for childrens education and how it impacts on those children with the educational setting."Perhaps the teacher is distracted by black or gay students being in his class room, perhaps they should be segregated just in case the teacher is a racist"This is the teachers problem. But its a problem that should be remedied. If the teacher can't do the job properly because of this issue then they should consider moving to another profession or be given counselling to deal with those issues. Similarly, the school should act against a teacher that is covering their mouth.I hope it is clear now.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: Yes

If a teacher is distracted by another's student's religious expression which does no harm to anyone else, that is probably the teacher's problem and she/he should find another job or be given consoling to help with those issues.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: No

I'm not sure youve read anything I've said or else you don't understand it. This has nothing to do with a students religious expression. We're talking about the teacher wearing it in class. Not the student. Distracted is not the right word as I keep saying.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: Yes

The first problem here is that it 'inhibits communication between the teacher and her students'. Well, there are so many other examples of other teachers, both men and women who also do things that inhibits communication between teacher and student. For example, students may feel that the sight of a teacher wearing braces may hinder effective communication, not physically (as in difficulty in hearing), but psychologically, as they might feel disgusted by the braces and would not be paying attention during classes. Of course, sometimes people wearing braces also find it difficult to enunciate their words clearly (what do you expect from someone with a mouth full of metal?). However, nobody bans braces as it is something unavoidable. People use braces to straighten their teeth, which in many cases, is essential. The same thing applies to the hidjab. Many Muslim women feel that it is necessary to wear their hidjab to cover their faces, just as people with mouth problems feel it is necessary to straighten their teeth, or devout Christians feel it is necessary to go to the church on Sundays. But neither of the two are banned. Why???
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: Yes

The same goes for the teacher, and distraction is the right word.
Debate: Should hidjab be banned by Government?
Side: No

So you're saying if a little kid can't follow what their teacher is saying because their mouth is covered. This its the child's problem and they should move schools?