azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Yes but your argument is hinged on the premise that another more benign higher power (be it alien , supernatual or otherwise) thats reached a much higher state of conciousness, awareness and civilisation exists somewhere else. I can't say with any degree of certainty whether this is the case or not. The equations for calculating the probability of alien life existing in the universe seem to indicate that somewhere there is other form of life, but what form this is in is unknown (may not be interesting i.e. complex). Again, these equations i went through(there easy if your any bit good at math at all), i cant remember what there called but its quite easy to use them to obtain a value for the probability of finding alien life. Its based on the size of the known universe and the what we know about it. The models use the info. to extrapolate outwards into the areas we have relatively little knowledge of. Anyway, thee still are no gaurantees, i trust in the maths but there are plenty of scientific argument that can refute the simple result i spoke about above.My piont is if we really are the only concious lifefroms in our known existen, in my opnion that makes us very valuable indeed.We can debate this from no. of angles be they scientific or otherwise i really dont think we'll nail anything donw though, the argument is just too vast and has too many sweeping implications for a variety of forms of human knowledge.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

.My piont is if we really are the only concious lifefroms in our known existen, in my opnion that makes us very valuable indeed.My dog is conscious.... when he's not sleeping. And he's a life form. If there were no humans, the animals wouldn't have to worry about becoming extinct due to human activity.If I was the last human on Earth and I had to pick between you and my dog for companionship, I'd pick my dog. He agrees with everything I say ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I think we both know human conciousness is a little bit more unique. We've evolved the ability to question our own existnece and to manipulate the world around us to great advantage. Now id be the first to acknowledge how primitve we still are. Were just out of th efuckin jungle and many of our voluntary actions and responses are no more the results of free will than those of the animals from which we've ascended.Were still gripped wuite tightly by the forces of our own evolution but were more free than any other animal, thats what makes us very special. We are the only known lifeforms that possess the ability rise beyond our own evolution (at least in certain instances).Also, were animals we like to think were not but thats exactly what we are. All the other animals will still have to worry about going extinct if we go extinct the onyl difference is nature will decide (our influence will be gone with use). Actually since were derived from nature technically everything is working as it should anyway but thats a very cynical view.Id think you'd chose me, when it comes right down to it, an animal cannot compare to the companion ship of human.Humans like to challenged (some more than others (your in the other in casse you can't guess)).
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

were more free than any other animalI don't think so. My pup doesn't have to go to work. I wish I could live his life ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

So do i but thats a very different kind of freedom, im takking about the ability to resist the temptations of a woman lets say if she was your best friends wife or girlfriend. You see a dog or any other animal doesnt have prescience to realise anything about previous mates, its completely constrained by its own biology, when it sees a potential mate, assuming they are both attracted to one antoher they fornicate and reproduce, theres nothing deeper involved.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

when it sees a potential mate, assuming they are both attracted to one antoher they fornicate and reproduce, theres nothing deeper involved.And you think there's something deeper where humans are concerned? Is that why people cheat on each other? Is that why the divorce rate is so high? ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Fucking hell man dont you get it, im drawing a clear distinction between aniamls and human, what i said was to clarify your statemejnt about your dog. We do have something quite unique. I already acknowledged that were anials but you seem intent on reduing us to the same level as dogs or whatever. There are big differences, we've evoloved the capacity (just the capacity) to rise above our own evolution. I'm not saying we have, im saying we are capable. Read some of Richard Dawkins Books (ive read most of his best) or Dan Dennett the famous American cognitive scientist and philosopher. You see again becasue it doesnt fit into your view of things i.e. people exploiting people is (and everything that flows from it) natural so theres no piont in trying to change anything or even beleiving change is possible.Fuckin hell man if everyone though like you i dont think there be Black or Gay rights movements would ever have happened . Also in repsonse to a previous comment about eth sixties, yes they did accomplish alot actually. Maybe not everything, the ideals and aspirations associated with that era were quite extreme but eth real thing you need to understand about the sixties is for the first time people were asking real questions of their governments actions and many great things flowed from that e.g. the above movements, green movements, the pull out of saigon etc, etc..Do you know how many GI's rose up against their governemnt based on what they knew was happening in vietnam(many were imprisoned for life or worse), or how many just refused to engage in combat when they were in the country (e.g. move in on enemy territory). I bet you dont, you should look into it.Its quite unbeleivable what actually wnet on, seriuolsy if you havent heard of this i gaurantee you, you will be shocked. A massive proportion of the army just began to disobey orders and defect (many the grunts who are the cannon fodder)A large part of the reason they bombed the country so much was becasue they simply couldnt rely on the men to fight there dispicable war.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Things change when a specific group is tired of the crap and decides to actively change it. Talking about it with people who do not share your world view solves nothing.You only like that "philosopher" guy because he supports your world view. You don't like my Iraqi friends because they don't support your view.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

What are talking about. Listen to yourself. I dont agree with "that philosopher guy" on everything, in fact i disagree with him on a great deal. But im not even gona get into it and the same goes for Richard Dawkins. I dont what view your Iraqis friends hold or whther i support it. I honestly think if i met them face to face although we may not agree on everything, i fairly confident we'd find plenty of common ground.My original piont about your Iraqis friends is they dont speak for all of Iraq. Look they obviuosly havent been hit as hard by the war as most people have in that country, ive read from very reliable sources that most Iraqis are extremely disatisfied with America as they know the US doesnt have their best interests in mind. They want them to pull out of THEIR country. Now just because a bunch of Iraqis that are obviusoly a lot more well off then most in the conutry disagree with that staement, it doesnt make it false. The fact that your friends dont live in abject poverty doesnt mean that most in that country dont. I'm sure if you asked some of the elites in Egpyt prior to the revolution what their opinion was of the whole situation they would have responded by saying, fine just fine. It doesnt make it true. Note: I'm not intentionally trying to compare your Iraqis friends to Egpytian elites
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I've read from a very reliable source that most Iraqis are extremely satisfied with America. America has freed them from an oppressive government and now they are free to rebuild their lives. The majority of Iraqis are Shiites. Saddam was a Sunni. Saddam oppressed the Shiite out the Shiites. Americans are not running around killing Shiites, Sunnis are.You don't speak for all Iraqis when you say that they prefer being ruled by Saddam over their current situation. Well, except maybe the Sunnis; they prefer the Saddam days ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I know they probaly didnt like Saddam my piont is you view what your country has done as correct, morally right and justified. I dont know how you see that, they went in there for oil, heres hypothetical question, if Iraq biggest material export was rubber do you think your country would have invaded. Come one man. they dont give a fuck about Iraq, and thats why i beleive the country is no better off now than then.The reason i think things were mildly better is cause they had very good health, education and gernal infrostructure (you know before your country destroyed them, again this is a fact, to deny it is to deny reality, and yes theres only one realtiy im afraid) which would have sowed the seeds of revolution eventuall. It should have been left down to the Iraqis people to depose Saddam. Why dont do something about saudi arabia, thats at least as bad as Saddam regime was, maybe even worse. Why did they support all those brutal dictators in the middle east when they knew full well what they were doing to their own people.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Where exactly did I say that it was correct, morally right and justified? Here's what I don't get. You claim to be an engineer and a scientist and yet you go around making all kinds of wild ASS accusations and ASSumptions and you some across as an ASS.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Firstly, i write these farly fast so im sorry if there not as air tight and coherent as you'd like.I throw down a few opinions and facts as quick as i can so i can get some real work done.Secondly, i know you didnt explicitly state that is was "correct, morally right and justified" but you dont need to when you make statements like:America has freed them from an oppressive government and now they are free to rebuild their livesThat says it all.I mean seriously that right there if find baffling, as does anyone currently located outside America. Now i except that i may come accross as a bit if an ass, if i denied that id be deluding myself. But its really hard not to when your continuously faced with that bullshit (above) that you know to be completely false. if you would just look up some of the info. thats out there on this topic you'd know that statement to be false.Fucking hell man just look at you countries track record, what does tell you. Actually dont answer that, your answer will just frustrate me and ill look like alot more of an ass when i respond.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OK, Saddam was an oppressive dictator. True or False?America helped get rid of Saddam. True or False?Iraqis can now vote. True or false?If you answer false to any of these, then yeah, you would look like an ass. Take them together and my statement stands ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Maybe you think it does Joe, but i dont think it does. Lets look at whats wrong with your statement shall we."America has freed them from an oppressive government and now they are free to rebuild their lives""America has freed them from an oppressive government", yes thats true. They were largely respobsible for the collapse of the regime, ill give you that. But what has it been replaced with, i admit you cant call it an oppressive government (yet) but you cant really call it anything the country is so fucked up at the moment but lets not get into that were focusing on your statement."they are free" now this i profoundly disagree with. They're not free. Not even close, you might as well have called them "free" under Saddam. Look at the facts, a massive foreign military currently occupies their country, that military definitely doesnt have the best interests of the people at heart, its building strategic bases and your corporations are extracting its oil, that military has been proved to be very hostile (at best) to the indigenous population, again i refer you to the war crimes exposed by Wikileaks that show how mistreatment, brutality and sometime killings are being prepetrated by your army. Now again im not saying every soldier in the army is commiting these acts im just saying they've become very frequent. Go check it out the documents, why do think think they want Julian Assange so bad.The wikileaks documents prove that Iraqis are being treated quite badly and that this has become routine in many areas of the country."to rebuild their lives" Ya rebuild their country after you completely destroyed it. Its infrostructure is completely and utterly fucked (causing INNUMERABLE deaths over the last 20yrs and suffering that hasnt even been documented).Remember prior to gulf 1 they had the most developed infrostructure in the middle east. So once America has extracted a large enouigh amount of oil to withdraw their ground troops (i already stated the bases will remain) and a puppet goervnment that wont rock the boat(like Mubarak, Ben Ali etc. etc.) and probably a corrupt police force (again, like Mubaraks etc. etc.) you may be brazen enough to get away with a blind ignorant statement like that, but until then "THEY ARE FREE" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.Also, the bombs you've dropped on that country has caused environmental damage that just isnt fixable. Cases of cancer are sky rocketing and deformed babies are being born in areas where you dropped your bombs that contain many heavy metals i.e. Uranium traces, Lead etc. etc. (This is true of Afghanistan also) Rich ancient forests that survived all the previous fighting (even the Russians) used by taliban fighters have been leveled and it seems unlikely they'll ever grow back.Again, i dont expect you to take my word for it look this stuff up on a reliable source (NOT AMERICAN).You might think i look like an ass cause im stating the kind of truth your not used to hearing but that statement of your definitely doesnt stand.Its horse shit, your just too blind to see that.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

You have to break a few eggs in order to make an omelet ;)I think you're one of those deformed babies ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Ya thats it Joe make a joke, you know im right, your statement that you tried to prove was correct was proved to be bulldhit, so just make a joke cause this isnt serious for you anyway.You say im a pussy, im not a man etc. etc. well at least i know how admit when ive been proved wrong.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Dude, you're a fanatic! No one can prove you wrong. Your mind is dead set that America is the great beast and out president is probably the Anti-Christ ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you think that because you've been exposed to so much shit about your country never being in the wrong that when someone says otherwise there automatically a fanatic. Also, i take offense to the remark that i cant be proved wrong, how the fuck would you know. When i consider how many times i asked you to try to prove me wrong and you just sent back some stupid ignirant joke. Take my word for it my friend, i have been proved many times on serious issues and i accept it and learned from it.Im not some headstrong maniac who has to be right, if i think im right ill defen my position tooth and nail until someone proves me wrong but once they do i accept it. I actuall perceive myself to be a fairly humble person but i can only respond to what is thrown at me and im afraid to tell you that most of what you have thrown has been grade A shit mixed with insults and bad jokes. Your problem is you think when you throw out a statement with nothing to back it up i should automatically think ive been proved wrong. Why not try sending me some links that you beleive to be the truth, reliable links that you base your warped opinions on. I gaurantee you i i think they are correct i will say so and if i dont i will be able to tell you exactly why i dont and give you very credible reasons why i dont.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, there really isn't a sinister plot ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I know theres no sinister plot, the things i describe, actually im not even bother. All your get from me from now on is the kind of shit you've been sending me from day one. Ok, here goes:I think that america is evil, i think Isreal is gona use nucs on turkey tommorow. I dont need to base it on factual evidence because your clearly just a propagandist i can dismiss. Anything you beleive is obviously wrong becuase i dont beleive what you beleive. What do think, i think its uncanny.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

N.C. would never say America is evil. ; )
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

No he'd say its a ountry founded on ideals which its never managed to live up to. He'd say its foreign policy is more hypoctrical tha n any other coutnry on earth, he say its comppletely self-interest in way that is extremely harmful to every other nation, but your right he wouldnt evil and neither would i, thats ridiculous.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

What do you mean? You think America is evil. When did you change your mind? I knew drugs made you paranoid, but does it make you forget also ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I dont think America is evil, i never said anything like that, to be honest i dont even really beleive in things being evil or good i beleive every possesses both, but i digress, if dont think you want to hear my philosophical beleifs.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OK, so let me say back to you what I know believe to be your philosophical beliefs based on what you just said.America is not evil. All countries have good points and bad points. You just want to harp on America's bad points, not on any other country's bad points, and not give America any credit for the good it has done around the world. Is that pretty much it? ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

America has done very little good around the world, now this argument started because you disagreed that your great country could ever be guilty of anything well im telling you that there guilty of more than all the others.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

More guilty than ALL the others, huh? And I suppose you have the data (read numbers, and it better not be one million ;) to back up this claim? Or are you just speculating..... AGAIN ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Well can you name of another country that has been responsible for the deaths of 1 million people over the alst 10 years. I mean i know theres been conflicts and civil wars in Darfut and Sudan and other places but very few of those actually invoved a more powerful foreign country invaded a much weaker one, and none of these sectarian or civils wars have resulted in the deaths of 1 million. I mean think about it, can you name any other country responsible for such actions, and if not, do really need any further proof.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Yeah...., why don't you Google the Balkans ; )
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Firstly that conflict didnt really involve a foriegn oppressive power implementing its military might, ok. Thas why in my previous statement i restricted is to non-civil wars/ sectarian conflicts. Thats exactly what the BAlkans was. Now i dont condone in any way what went on there and i actually agree that foreign intervention was necessary but in the way it was actually conducted. Again, i refer you to noam chomskys summary of that conflict, hes not overly anit-american he just explains the moitvation of Western power in that conlict AND you can be sure its very different to the way it was portrayed at the time.Also, i said the last 10 yrs, which is roughly the time the Iraq war has been going on. The Balkans has been a peaceful place for the last ten years Joe so maybe you should go back and actually read what i wrote the next time you try to discredit me, OKTAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA:Recent history and current status (2000 to present)Since around 2000, all Balkan countries are friendly towards the EU and the United States.Greece has been a member of the European Union since 1981 and of NATO since 1952. Greece is also a member of the Eurozone and the Western European Union. Slovenia and Cyprus have been EU members since 2004, and Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007. Turkey initially applied in 1963 and as of late 2005 accession negotiations have begun, although analysts believe 2015 is the earliest date the country can join the Union due to the plethora of economic and social reforms it has to complete. Croatia and Macedonia also received candidate status in 2005, while the other Balkan countries have expressed a desire to join the EU but at some date in the future.On October 17, 2007 Croatia became a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for the 2008-2009 term. Croatia has since joined NATO, along with Albania, on April 1, 2009, and both countries also seek admission in the EU in 2009.In 2004 Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia also became members of NATO.In 2006, Montenegro separated from the state of Serbia and Montenegro, also making Serbia a separate state. There were fears that this separation would lead to regional instability, but so far this has not been the case.Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

i dont condone in any way what went on there and i actually agree that foreign intervention was necessary but in the way it was actually conducted.So greater minds than yours determined how to conduct the intervention but your way would have been way superior. You're a pretty arrogant ass hole. Oh wait, it was N.C.'s idea. Maybe we can elect him as World President. He's so fucking smart, writing books, getting interviews and yet no Government has asked for his opinion on how to do things and no news organization has said, "Wait...., what would N.C. do?" until after the fact.