azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Who is producing these products?Who is presently producing the products? There ya go.Why are they producing the products?Because it is necessary, because everyone depends on them, because they want to?How could they be produced without trade?Wtf??? Some produce resources, others deliver them, those who received them turn them into products. Why? Because it has to be done, because if it is not done everything would fall apart. Seriously, wtf? You couldn't come up with that on your own?How could they get from producers to consumers without trade?Okay, this is far too pathetic and ridiculous to deserve an answer. You have a brain, don't you? Then use it!I am saying that neither human nature, nor the laws of supply and demand have changed.Human nature... is equivalent of "I believe because the bible says so". Just an analogy.Supply and demand are necessary for our advancement, obviously. Supply and demand themselves have nothing to do with a medium of exchange.You don't produce things for trade, you produce them for use.The only way to take advantage of the increased efficiency of production, afforded by the division of labor, is through trade. And that the most efficient way to trade is with a commodity medium of exchange, which has been spontaneously chosen by the mutual consent of the traders in the market.Wrong, so wrong. Trade is not necessary, I've explained how it would be without it. People work, produce, for themselves and others, for use and for free. Even now, if no one worked, everything would fall apart, as I've said many times.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Who is presently producing the products? There ya go....Wtf??? Some produce resources, others deliver them, those who received them turn them into products. Why? Because it has to be done, because if it is not done everything would fall apart. *"It would just happen" (which is the gist of your answer) is not an answer.And here starts the ad homs:Seriously, wtf? You couldn't come up with that on your own?Supply and demand are necessary for our advancement, obviously. Supply and demand themselves have nothing to do with a medium of exchange.The price mechanism, made possible by a common medium of exchange, is the communication system whereby demand is communicated to the supplier.You don't produce things for trade, you produce them for use.You produce those things which you are better at producing, to trade for those things which you produce less efficiently, or are unable to produce at all. It is called the division of labor, and it allows for people to produce more wealth together than they would produce without the trade and the incentive to trade.Wrong, so wrong. Trade is not necessary, I've explained how it would be without it. People work, produce, for themselves and others, for use and for free. Even now, if no one worked, everything would fall apart, as I've said many times.You have described what it would look like, but not how it would actually work.In your system there is but one incentive, shared by all members of society, that being "the common good, even to the detriment of the good of self". In free market capitalism, there is no need for any incentive but what each individual deems a worthy incentive to produce. Additionally, one who does not produce is unable to take unfair advantage of the production of others for very long.To quote Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

"crooked" is a moral judgement. The primary function of a medium of exchange is to enable traders to calculate the relative value of resources and thus what it would profit them to produce that resource. If there is no profit to producing the resource, there is no incentive. This causes shortages of that resource, increasing the relative value and increasing the profit. This increases incentive and the individual decides to produce that resource. It is a self-regulating system, which causes resources to be produced, based directly upon the demand (as expressed by traders in the market, through price) for that resource.Please explain, using only logic, Who should decide what resources should be produced, by whom, and what incentives to produce would exist, without a medium of exchange.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

"crooked" is a moral judgement.Look up the definition of crooked, you seem to need it (theres more than just one, and there's also a thing called context). Then read my response again.The primary function of a medium of exchange is to enable traders to calculate the relative value of resources and thus what it would profit them to produce that resource.If resources are needed then they should be already available, if not yet available then once they are produced, without putting a thwarting factor like "pay up first, then you can use it" in the equation. The only real value of resources is that they are necessary for our continuance and progress.If there is no profit to producing the resource, there is no incentive.A very narrow-minded and stupid view.The incentive is - if no one works, if no one produces them, then everything will fall apart. Also the fact that others depend on them producing those resources and products.If people worked for money, because of money, and once it was removed everything would fall apart. But the people would still be there, still capable of working, even without money. You get where I'm going with this? I hope you do.Doing things, anything, for profit is living for money and living for money is a worthless life. Do you do all you do because of money, for money? I myself certainly do not, in fact I do nothing for money.This causes shortages of that resource, increasing the relative value and increasing the profit. This increases incentive and the individual decides to produce that resource. It is a self-regulating system, which causes resources to be produced, based directly upon the demand (as expressed by traders in the market, through price) for that resource.The only incentive people should have for producing resources should be because it is necessary, and because they want to, and because others, and everything, depends on them, literally. Even now it is so, the only difference is that presently all that is clouded by money, the first thing people see is money. Money is not what keeps us alive and in existence, and advancing. If you work for money, because of money, then you are living for the wrong reasons.Please explain, using only logicSomething I've done the whole time. I say to you, you use logic, but not just that, your mental view is very short and narrow - broaden and lengthen it, at least try.Who should decide what resources should be produced,Even now there is such a thing as demand. You think that would not be there then?by whomSo stupid a question I won't even answer this.and what incentives to produce would exist, without a medium of exchange.This I already answered.These questions you asked... Why could you not answer them on your own? 'Cause the answers are so very simple and logical.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Then read my response again.Crooked, as in askew? Ok. I withdraw that argument, but reserve the right to use it if someone suggests enforcement of morality by the state.If resources are needed then they should be already available, if not yet available then once they are produced, without putting a thwarting factor like "pay up first, then you can use it" in the equation.The price system is the communication system by which the needs of those supplied, are communicated. You have still not described the system you propose to replace it. Something must be produced, before it can be used. How does the producer know what must be produced?How does he keep from wasting scarce resources, producing products, for which there is no need, or desire?The only incentive people should have for producing resources should be because it is necessary, and because they want to, and because others, and everything, depends on them, literally.How do you propose to mentally control people to be concerned only with the welfare of others, and to ignore any privation or discomfort to themselves?Even now it is so, the only difference is that presently all that is clouded by money, the first thing people see is money. Money is not what keeps us alive and in existence, and advancing. If you work for money, because of money, then you are living for the wrong reasons.This seems to be your central theme, but it includes a moral judgement, "you are living for the wrong reasons". People have a right to live for whatever reasons they see as worthy. What right do you have to impose your moral value system upon others?Something I've done the whole time. I say to you, you use logic, but not just that, your mental view is very short and narrow - broaden and lengthen it, at least try.No, you have explained the form, but not the mechanisms by which the system would function. Me: Who should decide what resources should be produced,You: Even now there is such a thing as demand. You think that would not be there then?Me: by whomYou: So stupid a question I won't even answer this.I have explained (and described) the mechanism whereby the demand is communicated to the suppliers (the price system). Your answer was essentially, "it will just happen, because it just happens now." But it does not "just happen" now. There is a communication system in place to relay that information. I ask again:How is the demand communicated, and by whom, in a system without the price mechanism?These questions you asked... Why could you not answer them on your own? 'Cause the answers are so very simple and logical.(Ignoring the ad hom)You have not answered the questions, you you have given platitudes and evasions from the answers to the questions. "It will just work" is not an answer. You must describe HOW it will work.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Nothing is free, every resource has a value and worth. At the end of the day, someone will ALWAYS have to pay for it, forcing someone else to pay for your stuff is immoral.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

That's right, nothing is free, but everything should be free.Everything has a price because our civilization is run by greed which comes directly from stupidity and ignorance.The only worth every resource has is how it contributes to humanity's progress, and that's all there is to resources.If people actually began using their raisins and began thinking about how things really are and how to improve everything then money would quickly be abolished. Oh yes, it's that again - money - it is negative to human progress.You really shouldn't be talking about what is immoral or not as you completely lack the sense of right and wrong, I mean c'mon, you're a fucking drug user, probably an addict. Or is this all you go about drugs, so often, just a show to make yourself look "cool"? All you are doing with that immature fussing is make yourself look like an idiot, which you obviously are in truth.You are living in a world you made up in your mind and you believe it to be true, you haven't and probably cannot look at the real world without bias. You are pathetic.You cannot figure out how things would work without money? You either are, as I've already stated - an idiot. Or you're just another greedy fuck, and that would also explain why you have such stupid opinions.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

That's right, nothing is free, but everything should be free.Everything has a price because our civilization is run by greed which comes directly from stupidity and ignorance.No, its because every resource has a value.The only worth every resource has is how it contributes to humanity's progress, and that's all there is to resources.A resources has value based on how much of it there is, how big a demand there is for it and what it is used for. It has nothing to do with humanities progress.If people actually began using their raisins and began thinking about how things really are and how to improve everything then money would quickly be abolished. Oh yes, it's that again - money - it is negative to human progress.Yes, the idea that simplified trade is so negative.You really shouldn't be talking about what is immoral or not as you completely lack the sense of right and wrong, I mean c'mon, you're a fucking drug user, probably an addict. Or is this all you go about drugs, so often, just a show to make yourself look "cool"? All you are doing with that immature fussing is make yourself look like an idiot, which you obviously are in truth.I don't lack a sense of right and wrong because I smoke pot. If you think drug use is about "looking cool" that congrats, you are very misinformed. User =/= Addict Me smoking or eating a harmless plant does not make me an idiot. You are living in a world you made up in your mind and you believe it to be true, you haven't and probably cannot look at the real world without bias. You are pathetic.In my mind? Ha! You've even admitted that you're entered ideology is based on a fantasy world you made up. Back to name calling, eh?You cannot figure out how things would work without money? You either are, as I've already stated - an idiot. Or you're just another greedy fuck, and that would also explain why you have such stupid opinions.Actually I can, it would go back to the barter system or a a marxist style world. I am not greedy, I donate my time and money to charity, you likely do not.Maybe you should try having some actually points instead of calling everyone an idiot.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

No, its because every resource has a value.And the reason every resource has a value is because they contribute to humanity's progress, they enable our survival and advancement, there is no money involved in any of it, or rather should not be.A resources has value based on how much of it there is, how big a demand there is for it and what it is used for. It has nothing to do with humanities progress.It has everything to do with humanity's progress. Without survival there can be no progress. The funny thing is advancing our knowledge, and skills in creating new things, is necessary for our survival. Demand comes from what is needed.Yes, the idea that simplified trade is so negative.You're still not getting it - no trade at all, anywhere! Unless you regard the production of resources and their use for our progress as trading - we make them and use them, and in return we live on. Everything is done, is produced for one purpose - our progress; our survival. Right now everything is produced and made for the exact same reason, but, if there is no money given in return for all that then all of it will go to waste, none of it will be used, even though it would be necessary to use them. Or you think that's not how it would be? Then answer this, there are resources available and they are needed, but there is no money to give in return for them and never will be, will those resources be used?You've even admitted that you're entered ideology is based on a fantasy world you made up.Where and when exactly did I say that? I can answer this for you - nowhere and never. And I make things up?Back to name calling, eh?Name calling? I don't call names, I observe and conclude.Actually I can, it would go back to the barter system or a a marxist style world.It would not. You're stuck with the books you've read and cannot think outside the walls you've created based on them. Pathetic.I am not greedy.Yet you approve the system that promotes greed.I donate my time and money to charity, you likely do not.Way to go wasting your life on something that shouldn't even be needed, as everything should be free for everyone anyway.Of course I do not, I don't have enough even for myself, and the little I do I should give away? Are you fucking high? Oh, wait... you probably are.Maybe you should try having some actually points instead of calling everyone an idiot.Not everyone, just those who actually are.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

And the reason every resource has a value is because they contribute to humanity's progress, they enable our survival and advancement, there is no money involved in any of it, or rather should not be.Not because of "progress" but because it has use. Everything has some sort of use, thus, everything has value.You're still not getting it - no trade at all, anywhere!No trade eh? Well, that pretty much leaves the option of a centralized economy where all production and resources are gathered together and then distributed.  Right now everything is produced and made for the exact same reason, but, if there is no money given in return for all that then all of it will go to waste, none of it will be used, even though it would be necessary to use them.You act like on a daily basis we produce a ton of stuff, then we just throw it all out because of money. Where and when exactly did I say that? I can answer this for you - nowhere and never. And I make things up?Actually you did, it was on a debate about currency and you were talking about how you image a fantasy world with no money. Name calling? I don't call names, I observe and conclude.You observed I had a different view and concluded I was an idiot. I observe this and conclude that you are indeed an asshole.It would not. You're stuck with the books you've read and cannot think outside the walls you've created based on them. Pathetic.Marxism, in general terms of speaking, is a society with centralized means of production, distribution and no currency. It is rather pathetic how you are unable to say how it is different besides saying that everyone either knows to much or is just wrong (with no evidence or reason of course)Way to go wasting your life on something that shouldn't even be needed, as everything should be free for everyone anyway.I give some of my time and money to those who need a little help, and you call me greedy and say I am wasting time? Oh the irony.Of course I do not, I don't have enough even for myself, and the little I do I should give away? Are you fucking high? Oh, wait... you probably are.Back to the "you must be stoned all the time because you happen to smoke" way of thinking again, eh? You have a computer, you have internet, you have food, you have shelter, sounds like you have enough for yourself. Not everyone, just those who actually are.You have a very large ego, but a very small amount of knowledge.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

You won't be able to make Nummi see reason. Believe me i have tried in the past. People like him are idealists, who see the world as they want it to be, not how it is.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

I see the world as it is not as I want to. As I see how it really is I think about how it could be better.You, and many others, on the other hand only scratch the surface with your comprehension.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

1. Not all currency is fiat. Money was always backed up by resources until the late 1800's I know you don't care about the past and shrug off any knowledge that you don't want to hear, but its a fact: For most of human history money has had REAL value backed up by REAL resources. Not all money is worthless.2. Saying "humanities progress" (which you have not even defined) does not make your means just. F=Also, this would greatly vary from person to person.3. You don't need money to horde and you don't need money to be greedy. Money does not promote greed, there will always be greed as long as there are resources, its human nature. 4. Instead of only looking in at what you see in your delusional world, try actually be logical (and understanding money before you call for its end)Why shorten it so much? Well, because its 5am and I'm tired.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

>"Farmers grow food, it is delivered to food stores, from there it goes to supermarket like places from where people can go and get it. No money involved."What incentive does the farmer have, to produce the food, the loaders, to load, the driver to deliver, or the store owner to supervise, all this food?What do they get for their time and effort?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

If he doesn't produce it the ones who produce other things, like clothes or scientists who do their important work, can't have food to survive, and if they cannot survive or have to struggle themselves to get food they cannot make those clothes or new discoveries. Production of goods is a necessity, it has to be done, it is not dictated by money that they must be produced, without them we would have nothing, without production everything we currently have would simply die. Just as important would be all others.The incentive would be that and also the fact that very many people's lives depend on that person. The farmer and others would literally be extremely important persons. Right now all that which really is important is clouded by money as if it's all something totally insignificant.As to what they get for their time and effort is included in the above.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

And you think that the existence of money is the only thing that keeps everyone from laboring, without compensation, for the good of others?What about those in society who do not care for the welfare of others, only themselves? Do they get to take the food and other goods for free, without producing any useful products?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

What about those in society who do not care for the welfare of others, only themselves? Do they get to take the food and other goods for free, without producing any useful products?Then they are worthless, are they not?Anyway, because a small portion contradicts the majority is a reason good enough to make the system according to what they are like? No.As I've said many times, survival and progress; continuance and advancement. Negative characteristics like that should be rooted out. Sounds harsh, doesn't it? Yet it is true.