azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Way to attack me. Do you feel better? Now that you got all that hatred out. Stay on topic.You are just mad because the USPS has become obsolete where UPS and Fed Ex could easily handle first class mail proved by clear evidence.What does "anything else can be handled by UPS and Fed Ex either first class or package mean." So, no, businesses wouldn't lose millions of dollars.Postage is going up again to 46 cents. Too much of a deficit. 7 billion for 2011.Does this sound familiar? "At the same time there has been a significant drop in lucrative first-class mail, with more and more people turning to the Internet to communicate with each other as well as to receive and pay bills." CbsA sure test of inefficient government owned service.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

The USPS made money last year, the deficit was caused(can't believe this has to be explained AGAIN) because the goverment forces the USPS to prefund retiree health benefits which were found to be over-funded by the USPS in the area of 50 to 75 Billion.Congress is now working on allow the USPS to be treated the same as private businesses and fund retiree benefits on a pay as you go system.You constantly want to talk about the benefits the USPS is given but don't even want to consider the regulations the USPS must follow that would drive UPS and Fed-Ex prices through the roof.If UPS and Fed- Ex were regulated to fund retiree health benefits 100% before the employees retired they would lose money and be less efficient also.If UPS and Fed-Ex were forced to deliver six days per week to ever address even the non-profitable ones, if UPS and Fed-Ex were forced to wait on Congress to approve a rate increase for six months it would drive them out of business also. If UPS and Fed-Ex prices could rise no faster than inflation, how long would they stay in business?A stamp was .03 in 1863, in 2009 figuring inflation it would cost .52 and you get stamps for .44.The price of a stamp has not risen more than inflation since the beginning of the USPS. A million new deliveries per year and the price of a stamp has gone down according to inflation. UPS and Fed-Ex couldn't handle just the 1,000,000 new deliveries each year without raising costs. Who could be efficient while being forced to deliver 1,000,000 new deliveries while not raising prices even to the point of inflation?
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Sure, The Postal Service must combat its falling revenue, and discussing changing delivery frequency (supposed guaranteed service), as well as restructuring prepayments of retiree health benefits and other measures.Do what most private businesses do?In order to cut the deficit, makes some layoffs.It is unbelievable to me that the Postal Union has a “no layoff” policy that was negotiated with the USPS.USPS has needed bailouts from the Fed for the last 3 years. FedEx and UPS don’t need that bailout each year. Overall it would naturally be cheaper because companies adjust their size and operation cost with the demand for their product. Unlike the post office whose employees consider it a “right” to work there.UPS and Fed Ex relation to regulations pertinent to USPS, fund retiree health benefits and Congress approval of rate increase is irrelevant because they don't need the mountain of red tape.By the way, inflation is created by the government, more specially the Federal Reserve.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Agreed and I agree there are problems with the USPS. Just wanted to state my opinion on it not just being a case of letting competition deliver first class mail. It is more of a mess than just privitizing.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

No, they charge more because they can. Because it is a for-profit industry. If they did not have competition that was non-profit, USPS, they would charge even more.Competition = better for consumers and more people with jobs. Unlike conservatives us liberals are actually for competition. See conservatives only like unfair monopolies dressed up as free market. Get rid of USPS and you have less jobs and Fed-ex and UPS make back room deals to drive up prices and carve out sections of the country where they have monopolies. It is exactly what utility companies do and mail would do the same.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Neither PrayerFails or I are conservatives - something you should have caught onto by now. My political beliefs vary greatly so as not to allow me to chose a precise party.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

yeah yeah, neither is thePyg. You know I eat meat, would be for the death penalty if I thought they wouldn't just kill innocent people, and literally have never worn tie dye.Still, I don't have the audacity to claim I am not by and large a liberal.Basically Western society (even Canada) is split into conservative and liberal wings. Sure issues vary a bit here and there, and they shift through history, but there is a general understanding that these are the driving forces behind modern democracy.Forgive me, but if one only agrees with Conservatives 80-90% of the time, and liberals about .01% of the time, I'm going to label them Conservative regardless of how uncool being a Conservative today is.I'll make a deal. Currently there are hundreds of issues facing all nations from healthcare to drugs to wars to schools to space exploration.Find 10 you agree more with liberals on then conservatives, and I'll call you independant from now on.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/ I support perhaps two or three liberal ideas on listed in the above link.http://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/ 70% conservative, 30% liberal.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Blogthings.comYou Are 55% Conservative, 45% LiberalSocial Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% LiberalPersonal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% LiberalFiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% LiberalEthics: 50% Conservative, 50% LiberalDefense and Crime: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal StudentnewsAbortion-Support LiberalAffirmative Action-Oppose ConservativeDeath Penalty-Oppose-LiberalEconomy-Free Market-ConservativeEducation-School Vocuhers-ConservativeEnvironment- NO extreme -ConservativeGun-RIGHT TO OWN-ConservativeHealth Care-Private-ConservativeHomeland-Oppose Patriot Act-LiberalImmigration-Increase-LiberalReligion-Separate C and S-LiberalGay-Support LiberalSocial Security-Oppose ConservativeTaxes-Low Taxes-ConservativeUN-Failure-ConservativeWar-Failure-LiberalWelfare-Oppose-ConservativeHence, Libertarian
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

You filthy liberal - you should be locked up for your own protection!Can't remember my scores for each division - didn't bother checking.http://www.gotoquiz.com/results/conservative_or_liberal 96% - a hardcore conservative. You believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.http://www.youthink.com/quiz.cfm?action=go_detail⊂_action=take&obj_id=116 Conservative.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

the post office has been doing this for years and they hire 900,000 people were would those people be if the postal service was privatized? the mail carriers have many advantages that the private sector will never have like getting to know the people on their route
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Nothing the employees would still work for the USPS except that they would be competing against UPS and FedEx.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Would universal service be forced upon UPS and fed-Ex???The USPS must deliver to EVERY address that receives something six days a week for the same price,one thing neither UPS or Fed-Ex even comes close to doing.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Universal service would be forced upon UPS and Fed-Ex if they choose to embark on delivering first class mail. First, they can't because the government says no, otherwise, they have the capability to do so if allowed.Why should those who live in the urban areas pay for cheap mail for those in rural areas?
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

They do not have the capability as I stated and others have,this is proven by UPS and Fed-Ex contracting out their deliveries in areas they do not deliver.These companies would incur huge costs if forced to deliver six days at the same rates.Both companies charge more on holidays and weekends, the USPS is restricted from doing so.Apples to oranges.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

They do not have the capability as I stated and others have,this is proven by UPS and Fed-Ex contracting out their deliveries in areas they do not deliver.Law and regulations prevent them.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Are you that dense??? If the laws were changed tomorrow, they do not have the CAPCITY right now to do what the USPS is mandated to do.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

With the implications as large they are, of course not, UPS nor Fed Ex has the capacity, but it would only take time.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

UPS and Fed-Ex could handle 1,000,000 new delivers per year six days per week without raising costs?I'll even give them the right to raise prices at the inflationary rate which the USPS has beaten since it's beginning.UPS and Fed-Ex won't even deliver on Saturdays at the same rate and you think they can pull this off.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

If you privatize the USPS you will have some unintended consequences.The reason for the monopoly is that private companies will not and do not find it cost efficient to deliver to all addresses. So, whenever there is any talk of privitizing the USPS, universal service will be eliminated by the market.Do you want to allow UPS and Fed-ex to only deliver in highly populated areas driving any company with universal service out of business thus eventually bringing about large areas of no delivery? Would that not then bring about a more expensive goverment department to fill the needs of those individuals the private market finds too expensive to deliver to.It already happens as UPS and Fed-ex contract out delivers to the USPS in areas they don't find profitable to deliver to.Or would allowing a monopoloy for the sole purpose of not having to pay MORE goverment funds to deliver to places the private industries don't want to deliver?The USPS gets the advantage it does to continue to deliver to ALL addresses.Is it efficient, no way but in it's years it continues to deliver to every address on every business day. Now, I'm sure the USPS could compete with any business that is forced to do the same exact thing. If UPS and Fed-Ex were forced to service every address that receives something six days a week,you don't think their costs would sky-rocket.If's it's ever done you would hear the same people complaining because their service was stopped or become much too expensive.Universal service is what keeps the USPS apart from all others.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

The chief difference between Government and Business is that a business MUST make a profit, while a public service is provide because it meets an overall social.... you know fuck it I'm tired of arguing with fucking people. Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you!
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Actually, if it weren't for an accounting requirement in the Postal Reform Act of 2006 to prefund retiree health benefits the Post Office would have been a couple billion in the black for 2008.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

Exactly, Fed-Ex and UPS fund nowhere near the same percentage as the USPS as well as do not come anywhere near universal coverage in delivery.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

Fed-Ex and UPS fund nowhere near because the government prevents them.The USPS doesn't receive any tax money, so all revenue must be generated by selling stamps and sending packages; OH, wait, that is exactly the same way that Fed-Ex and UPS operate.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: NO, Great Public Service

They don't fund their pensions and retiree health benefits anywhere near the USPS percentage as mandated by Congress. The USPS pre-funds more than any business or goverment retiree benefits.
Debate: Should the Postal Service be opened to the privatization?
Side: YES, Stop the Monopoly

PolitiFact | Ad from Save America's Postal Service claims rule from Congress is causing USPS's financial problems, http://bit.ly/12snou1, says this is only HALF CORRECT!
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

Although destroying the rainforest coud provide many jobs and advantages to the people in the area it would be better in the long run if we saved it. If it is destroyed many animals will lose their homes and go extinct. It also provides much of the Earth's oxygen which people need to survive. Without the rainforest many bad things may happen.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

Science has shown us that the majority or species that have ever existed have already gone extinct regardless of how we behave its going to happen one way or the other. Better that we control the process and decided which will benefit us and which will serve less purpose. In general it causes less conflict to exterminate an animal or plant species then it does a human population. We could invest in oxygen generation technology which could eventually be more cost effective. Without the rain forest we could have more land for the ever growing human population, I don't know about you but when it comes to people I'm not comfortable putting an animal or plants life before them.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

The rain forests should be saved because they provide huge amounts of oxygen to keep all of the living organisms on earth alive. Also the rain forest provide shelter and food for animals and plants that live in it. Its rivers contain clear clean water for us and they also are composed of different species of animals that compose a environment of its own. The rain forest are made of many species of plants and herbs that haven't been discovered yet and also many could be researched and analyzed to make cures of fatal pandemics
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

Who's to say that the oxygen isn't the cause of many of our air born diseases and if this is the case wouldn't we be better off investing in oxygen generation technology? With the rapid growth of the human population its inevitable that we will be taking over that land in which case the animals aren't going to be an issue. Better than having a wholesale ban we should devise a method for humans to exist within the forests along side the the current population or we must relocate/terminate. Clean water I think not as far as I know its generally not safe to drink the water in a rain forest unless you boil it. It is true that we have yet to fully take advantage of the native vegetation within the rain forest which would be a reason for it to be developed and researched on large scale.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

The rain forests should be saved because they provide huge amounts of oxygen to keep all of the living organisms on earth alive.The rain forest are made of many species of plants and herbs that haven't been discovered yet . Its rivers contain clear clean water for us and they also are composed of different species of animals that compose a environment of its own.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

i think millions of people who are starving is more inportant the saving natural resources
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

Their is only so much timber till you have to wait years for the wood to grow back ,if they grow back. But if you keep the rain forest and study all the plants it has you can find millions of cures that gust might be able to cure cancer or even AIDS. You would be a billionaire to be the first person to find a cure for cancer or any other illness like AIDS that doesn't have a cure. Thus it will help the economy even more than selling timber. It would be saving lives in the proses to.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

Yes,we should save the Rainforest. We need the rainforest for diiferent reasons such as oxygen,to control pollution, natural beauty. People need fresh air to live alive. If we destroy them now,the future generations are going to have "issues" with their respiration. The animals will have their habitats safe if we keep the forest. We can get medicines and natural herbs for our health and money: merchants can pay people to look for the "medical herbs" and sell it.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

I think the Rain forest should be saved because, its an important part of the plant. It has a lot of natural resources, it helps if you don't cut down trees and only if you find the plants that your looking for. The rain forest grows food and we can see food instead of letting the plant die. The rain forest also helps to discover cures for AIDS, cancer, diabetes, arthritis & Alzheimer's, and if we destroy the rain forest that would not be Abel to happen. Also another reason we want the rain forest to be save is that It can help the planet live longer & not to dry out. Its important to save the rain forest, it can affect you more that you think.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

Oxygen is needed for us to survive. If the rain forest is cut down it lowers our supply to oxygen. The rain forest supplies us with many more profitable resources like fruits,oils,nuts and many more rather that just timber. Medicinal plants that can one day be found and cure any serious diseases. It's a home to many animals if it's destroyed they may become extinct.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

We should not destroy the rain forest because it has alot of rare plants that live there. Also, there are alot of animals that live there and would bye. There are alot of rare plants in the forest that make chocolate and rudder. They also seal there plants that are being used to cure deseas like AIDS, cancer, diasabets. With sealing the plants the rainforest makes alot of money.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

I think the rain forests should be saved because they provide us with oxygen, and is a habitat for a big percent of all the animals in the world. Also, most of the plants are medicinal. We need oxygen to survive, and if you preserve them, you can maybe find a cure for cancer, or any incurable disease.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

Yes the rain forest should be saved because there may be a cure for cancer,many cancer drugs are found in the rain forest .Drug store owners should pay people to research for plants that could be used to treat cancer.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

The Rainforest should be saved because it has many needed things in it. The rainforest provides us with oxygen. The rainforest also has many plants and possible medicines. The rainforest also has many animals that live their and with animals dying many other animals will die as time passes.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

I think the rain forests should be saved because they provide us with oxygen, and is a habitat for a big percent of all the animals in the world. Also, most of the plants are medicinal. So they can use those plants to make medicine's. Another thing is that, why will they destroy the animals habitat?.that's like if people burn you're own house just because the land will increase; and nobody would want that .That's why i think the rainforest should be saved!.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

I think that they shouldn't kill the rainforest because if they do then there killing animal life. They should find another place to build on the city. Rainforest provides oxygen and much more that could help the future.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

we should protect the rainforest , because their is lots of species of plants and animals. Also, their is a huge amount of oxygen made in the rainforest, so if we cut it down there won't be any trees or plants to convert the carbon dioxide into oxygen.The animals that would lose their habitat would die, causing a disturbance in the circle of life. In conclusion, we should not destroy the rainforest.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

The rainforest should still remain their were it is. It is providing thing for them like medecine,food,oxygen and more. It they mess it up things wont be same.Their aint no important thing why they should mess with the rainforest. If we still living then we should just leave it like how it is why make more mess. This place has provide alot of things to us like saving lifes and trying survive. Their plants we make inventions to make some usefull drugs.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

Yes,people should save the "rainforest". The rainforest is nessecary for oxygen,pollution control, natural beauty. People need fresh air for healthy life. If they are destroyed now then the generations ahead of us will have "breathing problem." The animals will lose their home if we destroy the forest. We can get medical support fron the plants in the forest.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

It provides great amount of oxygen and we need. it provides a shelter and food for animals developing and if we destroy it alot of animals are in danger. The rivers have clean natural water that is good for us. The plants are important because we can use them to make medicine for diseases. This is why i think they shouldn't destroy the rain forest.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

i think the rainforest should be saved because there are many species of animals and rare animals that you will only find at the rainforest. Also many different types of plant that can cure many diseases or treat them like cancer or AIDS, and plus we need oxygen to breath because there been more pollution n if they take out all the rainforest then we will be breathing mostly gases
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

I think that the rainforest should not be destroyed because then there's not going to be any animals, and were are they going to go. Then there's not any oxygen that much any more because the plants and trees are being destroyed. They need the plant for medicine and other things. I don't now, well I do now but they don't think about why there are reasons not to destroyed it.