azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

For instance, in order to push human's physical limit science need to conduct some unethical things like playing with DNA sequence to create improved embryo.Interesting.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Science and morality cannot co-exist because for science and morality to co-exist scientists have to give way to morality to be the guiding force for all actions scientists take. Example, look at how science uses animals, cruelty to animals is illegal but why can science use animals to advance their efforts? Science uses animals to advance their research and this is immoral, but the argument against this is it is for the greater good. Who's greater good, the greater good of general population or mega corporations? Science is steeped in greed and self glorification; greed from the business perspective and self glorification from the nobel prize perspectiveScience and morality will never co-exist, because for science to advance (in one of many aspects) there always has to be a guinea pig and money, and the only way to prove the scientists efforts are worth funding is through experimentation or some profound find.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

True
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Science and morality cannot coexist because there is no objective definition of the latter. The way we use morality is as if there exists some form of ultimate, black-and-white list of right vs. wrong. This does not exist. Many people try to claim intellectual dominance through some kind of superior understanding of morality, but their version is just as subjective and abstract as everyone else's.Science can, however, coexist with empathy- which does not claim an ultimate knowledge of right or wrong but is merely the practice of doing the best you can to help those around you in need.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

I think it is illegal that teacher have guns and can shoot at people
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

GET RICH WITH BLANK ATM CARD, Whatsapp: +18033921735I want to testify about Dark Web blank atm cards which can withdraw money from any atm machines around the world. I was very poor before and have no job. I saw so many testimony about how Dark Web Online Hackers send them the atm blank card and use it to collect money in any atm machine and become rich {[email protected]} I email them also and they sent me the blank atm card. I have use it to get 500,000 dollars. withdraw the maximum of 5,000 USD daily. Dark Web is giving out the card just to help the poor. Hack and take money directly from any atm machine vault with the use of atm programmed card which runs in automatic mode.You can also contact them for the service below  Western Union/MoneyGram Transfer  Bank Transfer  PayPal / Skrill Transfer  Crypto Mining  CashApp Transfer  Bitcoin Loans* Recover Stolen/Missing Crypto/Funds/AssetsEmail: [email protected] Telegram or WhatsApp: +18033921735Website: https://darkwebonlinehackers.com
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Gandhi's suggestions to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war. Gandhi proposed that the Indians rebel against themselves and the British in order to achieve peace and stability in India.See Mohandas K. Gandhi: Indian Home Rule (1909).
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

See Mohandas K. Gandhi: Indian Home Rule (1909).I am not going to read a book in order to attempt to see your point of view; I did a quick search of a few excerpts here and there though. One excerpt has the dialog attributed to Gandhi (the Editor) at one point saying: “I have already described the true nature of Home Rule. This you would never obtain by force of arms. Brute-force is not natural to Indian soil. You will have, therefore, to rely wholly on soul-force. You must not consider that violence is necessary at any stage for reaching our goal."”That pretty much destroys your claim, but I'm willing to humor you and continue with this if you wish. So if it interests you, can you please quote something that supports your notion that Gandhi suggests “to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war.”As the title indicates, this fictive dialog is more in regard to India’s fight for independence rather than war or peace in itself. At any rate, even if the non violent image of Gandhi is not true and he actually thought that war can lead to peace as you claim, I don’t regard a historical figure’s opinion on any subject to be a truth no matter how much I agree with it, or disagree with it as the case may be.I implore you to actually add something to the debate, share your own philosophy on the subject instead of someone else’s.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

That pretty much destroys your claim, but I'm willing to humor you and continue with this if you wish. So if it interests you, can you please quote something that supports your notion that Gandhi suggests “to the Indian peoples for the acclamation of "home rule" states that yes, peace is achievable by war.”"It is possible that those who are forced to observe peace under their pressure would fight after their withdrawal. There can be no advantage in suppressing an eruption; it must have its vent. If, therefore, before we can remain at peace, we must fight amongst ourselves, it is better that we do so. Unless we realize this, we cannot have Home Rule ... We have to learn, and to teach others, that we do not want the tyranny of either English rule or Indian rule" (Indian Home Rule; 1909). Political unrest is not peace, sir. Regardless of whether India's fight for home rule was or wasn't a "war", there was still conflict. Gandhi suggested that India "vent" by means of a civil war. Peace is achievable by war. If I remeber history correctly (which I do), the end of World War II marked peace for the world. I don't think WWII was fought with water guns or rainbows, it was a war and it achieved peace. The question is not should we achieve peace through war, but can we. The answer is yes, we can and no we shouldn't.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

I am an avid reader of Gandhi's works, and, with all due respect, that is the most perverse interpretation of his beliefs I have seen in a while.What he meant was that people should remain not oppressed. "Those who are forced to observe peace under their pressure" are not truly at peace. The rest of the quote has been murdered by your interpretation. Nowhere does he say that physical violence should be resorted to. Non-violence is still a form of "fighting."For God's sake, the man almost killed himself (hunger strike) to stop violence on the borders. "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

I am an avid reader of Gandhi's worksGood for you.that is the most perverse interpretation of his beliefs I have seen in a while.You should get out more.Nowhere does he say that physical violence should be resorted to.How many times do I have to quote this man? "An eruption must have it's vent" - read it to your grandmother, read it out loud, make it into a song. He is saying that the Indian people must fight AMONGST themselves. Read it and weep.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Gandhi preaches civil disobedience, resisting the system, peaceful protests. None of these can be considered war, yet they are the 'eruptions' that you talk about.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Yes, we can achieve peace through war, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in Japan is evidence of this. The Japanese surrendered immediately thereafter. So, under the "Just War Tradition" the principle of "proportionality" was followed and met.Supporting material - "Violence, Politics and Morality: Ethical and Political Issues in War and Peace," by R. C. Smith, Politics Lecturer at Waikato University, New Zealand.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

I really hope you’re being sarcastic. Tens of thousands of Japanese civilians died in that attack. Not military members, but innocent civilians. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was not an act of war; it was an act of terrorism. We struck fear into the hearts of the Japanese people through the use of terror. There were a substantial amount of military leaders that admitted that it wasn't a well thought out plan, it wasn't justified, and that alternative methods of retaliation to the attack at Pearl Harbor would have been preferable. (See attachment)And I honestly don’t see in any way how you can make the claim that the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was an example of Just War Tradition or proportionality. Neither were followed or met. It wasn’t a justified act and the president at the time completely exceeded his power to give the order. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a blatant disregard to both Just War Theory and proportionality, wtf are you smoking?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. According to R C Smith, the author of "Violence, Politics and Morality," when I took his 2nd year politics paper in 2011; when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the Japanese surrendered, the proportionality principle of the "Just War" tradition was indeed met. I agree with his view. Maybe you could take it up with him if you are going to throw around accusations about "smoking."
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

No, I mean that I read the book that was the reading material for a 2nd year politics course, passed with above average marks, and agree with the author, his opinion, his book and his arguments. I have explained why the principle of proportionality was met. It's not hard to understand that this action from America did actually save thousands of lives. That is what the principle of proportionality is about.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Sorry, you are the one who is wrong. I did understand the course, and there was plenty of other material referenced in the book that I referred to. But apparently, you don't like back up referencing unless it agrees with your point of view. Too bad for you. I understand the principle of proportionality very well, actually, I suggest you are the one who needs to read up on it.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

I did understand the course, and there was plenty of other material referenced in the book that I referred to.I have no doubt that you understood the course you took. Based on your lack of understanding on the subject however, I am inclined to believe that there is a reason for this. Perhaps you understood the course presented to you, but the course had inaccurate or completely false information. And if there is ‘material referenced in the book that [you] referred to,’ then that is not the same as cross checking the information presented with other sources. A college course should not be based on one book alone, especially on the topic of politics where bias is almost always present.But apparently, you don't like back up referencing unless it agrees with your point of view. Too bad for you.To be honest, I actually couldn’t find one that didn’t support my position.If it is easy enough to prove me wrong, link a website where it supports your idea of what proportionality is and how that relates to the bombing of Japan. I provided two sources to support my position that proportionality is a relation between civilian loss, and military objective. and also where it specifically states in the Geneva Conventions where civilians and their property are not supposed to be directly targeted by the military, proving that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not in keeping with the ‘just war’ theory.The only reason you provided to support your claim is that you read it in a book. Well apparently you and the book are wrong. Nothing morally wrong with that, just look at it as a learning experience.I understand the principle of proportionality very well, actually, I suggest you are the one who needs to read up on it.I work in supply department in the Navy but I was sent TAD to the security department for two years. It was my job to know about military law according to the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention articles, one article in particular (the one that applies here) relates to the protection of victims and civilians during an armed conflict. It is possible that the reason we have differing ideas on what proportionality is is because we are basing them on what our respective countries define them as. Considering the US is the one who dropped the bomb, wouldn’t it be logical to use the US’s definition of proportionality as it applies to international law when trying to figure out if they were justified or not?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Whose lives, you ask. Well, to me that's obvious. Lives on both sides BECAUSE THE WAR STOPPED. IN ITS TRACKS.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

This is blatantly false NZgirl.Lives on both sides were not 'saved.' lives on the United States were saved, but hundreds of thousands of lives were lost in Japan, civilian lives.You couldn't even justly say that no lives were lost after the war stopped because thousands of people who survived the initial blast died from severe burns or radiation sickness. And not only that but for decades after the bomb was dropped, the land was still unstable and people were still dying from things like leukemia.How can you honestly think that lives were saved on both sides?The fact that the war stopped in its tracks was not due to tactical use of military force against the Japanese military, it was due to an act of terrorism; a surprise and direct attack on two non-militarized civilian cities. It was a purposeful attempt at provoking TERROR in the hearts of the Japanese by killing thousands of innocent civilians in order to bring an abrupt end to the conflict which was already coming to a resolution at sea during the Battle of Midway.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Have already answered this post. Refer to my earlier post, with the reference for supporting material.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

The principle of proportionality was met because the Japanese surrendered and that saved thousands of lives, maybe even more.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

I would like to add that one bomb was not enough to cause the Japanese surrender. They saw the first and they stayed in the fight. Who is to blame for the second bomb? Just throwin it out there.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

It would depend on your definition of "peace." One definition of peace is simply a time of no war. Under that definition, of course. Ending a war results in "peace." But then you wouldn't "achieve" anything. You went from peace to war and then back to peace. So it would depend on what you mean by "peace."
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Ending a war doesn't mean peace. It only means they stop shooting each other. But it doesn't necessarily mean they will love each other after that. It's the same as with two kids ranting about something to the point they yell at each other. At some point they start fighting physicaly. And some time later, either one of them is taking a beating and the other one claims victory, or they both get tired and stop the agressions. Do they then go play football together as if nothing happened? No. They will still hate each other, at least for some time. And in that time the possibility that they may fight again is fairly high. And most likely their disagreement will never be solved. They will just hopefuly get over it over time. But even so, the existence of that unsolved disagreement may still become a reason for a fight in the future.So, what did their fight solve? Did it bring peace between them? Nothing, and No. If their first discussion had been reasonable, they might not reach an agreement, but they might still be friends and, who knows, an agreement might come someday. But since it turned into a fight, it created hostility between them, that most likely will bring more fights. That's what war does, with the exception of isolated cases like hitler, where most countries were actualy forced into war, and when the nazis were safely contained it all ended and germany was no longer an threat, thus lost the enemy status (maybe after some time, even, but I don't know about that).
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Ending a war doesn't mean peace.That's the definition of peace.It only means they stop shooting each other. But it doesn't necessarily mean they will love each other after that.That's not what peace is. All "peace" is is a time without war, not some idealistic utopia of togetherness.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Ending wars leads to peace; it hardly defines the word however.If we were a species who didn't war with one another, would that be peace? If we are a species that continually declares war on one another, is that peace?All "peace" is is a time without war, not some idealistic utopia of togetherness.And this is why I don't see a high probability of survival for our species: the false notion that togetherness is only in fantasies and is unachievable.I believe that in time humankind would grow out of its infancy and possibly even become a level 1 civilization, but ignorance and intolerance will be the death of us before we can even reach such a time. Togetherness is the very key to our species’ survival, it’s a shame that people don't want to embrace it.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

According to most sources about the World War II in Pacific, Japan had surrendered to the British and the Allies which resulted the total peace ending up the bloody and terrifying war. In this case, after several years, the Axis Power nations we're already associated with its neighboring countries like the US and others. It's just after the event that the Axis Nations fought for supremacy and glory but tragically lost to more powerful Allies. In this instance, war is a bridge to achieve more productive and understanding Treaty or Peace among nations.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

It would depend on your definition of "peace." One definition of peace is simply a time of no war.Indeed, perhaps I should have been more specific.Ideally, I see the possibility that our species can stop fighting over small fractions of this tiny blue pixel we call Earth, and evolve, awaken, develop into a peaceful species. That would mean no more wars, none. That would mean no more oppression, none. No more intolerance, none. And no more undue suffering by way of making resources scarce in order to make a buck on our fellow human.Practically however, I see the probability of something like this (considering our continuous destructive behavior, greed, ignorance, intolerance, and struggle for power) to be either far out of our reach, or unattainable if our destructive behavior leads to the very extinction of the species before we can break out of this infantile state.My ideal concept is what I mean personally as peace, but a very basic definition of peace would be ‘no war.’ If a government terms the lull in between wars as a state of “peace,” but oppression, and intolerance still exist during that time, then perhaps it’s not my definition of the word that you should be concerned with. I implore you to even consider a very basic definition of the word in regard to the debate question. You support the affirmative position that we can achieve peace through war, please elaborate on how war can achieve peace, because as you said yourself: "Ending a war results in 'peace.' but then you wouldn't 'achieve' anything.So using a basic definition here is the debate question again:Can we achieve peace (no war) through war?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

If you are oppressed, coerced, etc can you defend yourself by attacking? A good defense is a good offense, and a war may eradicate oppressors, coercers, and so forth while showing others that it isn't smart to mess with you. If you want peace, prepare for war.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Of course we can achieve peace through war! What are y'all, a bunch a' hippies? All we's gotta do is go in there an kill ery last un of em Moozlims, and maybe those Hindoos, too, what with thair shaved heads an sitting down all weardly an all! It aint natural! That's right, we'll sure as heaven have peace on tha day all those goshdarned pagans have been swallowed up by the very ground they walkt on!
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

I digressed, of course.I believe that there is only one way that war can ever achieve peace, and that is by destroying the whole of humanity, for if there are but two human beings still alive and together, then there shall be disagreements between them which could very well lead to violence.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

u don't have to kill muslims and hindus to attain peace. that would again be war
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: The Indian Example

Whilst it is true that a lot must be paid for war, the question is, if the price is worth the changes it'll bring in overcoming the conflict of interests?.......... Case in point: Gandhi had won freedom for his people through every non-violent methods that scarred many who were victims of impeccable british treatment.Whilst freedom was truly granted and a large scale revolution or war would've caused the loss of millions of life, the amusing fact herein is, millions paid for not having a war.The world wars brought with them famines for many parts of india which were STILL taxed to finance the british's exploits. Thus the people were not able to sustain themselves and yes MILLIONS had lost their lives, a better administration after a revolution would've lessened if not completely eliminated a death toll.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Yes peace can be achieved by war and it has been proved. War has been the solution to many things such as peace.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Can you please give an example of how "it has been proved" that peace can be acheived by (or through) war?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Of course it hasn't been "proved!" This is a debating site - yeah?! If it had been proved, there would be no debate. There are only opinions. That's what it's all about, and having supporting material too.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Hence the reason I quoted tjroldan81 from his above remark where he said “Yes peace can be achieved by war and it has been proved.”I am asking him specifically to give just one example of where “it has been proved,” that peace can be achieved through war as he is claiming.If there is undeniable proof of such a thing, then indeed it would end all debates on the matter… if there is undeniable proof.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

HAHA! I want to say that I agree that war is a solution in certain circumstances. If you are invaded and you defend yourself, you are half the cause of a war, but it's better than the alternative. The reason I laugh is because your statement is saying that among other things, war is a solution to peace...it certainly is :)
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

In my opinion war is crucial to ridding the world of people/places that have made an effort to disrupt human Rights of the area and as such they should be met with punishment equal to there acts, furthermore i would argue that war is needed to stop things such as slavery which is a just war.