azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

No, 1 out of 1000 kids probably know whats going on in the government. They don't care much for bills and documents.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

well...even if today's youth is given the right to vote, i don't think that we should vote... I guess that applies specifically to the youth of India...given our political condition and corrupt political leaders... Why should we be compensated by being given to choose from bad, worse and worst?...?? Apart from that...today's youth mainly concentrates upon figuring out their own lives...which is the best that can happen i guess... If everyone is right in their own place...then everything has to be alright at the end of the day...
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

Youth couldn't tell up from down, at least most of them. This is simple foolishness a folly that would lead to some absolute moron getting elected, worse than the ones we already get.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: Yes, they should

I know up from down, left from right, etcetera. I know enough about politicians to vote, and I am being penalised for my age.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

I'm 13 years old and the way i see how my 17 year old friends act they still are very childish, Eg. the smoke and spar=(fighting 1 to 1) even gossiping about other people and etc so Ya .So what do you think, should the get the right to vote.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

I believe, that only adults have to vote. Children are not enough informed about politics.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

Speaking as a high school student, I would say no. Most do not understand politics and only agree with somebody because their parents do. I personally believe that when they are old enough (some time from 15-17 years old), they should be given a quiz on politics regarding the current leaders, the government, and the candidates, and if they score far enough above average, they should be allowed to vote. Most youths, though, should not vote.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

As a 16 year old junior in highschool I believe that youth should not be able to vote. Voting is an act of electing the leader of a new generation that will carry put that movements ideals and motivations. I believe the voting age should actually be extended until over 21 years of age. This accounts for maturity and growth in the minds of the people whose votes count the most. The new voters are the most important and the older the less important. Tragically, younger people vote less, statistically, and this only hurts them because they are the ones who will take over the country in the next decade or two.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

Anyone under the age of 18 is a minor so they are not mature to vote. Minors are a protected class.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

FNF is a very new game, but it is loved and has the highest number of plays today. In this game, you will play the role of a boyfriend and the main task is to compete with rivals to win the love of your girlfriend and her father. This game has a very fast pace in difficult mods, so I recommend you to choose easy mods to get used to it. Five Nights at Freddy's is one of the few sites that lets you play it right on your internet browser.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

The very first thing to learn about wordle online is that it’s not a recreation a lot as an train in logic. The article of the sport is to seek out patterns in phrases and phrases. It’s a difficult mind teaser that may hold you occupied for hours on finish. One different factor you need to know earlier than diving into the small print? In the event you haven’t performed but, put together your self for an expertise not like the rest you’ve ever performed. It can problem your analytical abilities from starting to finish, and when you end a spherical it'd take some time so that you can perceive what went improper and what the answer was once more. However sufficient about how superior it's - let’s dive into it!
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

This is based completely on my opinion and experiences with America's youth, but absolutely not. First of all, kids tend to be very easily manipulated by the media and pretty much any other source of information for that matter. Yes, kids can have a decent understanding of politics and government but they also tend to want to vote for politicians and bills that would directly benefit them in the shortest amount of time. Kids tend to not want to delay benefits for the good of the nation but want to see immediate results. If the youth were given a right to vote I think this country would have went completely socialist back in the 1960's.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

In my opinion, youth should not be given the right to vote, because in the age under 18, the most of the young people does not have enough knowledge about politics. They do not have enough information and experience to make decision. Their minds did not develop yet. That is why it is impossible to give them such right.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: Yes, they should

And what justification do you have that individuals 18+ generally have "enough knowledge about politics." And "have enough information and experience to make decision."?At the age of 18, do people overall, magically know enough about politics to vote?
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

The right to vote should be based on education level, basic knowledge about the government, and criminal record To vote you should have a GED or High school Diploma and be able to answer some fundamental questions like: who is the current president/pime minister? What is the capital of the country? Circle one - secularity is fundamental to all laws and government policies because - ethnocentrism is non universal by definition or policies should be based on religious ideals?People who get 4 years of college should count for 2 votes, and PhDs should get a 3x value to their vote. I understand that this idea is unrealistic, but it makes sense in a world that is supposed to be meritocratic and is important because stupid people are breeding lol.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

how many children know about president elections? not that many so therefore youth should not have the right to vote unless they personally know whats going on. most youth parents probably tell them who to vote for.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: Yes, they should

I know when each election is, and I know a nebulous background of most politicians in my country and I know a fair bit about politics. My parents have encouraged me to be open-minded and I have never been told who to vote for. I am 13.
Debate: Should Youth be Given the Right to Vote?
Side: No, they shouldn't

Sorry, but that is a resounding NO. Zero life experience gives youth nothing but hearsay to base a vote on. Most people don't get a clue until 25 or older.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Well, to play devil's advocate:First im going to make my arguments assuming we are talking about a pure socialist nation, one where socialism is working, so we can actually assess the merits of socialism, rather than the downfalls of attempts at socialism that have often ended in dictatorships, atleast as far as our history is concerned."all people are created equal" is a commonly accepted phrase, yet in a capitalist nation this is not so... some people are born into poverty or wealth, and it is statistically proven that people born into poverty are at a disadvantage in almost every sector of life. Furthermore, capitalism rewards those who can take advantage of the poor, sweat shops for example, companies pay men, women, and children, very low wages to do 18 plus hours of work a day to make their products so they get a larger margin of profit. Now, socialism is not an economic system where "a brain surgeon gets paid the same as a janitor," rather you are paid based on how hard you work and on your merits. Meaning that a brain surgeon would get paid more than a janitor based on the difficulty of their job and the time put in.Plus, socialism presents all of the following to help equalize the classes:-universal healthcare-free public education-public transport-cheaper public houseingetc.So socialism is the only theory of economics where people can truly be equal.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

But, one has to wonder why attempts at socialism have ended with dictatorships. Total extremes of any type of government are bad. The most practical, and controversial, is a balance that is hard to find, and even harder to maintain. I believe that the only real way to find the balance is through trial and error.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

correct, a balance between the two would be much better. But of the extremes, socialism is less severe towards all people involved.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

There is no balance between liberty and servitude. Live free or die!
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Even without law, there is no true stretch of freedom. You restrain yourself based on many a societal value you've developed because of where you live. 100% market freedom results in the rape of human rights. 100% personal freedom results in the rape of the natural world at large. Freedom can never come in its purest form, it's destructive that way. The way you're using freedom is as a political word...
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

according to who the rusians who died by the millions under stalin or the germans under hitler who died by the millions the chinese who a generation was extermanated by mao or the millions who died under pol pot why does capitalism not seem to harbor dictators im just curious if socialism is less severe then death to inocent people must not be that big of a deal
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

I advise you to check this out. You must not confuse socialism with communism. http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

I'm not. I know the difference between socialism and communism. But thank you for the resource :)
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

the whole brain surgeon v. janitor thing isn't quite true.some would consider that cleaning up shit 12 hours a week as a harder job and would then pay him more. there's a reason why the working class favor socialism way more than the other classes. it's because they are viewed as the "harder workers".
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

No, the working class generally favors socialism because they would be treated more equally compared to the highly skilled such as brain surgeons. And when i said 'harder workers' i didn't mean hard as in physically demanding. I think we can all agree that it is much harder to remove a malignant brain tumor successfully than to "clean up shit for 12 hours." If you oppose that statement then i challenge you to find an untrained janitor who can remove a brain tumor.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

i don't, but the working class think otherwise (mainly because they're stupid).
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

They're stupid until they stop cleaning your shit.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

no... they're still stupid, just adding EXTREMELY to unreasonable.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

What are you trying to say here? I'm really confused.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

when the working class stop working, everything stops. They have NO money while the business class have their savings and millions of dollars in the bank to keep them alive for quite sometime.the working class think they're being smart by deciding "fuck it, lets show them how much they need us", but the only people they're hurting are the reasonable working class people who accept their role in society. The reasonable people who want to continue to work but can't receive any service because everyone is on strike.the business class is hurt, but not nearly as much as the working class. So they're being stupid (as they always are), but when on strike, they're being unreasonable (and more stupid).
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

I see your rant but not really sure what you're getting at. My point was that capitalism brings about the thought of entitlement. To you it may be stupid but what they are requesting is justice. That's the point of socialism it would be a way to limit that by getting a consensus of the masses, hence social justice.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

they're stupid because they are unable to get decent jobs. with a college education, a smart person should be able to make a very good wage, but natural selection forces the stupid people to suck at getting good jobs.i'm not saying the richer the smarter, but the better lived the smarter.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Can you find a brain surgeon that will unplug a toilet? Can the brain surgeon fix the furnace? I doubt it.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Socialism is the better form of government for the same reason that Capitalism is a terrible form of government. In a Capitalist society, where regulation is preferably at a minimum if it exists at all, the rich prey upon the poor. We saw that in the Industrial Revolution, where immense corporations manipulated the poor to remain rich. Specifically in America, railroad companies in the late 19th century lobbied to prevent regulation so they could exact extraordinarily high prices from the farmers. Politicians were corrupted (because everyone has a price). Large corporations and factories prevented workers' rights by blocking the formation of unions, making them work 18 hours a day for extremely low wages. Lawyers used the 14th Amendment to claim corporations the same rights as a human being. Naturally, with this kind of power, basic human rights were lost to those who fell below the poverty lines. Even today, massive corporations demand so much from an individual that only with difficulty can one rise through society. Those who are rich tend to remain rich, with their children educated the best, and the poor remain poor (unless their children are brilliant).Socialism, on the other hand, addresses these issues. It gives a piece of every company, of every corporation, of every factory, to every individual. Contrary to popular belief, the government isn't necessarily given control of the means of production (that's communism). Therefore, Democracy is one of the fundamental attributes of a Socialist society. When the people make the decisions, the corporations aren't allowed to abuse a person's innate rights. People are given material items according their needs. People are paid according to their skill, the difficulty of the job, and the time that they dedicate to that job. It's what most people hope to have in their lives: freedom.Capitalism is based upon the negative attributes of mankind. Greed, betrayal, selfishness, and thrives upon strict class distinctions (i.e. rich and poor, with little to no middle class). In order to succeed, one MUST step on others, one MUST destroy others' economic futures, one MUST advance forward without looking back to consider what he or she has done. What kind of a society wishes to leave the good people in society writhing in the dust? What kind of society doesn't prevent bad people from gaining to much power? What kind of society cares so much about the present that they forget the future?
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Socialism is the better form of government for the same reason that Capitalism is a terrible form of government.Show what you know. Capitalism is not a form of government, it is a economic system.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

As a Swede and a citizen of a largely socialist country, I know that I'll always have healthcare, housing, food, etc. I will never be in a desperate situation like those that have led so many Americans to live on the streets or turn to harmful drugs or sell their bodies. I know my government will take care of me.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

i like the idea of socialism because it supreses greed, and when people get greedy, they do very nasty things, such as accuse a country of having wmd and invade it, and kill a million local civilians. many other dark things in history were caused by capitalism such as slave trade. many european countries also pillaged and raped countries in america, africa and asia. america also attacks a lot of countries in the name of capitalism, forcing them to trade with america under the terms and condition of america. capitalism also promotes america to sell weapons to other countries so that they can kill one another. i do not know that much about socialism, but i am very familiar with capitalism. what i do know is that socialism provides more equality and doesnt let people get too rich, or too poor. i dont see why someone should own 3 houses and 4 cars, while another person has to rent a basement, and take the bus.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

i dont see why someone should own 3 houses and 4 cars, while another person has to rent a basement, and take the bus.Because the one who owns three houses has worked harder. The person who has worked his tail off for those houses and cars would feel rather lousy if the other guy was just given certain luxuries in the name of "equality." And yes, anything above what the poorer man has is luxury. He has shelter, transportation, food, etc. (Refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs for more information on basic needs.)The things that you equate with capitalist society (raping, pillaging, agressive expansionism, unethical economic transactions, slavery, etc.), it may be argued, are not representative of a "successful" or "true" capitalist society. One only needs to think for a moment. Would you consider China's system, a "socialist market economy," to be free (or even freer) of the issues you mention regarding capitalist society? How about North Korea?For that matter, can you think of any country that is currently considered socialist, which also abstains from the "very nasty things" you mentioned? I'll help you out. The countries that currently label themselves socialist are: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.what i do know is that socialism provides more equality and doesnt let people get too rich, or too poorHow do you find the equality in China?
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Socialism is one step, my ideology which I will post later is opinionated, so, don't discuss that. In the end when greed is gone (which is really really hard) we can go to communism.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism and communism

I support socialism and communism because everyone deserves 4 things, free health care, free food and water, free shelter and free education. These should all be shared or given equally no matter what race or religion you are, or how much pay you get
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Actually socialism would work better... if it weren't for human nature. (see Brits arguement on the other side.)But if these are the only two choices, than capitalism is the better of the two for us human beings.Capitalism could encourage hard work, entrepreneurship, new inventions, and education.The problem though again is human nature. After a couple generation of any pure capitalist society, all of the good things mentioned above give way to pure nepitism. Instead of the best and the brightest getting the biggest piece of the pie, it's the kids of the best and the brightest.Great schools are started, where only the already rich can go.New ideas are implemented.Then quickly taken by the money machine, while the inventors are thrown a pitance (look up the windshield wipers.)Soon there are only two kinds of people. A few very very rich, and hordes and hordes of peasants.And the richest by then aren't inherently better than the peasants in any way.They simply won the sperm lottery, that's all.Pure capitalism would quickly turn into some kind of monarchy, and would be terrible for humans in general without some democratic means of power exchange, and a plethera of social programs, especially where education is concerned.Luckily we don't live in a capitalist or socialist society.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

"Instead of the best and the brightest getting the biggest piece of the pie, it's the kids of the best and the brightest." Exactly, that is exactly what i was trying to get accross.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Luckily we don't live in a capitalist or socialist societyYep, just Capitalism with safe guards.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Socialism

Again, i agree with you 100% I would much rather live in a mix of the two than in either extreme, because both sides have advantages lacking in the other one. But if i had to pick an extreme it would be socialism.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

actually, the ideal state to live in would be Capitalism with a small amount of Corporatism.Corporatism as an extreme is the belief that government should focus on keeping big corporations powerful while keeping small businesses weak. obviously a bad system, but with the sense of government making sure that the market is strong is actually good.Instead of placing socialist laws where government is increasing taxes, regulating businesses, and increasing spending, government should instead focus on how to keep the market strong. This is by helping businesses all together. Just the aspect on "government should only interfere in order to help the market" is not socialist at all, but partly (but not too much of) corporatism.That is true Capitalism with safe guards.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Capitalism is closer to achieving Henry David Thoreau's view of an enlightened government, respecting the individual as a higher power. I as well believe this is the epitome of government. The government is not entitled to make decisions for the individual, respecting the individuality and freedom of the people of the country.In capitalism, one is theoretically able to go from the lowest economic and societal level all the way to the top. The system isn't perfect,though, and this doesn't always happen. Even in Capitalism there must be some regulation to prevent a company from becoming more powerful than the government, which is when problems arise. Imagine socialism in today's America. It would be so different that you couldn't even call it America.
Debate: Socialism vs Capitalism
Side: Capitalism

Okay there are two identical football teams.On the first team they decide that they are going to try socialism. Every player is rewarded the same after practice, no matter how hard they work. They are convinced that only the coaches are to help them, that they shouldn't have to work hard. One of the hard working players sacrifices allot of time trying to help one of the slackers to become better. The slacker doesn't want to work any harder because he will be rewarded anyways. He doesn't care if the team wins or loses. The second team wants to try Capitalism. Those who work hard are rewarded, those who slack off are chewed out and punished and screamed at. Eventually most of the team is working their buts off, even though they are not all equally skilled. But the majority of the team is progressing. Okay, now remember these teams where identical. They have been practicing for a couple of months. They play each other. Who is going to win?