azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

the economy is not a stand-alone entity. it is a system of forces (governmental, market, etc) that exist collectively. it exists in due to our own demands. the economy extends beyond the concept of the "market" as it incorporates the tools and forces we use to push/pull the market (such as regulation).studying economics, one learns that there is no silver-bullet in dealing with it. that's to say, neither monetary or fiscal policy (the two primary tools employed by society/government) to force economic outcomes are proven.. not imply that we can not affect the economy, but to say that we can not specifically control or impact it in guaranteed, measurable ways.that said, we can make the most impact by adjusting our behaviors that are known to impact our environment. furthermore, the economy responds to constraints. for example, when there was a demand for increased food, the market (a major piece of the economy) responded not only by producing more livestock, but additional, smaller markets formed, such as the railways, to meet the upstream demands. In the same way, as the global community applies regulation and requirements aimed at helping our environment, it will force new markets to evolve. these new markets help diversify and grow our existing economy, making it more robust and more resilient to downturns (effect of diversification).so, in short, to move forward with efforts to improve the environment, we'll see emerging markets and all that goes with them (new jobs, new industry types, new skill sets, new resource demands) that, in turn, improve our economy by default.finally, from a personal standpoint, the environment can exist without a robust economy. an economy can't exist without a supportive environment. and finally, with our without a healthy economy, WE can not exist without a stable environment.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

I have to say that I don't find the components of this dichotomy as mutually exclusive as the question would imply. The case for the preservation of a life-sustaining environment seems to need no defense from me, but I will add that fixing the economy, to my mind, would help to preserve the environment (depending of course upon what we mean by "fix").The current system of credit management should be more personal, more constructive with regard to long-term societal goals, and more congruent with the concept of our species living amongst others upon which we depend. If mankind, in our quest for man-made credit, endangers the natural order which can grant us natural resources upon which to build a more dynamic, more sustainable, and more environmentally responsible economy, this will be our tragedy and their will not be an ear around to hear of it when we have failed our obligation to our planet and to each other.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

IF THE ENVIRONMENT COLLAPS, NO LIFE WILL REMAIN HERE.SO IF POLITICIANS WORK FOR THE VOTE, TELLING NONSENSE TO BOOST ECONOMY, BY PRODUCING LOT OF USE & THROW ARTICLS LIKE CHINA MAKE, & POLLUTE THE ENVIORNMENT THEN, NO MORE DREAM OF LIVE HERE LONGER U STUPID, RASCAL POLITICIANS
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Everything political aside, these are both big problems that effect everyone.But in the end the economy is a crapshoot, and will always be up and down. But the environment is precious and limited. So while we should focus on fixing the economy by investing in fixing the environment.... I feel the environment is much more important.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

"I feel the environment is much more important."I guess in the long run, it is- especially after every major government on Earth collapses. lol. But since the environment has been known to fix itself over the centuries and the economy affects more people right now, I think we should work on that first. Besides, as I stated on the other side, you need money from the economy to help fix the environment. ;)
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

Thats why I suggested we fix the economy by fixing the environment.I conceeded that both are important for many reasons. But I happen to believe that yes, the environment fixes itself, but it may get a lot worse before it gets better. So while the environment will eventually survive us, will we survive it?I don't want to take that chance. The environment is more important to me.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: mother earth demands blood sacrifice

Yes, because a bunch of bonobos fucking each other all day are infinitely superior to you human scum, so stop typing on your computer right now, find the nearest biped, and start humping! Its for mother earth dammit, so fuck away.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: To each their own

There is a lot more to this question than meets the eye. Mainly, who will be focusing, and how.In any case though, we need to do both. Until we make up our minds on the two questions that I've stated above, we should all do our own parts, in each field. The economy, because our own personal financial situations are the trees of the economy's forest. The same goes for the environment, if we undo something, as individuals, the most that we can do is to redo it.  Basically, we each have to be responsible for everything. Politics concerning these issues too, because we as individual we have the power through government to do things politically, we have to deal with politics as well... but some people seem to think that too many people in government ruins government... so there's the first hint of "who", that I mentioned earlier. I tend to think that people aren't being responsible enough, in any way, but that this is caused by a social illness of sorts. Consumerism, capitalism, the fear of socialism, our dependance on the media, etc. It's a huge problem, seemingly all encompassing, universal, and it is becoming more and more native to our society every day. We need to start rejecting this lifestyle, and start living realistically. There was a time when most of the goods made and sold in America were goods that would increase our GDP... those were things that people wanted to buy! Not HiDef televisions or 20" rims from China, Japan, and Taiwan, they were tractors, or mills, or sewing machines, or property, or whatever else would help them work... built in America, for money... and then used to make more money elsewhere. Our social decay is our complacency, our unwillingness to buckle down, and our lack of education or, more importantly, our lack of concern. We just don't care as we should. Go into any bar or pub, watch people... they're drunk and over 21, the burden of the nation is on them... watch what they do... listen to what they say. NOTHING OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. It's always about someone else, or about something that happened to them... or what they were told to think about this or that. It's never like "Fuck guys, what are we going to do? What is the problem real problem, because this shit isn't working anymore." Anyhow, I'm rambling now. Point is, be responsible.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

I'm going to have to defend the bar crowd.Drunk political debates are a favorite passtime of mine.Yes, there are some guys and gals who don't know shit. But the only reason you think popitcs, or other issues of importance, can't be discussed in concurrance with drinking is because those people talk so loud.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

The environment, because it affects a slew of living creatures, and not just people. Since our actions are having an impact on every other living system in nature, we ought to fix that first, and focus on the economy second. Furthermore, people only want to fix the economy because it's a problem that is here and now. The environment, on the other hand, is a problem that can be handed down and made the problem of our children and our children's children. We cannot keep up this intergenerational tyranny any longer.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the economy needs more help

On the grand scale of things human activity has a very minor effect on the environment in comparison to all the other natural occurrences in earth's history. In contrast, the economy is greatly influenced by human activity and needs to be attended to now. Economic issues can plague later generations just as bad if not more so than the present day environmental issues.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Every life support system is in decline. Biological diversity is decreasing at an alarming rate. Natural occurrences are not to blame. We are. The earth will, of course, survive. But we may not, nor may many other species. This is of a MUCH higher concern than the economy, which is saying a lot considering how big that problem is. I understand the need to fix the economy, but the environment has been ignored since before the economy was an issue, so it's not an excuse for our inaction. Finally, economic issues only plague human generations. Environmental isues plague everything alive. To me, it's a no brainer.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Margaret Thatcher, the conservative prime minister of the U.K. in the '80's, was the first major politician to point out the dangers of global warming. Now conservatives are towing the opposite line because the oil companies (in which many Republicans have a vested interest in) told them to.By the way, the effect of humanity on extinction is comparable to the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: Why not Fix Both

Why put something ahead of another? You can fix the economy and the environment at the same time. In fact, you can help fix the economy by fixing the environment! Here are some ways:- Emissions trading provides business opportunities.- Renewable energy projects will create work and more business opportunities.- Reducing dependence on foreign oil, therefore reducing costs.- Cleaning up land and waterways will create huge amounts of work and improve tourism.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Without a planet with healthy environment, we cannot survive. We can't eat, drink or breathe money. Environment needs to be saved first, period.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

Maybe if Brexit hadn't happened, we wouldn't need to fix the economy, so therefore the environment gets my vote because it's not the environment's fault that the UK is in the state that it's in. So if the economy collapses so be it. The 52% brought this upon themselves and everyone else.
Debate: Present day, is it more important to focus on fixing the economy or the environment?
Side: the environment first

The environment is here to stay, whether or not we are a part of this world is moot. It sustains us more than the economy does, even in another stock market crash it's possible to sustain yourself by farming or trading goods, you are less likely to survive if the environment gets destroyed.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

They're getting paid what the market says their worth.-------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

Entertainers can't be touched by the left. The Progressive messiahs are untouchable. You must attack CEOs who make less in order to make us Communist.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

Well the money they get is good because some of them give there money to charities or boys and girls club
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

here is other thing WWE is people are fake fighting and they slam each other that is why they get a lot of money for entertainment
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

This has been discussed before and it has been pointed out that your premise is demonstrably false. Most athletes cannot even afford to make a living being full-time athletes. You seem to be attacking the small percentage of athletes who are so famous they are publicly visible to you, and these people constitute the most successful athletes in their respective sports. The most successful professionals of any industry are paid exorbitant amounts of money. There is nothing special about athletes other than the fact they are more visible to the public.Regarding celebrities generally, then this might well be a stronger point. Being famous is not a skilled profession, yet it brings big earning opportunities. Many famous people are not especially talented and have found their fame purely by chance.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

This has been discussed before and it has been pointed out that your premise is demonstrably false. Most athletes cannot even afford to make a living being full-time athletes. You seem to be attacking the small percentage of athletes who are so famous they are publicly visible to you, and these people constitute the most successful athletes in their respective sports.The exact same argument can be made for CEOs and business owners.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

The top 25 highest-paid athletes in the world for 2017 are …Lewis Hamilton: $46 million. ...James Harden: $46.6 million. ...Stephen Curry: $47.3 million. ...Kevin Durant: $60.6 million. ...Roger Federer: $64 million. ...Lionel Messi: $80 million. Salary/bonuses: $53 million. ...LeBron James: $86.2 million. Salary/bonuses: $31.2 million. ...Cristiano Ronaldo: $93 million. Salary/bonuses: $58 millionHere are 8 listed for you. Most athletes cannot even afford to make a living being full-time athletesAre you really as stupid as you seem to be ??????????
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

https://nypost.com/2017/06/07/the-top-25-highest-paid-athletes-in-the- world-for-2017-are/ From the New York Post and you said what- Most athletes cannot even afford to make a living being full-time athletes. Your ignorance is just laughable
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

I think the celebrities should paid a lot because they try their best to entertain us and their fans.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

I think they should get paid a lot because they work hard and then after there done playing there tired and they maybe need the money you don't know that.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

Most of these people do not use the money for retirement. If you watch the news, you see that most of these athletes and celebrities use their money for partying and nonsense, along with EXTRAVAGANT houses that are entirely too large for just themselves. The way they spend their money, causes them to participate i negative actions, causing them to also be negative role models for younger people.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

they are doing this for are entertainment and they doing what they love and they are wasting their time while they are can be spending time with their family so they get paid for are entertainment
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

i think the money they're getting paid with is the right amount because they are working hard for the money.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

Please explain how you believe they are working hard. Are they working harder than someone that has gone to college for 8 years and earned a college degree to work in a profession that is worth much less than these celebrities and athletes that have no education?
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

in the football field and on the basketball court or in other sports the players get tired so they are working hard and its OK to not get education sometimes. You don't see homeless people now-a-days doing a sport with no education so not everyone has education.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

yes but half of the "professional athletes" don't even have collage degree's
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

how do they work hard if they have fun making movies or wrestling like john cena
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

its not the right amount because some people have families to feed and they are not even getting paid for the things they are good at.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

how do you know??? u are not the other people getting paid.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

no they earned what they did, they were paid to do that. if people going to entertain us with stuff they should get paid. especially when they do it for a living.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

ok they are paid to do there job but they are getting paid to much money what if you were a basket ball player and you were good at it and all of the famous people got paid millions and you did not get paid . how would you feel.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

Exactly, some people can play amazingly but you don't see the living in mansions.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

i agree because if you were a good sports player you would be mad because they are not giving you back what you did for them
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

Yea, but think of what they do with that money plus teachers teach us and they don't get that much money
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

How did they "earn" this?? Half of these people do not even have a college degree... I agree that if they are our entertainment, they should get paid, however, their pay does not need to be as extreme as it is right now. We have athletes and celebrities worth millions of dollars, but yet people that go to college, earn degrees, and EARN their positions that make not nearly this amount of money. I believe that athletes and celebrities should have their salaries cut in half, and this money should be used to increase the pay rate of job professions (such as teaching) that REQUIRE people to have a college degree.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

it like when people have a dreams like lebron james he didnt do it for nothing he earn to be in the cleveland cavaliers. also rice gum he dropped out of highschool and hes famous and he make rackss
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT!!! A kid dropped out of high school and becomes famous- that is a bad model for young people his age.. It should be a requirement that people have a college degree before any type of fame is offered to them. For a high school age kid to be that famous is ridiculous. He has gone through no hard ships in life to earn that status, and also has no financial concept- therefore, that means he will be blowing his money on useless things and causing his to live a frivolous lifestyle.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

they have to have money even if it is too much they need to make a living somehow so way say they make too much
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

What your saying isn't a good reason why they should make that much money they can make a different living if that's what were doing here
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

I am against them making so much money, because I think they don't do enough to get 3.2 million dollars it's just a waste of money
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

I'm against the amount of money that athletes and celebrities get, because most people use there money for unnecessary things. And, celebrities that are young don't know how to spend there money wisely, so they blow through it.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

I agree because they do spend it on unnecessary things, when they could spend it on things they do need. Instead of looking dumb, saying ' i don't have any money though' well you should of never spent it on dumb things.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

You don't either i got a point because when we get money we go crazy we be like hey guys, guys look how much money i have OMG im so popular
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

yes i think they are getting paid to much money because some people that are good at other things but they don't even get paid that much money other than celebrities that get paid millions and thousands of dollars.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

hey it im'arya i support your statement because the details you are giving support your statement very well and i feel the same towards this arguments
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

I agree because they do get paid too much money ,when really that money their getting paid with , should really go to schools or to the homeless people . NOT things they don't need.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

do you know what they are doing to earn that kind of money
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

i don't think professional should get a lot of money except john cena
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

I disagree because Jhon Cena is a real person but he does fake wrestling.
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: PRO-

for are entertainment wwe is for entertainment that is what john cena is doing
Debate: professional athletes and celebrities are paid too much money.
Side: against the amount of money

if is fake then why he bleeds on wrestling and other wrestler