azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

If I were in the postion of the weak obviously I wouldn't want to die, but if society had resolved not to foster the weakness then I'd be left to my own devices like the people who aren't weak.I mean if I was born as a paraplegic and society decided that that's an unfavorable condition, one that they don't want to aid so as to prevent it from happening again, then I'd be left to get around as best as I could without the government giving me things. My family could help me, like one debater said about human's Knack for kindness, but it wouldn't be frowned upon or illegal for them not to.At that point I'd begin looking for ways to get around my handicap, like to make a wheelchair by myself somehow or I'd get stronger arms as a means to walk.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

At that point I'd begin looking for ways to get around my handicap, like to make a wheelchair by myself somehow or I'd get stronger arms as a means to walkYou can't be serious?Disabled people have just as much a right to a bearable life as you do. When assistance is render tho those with disabilities, they can contribute to society more effectively.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

Disabled people have just as much a right to a bearable life as you do.Of course they do. They should try to find ways to cope on their own though without mandatory assistance. It'd be a tough life if everyone had to fend for themselves, but the tough life would make the people tough.Much like the Spartan lifestyle. When assistance is render tho those with disabilities, they can contribute to society more effectively.Some can. Using the wheel chair example, there are some scientists finding cures for diseases that also need wheelchairs, but their are some people who take their disability as a free pass to be a dick to everyone. The person who'd be a dick, would not have amounted to anything just as he didn't while the person who became a scientist would have discovered a way to cope, probably being the 1st person to create a wheelchair.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

tough life would make the people toughA tough life doesn't necessarily make people tough, it just imparts un-necessary suffering. A tough life is more harmful than helpful in most cases. http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/19/ effects-of-tough-childhood-linger/17001.html some people who take their disability as a free pass to be a dick to everyoneI sense a generalization coming on :) Your statement is true, for a very small percentageWhat if I were to say all people with cancer use that to their advantage?
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

some people who take their disability as a free pass to be a dick to everyonehat about the part I said where some become scientists? What about the use of the word some?A tough life doesn't necessarily make people tough, it just imparts un-necessary suffering.It will either make the people fit to live in a Darwinian society tougher, or it will weed out those who can't.Either way, the nation as a whole benefits by loosing one more hindrance to the system that would cost money or it gains another individual who can help the system by working.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

hat about the part I said where some become scientists? What about the use of the word some?It's all about the overall connotation of the paragraph, not a few words.On your second point: it's conform or die essentially...Where would that stop? That sounds totalitarian...Furthermore, you are overlooking one critical detail. When people with disabilities are looked after, the benefits are two fold. Firstly, the live a better, happier life, and secondly, they contribute more to society.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

It's all about the overall connotation of the paragraph, not a few words.The words all play a part in the meaning of the paragraph if i had simply said "They are dicks because they use their disability to get sympathy"it'd be a different meaning that if I had said "Some are dicks who use their disability to get sympathy"it's conform or die essentially*Fending for yourself would be the opposite of conformity.they contribute more to society.My turn to call out a generalization. Some don't, some do. But if that particular disability had not been fostered it would begin to become weeded out. There would be no need to care for the disabled because the disabled would cease to exist.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

"Fending for yourself would be the opposite of conformity" In this case no. If you are out of the ordinary, you die. "My turn to call out a generalization"Yes, my statement was a generalization, but it was a fair generalization. Someone with help can contribute to society, a dead person cannot.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

In this case no. If you are out of the ordinary, you die.What? No! if everyone is fending for them self and one person wants to try to mooch, or help people and that results in him having a harder life that sure he'll die, but it's not like die is his only other options. he can help people, or hold his hand out hoping someone will help, but if everyone had adopted that moral to let everyone fend for them self then he'd go without until he was ready to fend for himself.Someone with help can contribute to society, a dead person cannot.Sure they can but they just as equally might not. And as I said in my other comment, if that condition they were dealing with had died out from lack of fostering it they would not need to be helped out.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

I think we should care about other people then ourselves because if we take care of ourselves and not help people what good is that going to do?
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

It is wonderful to help others who need help. It is cruel for people who have so much not to help the poor.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

My religion requires kindness, and so does my politics. Liberal Jew in the house.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

These are the requirements of your religion and politics, but that doesn't mean they are best for society.Some would argue that Religions hinder society, which would make your religion's requirements troublesome.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Care for others

Now you REALLY sound like Adolf Hitler. It is people like YOU who bring society down.
Debate: Should the world adopt a Darwinist policy?
Side: Fend for yourself

Perhaps.... how?
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

Smoking tobacco kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year, 1 every 10 seconds. Smokers are more than 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.One of the main responsibilities of any government is to ensure the safety of its population, that is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking - an activity which kills millions of people each year. Smoking tobacco not only gives the smoker a high chance of an early grave it gives those around him/her the same chances due to second hand smoke. What does all of this lead to? An irresponsible government that lets Americans continue to poison ourselves and do nothing about it.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

why do people need tobacco its killing them....thats so stupid
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

A lot of people try it out of peer pressure when they're young and can't stop because it's addicting. Nicotine is an addicting substance and the main component of tobacco.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

heres an idea don't give in to peer pressure..... peer pressure is another reason it should be banned.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

Which is one of the reasons for why it should be banned, not continued.My main concern is second hand smoke. What do you call killing someone without their consent? Murder. That is not legal so why should tobacco if 2nd hand smoke kills hundreds of thousands a year?
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

Secondhand smoke is preventable. Can't the innocent people walk away from the smokers? And if they're in a car, they can roll down the windows. Besides, it's illegal in most public places (and cars too, when there's a child in the back?). The tobacco industry is too lucrative to be stopped. The answer here is reform, not banishment.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

Cant innocent people just not live in the hood? Is it the shooters fault that they were in their part of the ghetto? According to your logic they should of just avoided the bad area. What about a child living at a home where smoke is constantly in the air ( smoke lingers even when there doesn't appear to be any making 2nd hand smoke still a factor ). Considering how many people DIE a year due to second hand smoke I think it should be closely looked at.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

I mostly agree with you, except I don't think the government is responsible for saving individuals from themselves. I think the reason we should ban tobacco is that smokers cause harm to other people by using up our health care resources.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

I definitely agree, 2nd hand smoke is a horrible way to die it should be considered as murder. Here's a joke!So a man gets diagnosed with lung cancer by his doctor, the man asks if this was of natural occurrences or if he was near radiation ( jokingly of course ), the doctor looks at him and says you can't fool me this report says you smoke cigarettes! The man utterly confused says no my wife does!Wasn't that hilarious! The man DIES A COUPLE YEARS LATER!!!! Punch line? Who needs 1 when you have GOLD LIKE THAT!!!
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

wow, i love totally unsupported claims.There is zero evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

Wow I love ignorant morons here is a little something from just about everyone who is the law with health and cancer.Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) .Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.That is from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS,  yeah CANCER.GOVSo um OWNED and get the hell out of here. That was worth the first down vote since the new update came out.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

i think ur making loads of sence and i am soo whith u cause i am a second hand smokerfrom the day i was born i now have asmer
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

Should Tobacco be banned?Hey, wolfmanBefore I begin, you already know what my position is about banning tobacco; I opposed your argument, but more on that later. The first matter at hand is that the entirety of your argument completely missed the point of your debate, your argument answers the question: Is smoking tobacco healthy? And nothing in your argument syllogistically proves that tobacco should be banned. You might of said something like: “Should the smoking of tobacco be banned?” Had you of done so, there would be an agreement of the question and your argument. No, I am not denying your claims about the statistics of tobacco smokers, I am indicating to you that those statistics are irrelevant, off point, to the question of the debate. Banning the smoking of tobacco and banning tobacco are separate questions.  Now, in response to your argument, regardless of the question you attempted to answer, I will respond to the argument and not address the question of the debate. “Smoking tobacco kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 3 million people die from smoking each year, 1 every 10 seconds. Smokers are more than 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.”The act of smoking tobacco does not kill anybody. Your argument begins with an undistributed subject, smoking. Are you meaning: “all smoking” or “some smoking”? The predicate is also undistributed. You claim as though the quantity of people supposedly killed by smoking is reason enough to ban tobacco, while at the same time ignoring other statistical supremacies such as 42 million abortions per year in the world. Nor does it speak of medical complications that kill more people than smoking tobacco. If you are going to use statistics to validate your argument, I will tell you the order in priority by which things should be banned. Smoking will not be high on the list of banning.Moreover, men who smoke an occasional cigar or pipe are unlikely to die because of smoking. Therefore, some smoking is not a proven cause of death. People who do not smoke tobacco die of the same diseases as smokers. Some smokers die by causes that are not related to smoking. Tobacco has many other uses and abuses other than smoking. Also, do you honestly think a politician has the right to govern vices? The presupposition that all smokers smoke in the vicinity of others who smoke not is jumping to conclusion. The presupposition that I shall die of smoking, rules out my death by drowning. There are many other issues of your argument that are less than logical, allow us to consider the above before we address the others.I told you as an ally I would challenge you as an ally. So don’t think I intend offence.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

My point of the debate was should tobacco be banned. My reasoning? When people smoke tobacco the chemical nicotine physically addicts them to the drug, therefore in most cases making them addicted. Then after smoking for a good couple years most people start to lose their physical abilities by a slight margin. Then after smoking for lets say 25 years and now they are in their 40s. Many people will come down with lung cancer, emphysema, etc etc. My reasoning is that the government bans the smoking of pot, cocaine, meth, etc etc. Is it not the governments responsibility to not allow people to do drugs ( or anything else ) that subject other people to injury?My main point is second hand smoke. That is my main reasoning for why smoking tobacco should be banned. People that are being subjected to second hand smoke are doing so against their own will. That is wrong in many counts. I never listed the amount of people that do not die from smoking I only listed the amount of people that DO smoke and die because of health complications do to smoking tobacco. I addressed my debate topic. The reason it should be banned is it physically addicts people to the substance. Kills more than alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides and fires combined. It kills people that are merely subjected to the smoke. Now tell me how I missed my own debate topic. What the hell do abortions have to do with anything? We are talking about tobacco. Do not count abortions as murder as the fetus feels nothing up to a certain point in the pregnancy. That is a different debate all in itself. Going by your once in awhile outlook on smoking a pipe or a cigar. What about smoking some crack every once in awhile? If I shoot up some crack once a week I am probably not going to die now am I? Does the government ban crack? They sure do. Does crack kill nearly as many as tobacco? Hell no.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

I'll grant you a pass this time because it's your debate and I see no benefit for you by another rebuttal. I think you over-looked some key premises, also consider reading my argument again.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

I fully agree.The second hand thing was great. so yeah.....................
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

Yes, you can challenge his statiostics, but whether they are totally correct is not the point. The fact of the matter is, smoking undeniably kills millions each year. That is the statistic that should unanimously decide whether smoking or any form of tobacco should be legal. DEFINATELY NOT!!!
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

And like alcohol, crack, marijuana, cocaine, etc,making it illegal won't stop one person who wants to partake from taking a puff.Meanwhile, a huge source of revenue will be lost. A huge new expense will emerge from trying to enforce the law, lock up the criminals, and keep them in jail.Prohibition has never worked, it didn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with drugs, it wouldn't work with tobacco. The only difference is, instead of legitimate businesses and government getting their cut, all of the profits go to gangsters, murderers, and terrorists.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

True but crack and marijuana are already banned. Tobacco kills millions MORE per year than drug overdoses per year. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work back when we had wagons, who expected it to? I'd say it works with cocaine since there is a very slim number of crack heads on this planet.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

well, crack and cocaine just happen to be less popular drugs, that's all. the amounts of all drugs consumed has always risen on a steady incline with little bumps here and there. It's a mistake to think that, somehow the government is more capable now than they were then of enforcing prohibition. There was a time when opium based drugs were legal. No more or less people took them then compared to now. A drug called Salvia is now legal, as states make it illegal, you'll see that it will not one bit decrease the amount of Salvia consumed.Prohibition is just something to make puritans feel better, and a way of ignoring a problem. It simply doesn't work. If one wants to combat drugs, the only things that work are education, and rehabilitation. And at the end of the day, someone who wants to take any drug, whether it be tobacco or alcohol, or crack-cocaine, is going to,instead of wasting billions fighting it, legalize it all, and spend millions (as apposed to billions) on rehab for those who want to quit and education.At the end of the day, the government will make money on taxation, the prisons will be all but empty, and crimes related to drugs will take a nose-dive, as the profits are taken out of the hands of gangsters and murderers, and into the hands of legitimate businesses.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

Crack and cocaine are not available in your average drug store. Whether or not it is illegal it is hard to obtain.Tobacco is as easy as it gets to obtain, why? It is legal. If the only way to get tobacco was on the streets I guarantee you a lot less people would be smoking tobacco. Drug related crimes would take a nose dive sure. Children doing drugs would have the opposite effect. Now they can have their brothers, sisters, and older friends go into Walgreens and buy them a nickel bag? Doesn't sound ideal at all to me.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

I think you're overestimating the difficulty a person addicted to drugs has getting that drug significantly.But I see that everyone basically is attempting to make the same points, and it's been gone over quite a few times. There's nothing I can say beyone what I or anyone else already has at this point I think.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

first off i agree with you about where the revenue would go if tobacco was banned/made illegal. There would be another drug anyone could get off a dealer. And just because people will still smoke tobacco if it became illegal doesn't mean that it should simply be legal. But just because revenue will be lost by corporations doesnt automatically mean that something shouldnt be banned.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

Tobacco products should never be banned because ultimately it is a person's choice. The government already makes enough choices for the general public. If the government banned tobacco, people would find any necessary means in buying, selling, and using tobacco products despite the ban. This is reminds me of the war on drugs. It would be prohibition all over again except tobacco.Tobacco was used as currency in the colonial period of 1612-1776, so even with a ban, tobacco will always have great value.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

What in the world does tobacco being used as currency in the colonial period have to do with anything? Tobacco products should never be banned because ultimately it is a person's choice.Sure the smoker's choice, not the person inhaling second hand smoke.If the government banned tobacco, people would find any necessary means in buying, selling, and using tobacco products despite the ban.Some people would find any necessary mean, just like some people find ways of obtaining cocaine and other illegal substances. If it was banned it would diminish the numbers, not raise them.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

Sure the smoker's choice, not the person inhaling second hand smoke.That's why smoking is banned in many public places.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

That doesn't prevent people from contracting different illnesses correlated to second hand smoke ...
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

Since you seem to like statistics why don't you find one that actually means anything. Like what percentage of those people that died from smoking didn't regret smoking. Tobacco isn't crack, many smokers actually enjoy smoking and understand the risks involved. While secondhand smoke is a killer, if someone is obeying the law and smoking outdoors there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to choose to do so.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: yes

Lets ask the couple hundred thousand kids that contract lung cancer from second hand smoke. Did they regret smoking? Oh wait they never smoked, so I guess your right they couldn't regret it.My whole point is that it should be against the law, who cares if a smoker understands the risks involved. I am talking about that kid who is inhaling the smoke against his/her will.
Debate: Should tobacco be banned?
Side: No

well we could say the same about alcohol lets ask a couple hundred thousand kids born with fas because there mothers were drinking while pregnant its been proven how many kids suffer from domestic violence guess what most domestic violence is caused by alcohol as well as the carnage on the road and many cancers so lets ban alcohol kids and adults would be better off as well