azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

if man is a bundle of emotions,then there will no court,police,scientists and not even science.Take the case of doctor if he is gonna be bundle of emotion then operation success,patient dead.
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

i think man is full of logic .....because if he have emotion then the law of gavity don't find........when the newton saw the aple he shout eat the aple as the gift of god appear to b 4 him so that if he did that the gravity will not b discovered emotions make the man weak the person wouldn;t able tole to think with his mind .and sam has no mind
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

i dont think man is bundle of emotion and i dont think that man should be a bundle od emotoions as it cause destruction
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

u r here bcoz of ur brain not emotions shilpa which differ a man than other animals
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

guys.........man is not a bundle of emotionguess u hav been biten by a snake and a prticular part of ur body has to be cut out........at that tym d doctor gets emotinal and refuses to cut it outthe poison will reach all parts of ur body and will kill u......Emotions harm human
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

no...not at all.........if man is to be a bundle of emotions then why we are able to see terrorism, honour killings,orphanages everywhere in our so called emotional society......is it a father's emotion which makes him kill his own daughter in mother's womb...........
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

Emotions are just a part of us but not all of us . Flow of emotions at the right time and at the right places is very important. We know that emotions can be controlled so we have good relationship with our family and friends . You may ask why? think of a situation when your parents are scolding you after some time you get angry if you do not control it then you get your relation con be spoiled with them it is because anger is a emotion. Emotions are short lived so after so many years of evolution we have learned to control it . if man can control his emotions then how con he be a bundle of emotion
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

man should control his emotions , emotions should not control him .If they control us then man will become very unstable and weak .emotion also leads to suicide some times  "SO BE CAREFUL! DON'T LET THE EMOTIONS CONTROL YOU YOU CONTROL THEM"
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

emotions are like bubbles on water which appear and disappear on its own. But the bubbles cannot regulate the flow of water. Just like that emotions are spontaneous results of your actions. They are short lived. Hence, Human beings cannot be called a "bundle of emotions". As per me Man is a bundle of dreams. He lives to fulfill his dreams. Without dreams he is equal to an animal or a machine. An intelligent man uses his emotions in making his dreams come true. A man who realises this truth is always a successful man.
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is a bundle of emotions

You are new in this arent you.... I commend you in your work, it is quite a good read. You probably did not make the distinction between anxiety,fear and emotion.. which is predominantly a stimulus reaction, much experienced by the touch-me-not plant and animals. But the level of emotions we have is far from just a stimulus reaction and far more complex than other life forms... Such as faith in a higher power or spirituality. But next time avoid using personal beliefs like 'god created us'. in debates, it is not ethical to mention this unless it is a religious debate. People can be cruel but the point of this debate to me is to express the extent in which humans are emotional creature not the absence. Plus, the desire for dominance mainly power or legacy is also a kind of emotion.
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

look at top of page at the donation request.............how many of you advocating for emotions have donated of think 2 donate???????
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

because they don't help poor people and if man is a bundle of emotion there will be not poorness in our country
Debate: Man is a bundle of emotions
Side: man is not a bundle of emotion

If they don't have emotions...
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

THIS ---------I have no facts or figures but it's not necessary.--------is typical.I could say "Americans are no better"they kidnap, detain and torture around the world (officially), they invade and go to war for financial/economic reasons, they shoot innocent people and support corrupt regimes.I on the other hand, do have facts, figures, testimonies, witness accounts and videos and it does matter.----They can move to another planet and make their own rules where no one else will be subjected.This applies to America as well. The way I see it, there are a hell of a lot more people subjected to American rules than any one else.PS why the need, in a debate about how ethical it is to urinate on a dead body, be it a Taliban dead body, do you feel the need include political and nationalistic arguments?What's the consequence of that? Posts like mine.Hate breeds hate.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Stupid

I have facts as well...9 /11
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: wrong

Can you not see that the punishment was not awarded on the action itself, but its ramifications? Members of the army from most countries have raped citizens illegally, I'd bet, and there are many videos that I've seen just on youtube that talk of much worse things that urinating on the enemy, but the people are barely punished. However, here, because the video, to some extent, went viral, it had a large negative effect on US-Taliban relations, and they were punished according to that.And also, I find it exceptionally ignorant of you to so absolutely disregard the Taliban as good people. Large steps have been made towards by peace by them in recent months, attacks have largely stopped by the Taliban, and their beliefs are progressing to a modern position. To say that they have no regard for the lives of the innocent, and are intolerant with no redeeming qualities, are two statements that are inherently wrong.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

You've shown disregard for the confines of the debate. Calling a person ignorant is inflammatory and will not win an argument. Have you considered that the Taliban, present themselves as progressing towards peace and human rights merely to support the removal of American forces from Afghanistan and will return to their pre-war behavior as soon as we leave?As an example:"Shi’ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki created the worst political crisis in a year on Dec. 19 when he sought the removal of two senior Sunni politicians, a day after the last U.S. troops left Iraq. On Dec. 22, bombs in predominately Shi’ite parts of Iraq’s capital killed 72."-International News, France 24434 deaths in Iraq (between December 31 2011 and January 24 2012) occurred from hostile activity since the last US Soldier left Iraq. -The New York TimesBy MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTPublished: January 27, 2012The Taliban are likely to make a large sweep and kill or punish every person who aided the US and it's allies. Back to business as usual and probably worse.I will clarify my initial statement; I consider the Taliban (in the derogatory since of the word) and their extension - Al Queda - to be those persons in the Taliban community that enforce those portions of their laws that the world, as a whole, reject, not every man woman and child who live under their rule. It's reasonable to say that what they do to women, how they treat them and the lack of value they place on them is unacceptable by the majority of the civilized world.Here is a helpful outline of a constructive argument:Argument:Proposition or StatementA statement is either true or falsePremiseInferenceConclusionFormal and informal arguments:Standard argument types Deductive arguments Validity SoundnessInductive arguments Defeasible arguments Argument by analogyTransitional argumentsOther kinds of arguments Argument in fuzzy logic World-disclosing argumentsExplanations and argumentsFallacies and non argumentsAn argument can also be called a logic statement.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArgumentFurther reading:Opinions should be substantiated or they lose credibility or they might be outright rejected.By the way, you might want to change this statement, "Members of the army from most countries have raped citizens illegally." Rape is not legal or polite in most countries although, I'm guessing, without reading the Sharia texts, that rape as defined - The act of sexual intercourse against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another - is perfectly legal for the Taliban.This rebuttle is directed for the comments of BenWalters so is not outside the scope of the argument.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

I sound kinda like a dick but its hard for me to listen to someone's opinion on this and take it serous if they never been in a combat zone or at least have served . I can safely say that they have no clue about how thing go down. it it pisses me off if they get judge mental and self righteous about something they no nothing about and therefor sound ridiculous
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Can you listen to someone's opinion if they respect you ?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

They were urinating on bodies. Empty shells. There is nothing left to the bodies, it is no different than urinating on a tree. It would be horrible were the bodies those of living people, but considering that the bodies were void of life, I can take no objection toward such acts.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

So they had to pee and there just happened to be human corpses in the way? If you're apathetic to it, fine, but I think it's silly to speak as though actions don't have messages behind them. They were saying something by doing this.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

I was not trying to say that there was no message behind the act, nor that the act was - as the misleading tag states - funny, but rather that the taking of offense is infantile and that anyone ought to be able to see that a body is void of life and therefore no more valuable than a toilet.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

So if someone pissed on your corpse and your family took offense to the act, do you think your family is being "Infantile"?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

What I do think is infantile is your petty attempt at emotionalizing the subject.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

It's a simple question, either you can answer it or you can't.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

I can't say what I would think if my corpse were to be urinated upon, for I am not a corpse, and I should imagine that a corpse has undergone quite a personality shift from his previous self. However, right now, all that I can say is that I do not believe I would give a damn. Were I alive, I would take strong offense to such an act, but any phobic reaction would be purely out of self-preservation; once I am dead, my body may be burned, buried, eaten, raped, experimented upon, etc. I do not care, because without my mind, the body ceases to be my own. My family is aware of my beliefs in this regard and, while they would most likely take offense - being the emotional bunch that they are - they would know that I would not take offense, which may ease them a bit.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

The question wasn't about how you feel, but if you considered your own family 'infantile' for taking offense to a symbolic gesture of disrespect.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Why ought I judge my family for being subscribers of an inferior mode of morality?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

You just did. Whether you should or not, is a not matter that I will attest to.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

What exactly was it that they were saying?And when you tell me that, what is the significance behind that message?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

It is a deliberate message of disrespect to a particular demographic. Do you disagree? The demographic in question may depend on interpretation and may be broader than the soldiers intended, but I think it's fairly clear they did intend to disrespect somebody. Personally, I think the fact that they peed on them is nothing compared to the fact that before they peed on them, they killed them. If I knew the dead people, I'd be more upset about that. But these soldiers are perfectly aware it's a sign of further disrespect to pee on a body, and that's why they did it. If someone does something deliberately disrespectful, but the thing they did was innocuous in itself, does that excuse them in any way?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

So the message was along the lines of "fuck you".Well, considering that they killed them, I don't see where crossing the line was an issue.As well, look to my longer argument to see where my reasoning is coming from. But who knows, maybe I'm just a sick bastard.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: wrong

You make a very good point in saying "they killed him, what harm does peeing do". It even made me laugh.Yet I'd like to make a distinction between the actions based on intent.In the first case, the killing of the Taliban soldier, the intent was preventing him from doing harm. Killing someone is a very unfortunate, but successful way of doing so.In the second case, peeing on the corpse, the action does not help a shred to prevent him from doing harm. He will stay down on his own.So, if the intent of the killing was merely to say "fuck you". Then the killing is equally upsetting as the peeing. But, it was not. At least I hope so.This turns the discussion into the direction of "what was the intent of the killing?", and whether or not you support the view that wanting to say "fuck you" was a good enough reason to kill these soldiers. If that is the case, i hope you don't take offend in my reply and want to say "fuck you" to me ;)
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Not that I don't understand why you aren't offended...but this was not a message for you.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

So it's horrible for those who feel for the ones peed on. Or, just horrible for those who don't like the idea of the dead getting pissed on.Sure... then it really just comes down to opinions.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

I had no delusions about arguing with someone until they started to care about this, I just hoped you and a couple others might come to think of it in a different light than what is not personally offensive to you/them.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Well, some of the best laughter comes from bad taste and at the expense of others.In fact, the comedic styles of me (I have delusions of myself being a comedian) is about it being EVEN FUNNIER when you sympathize with the person you're making fun of. (of course, for me it would be a burn victim or parents witnessing their son commit suicide).
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

Surely you must understand though that, even if they are empty shells, it is the symbolic nature of the event that makes it horrible. Using your logic, is it then OK to rape a dead body? Because you say that they are 'empty shells' and so, from what I can assume, you would believe that once one 'dies' there body becomes yet another object. Would you be fine with your mother's body (if dead) getting raped?
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

If someone rapes my mother's dead body, yes nerves will be hit. But like liber said, it is an empty shell. I won't allow it but then again, it is just an empty shell.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

As Freud may say (forgive me, but I just returned from a showing of A Dangerous Method and cannot help myself), you may take offense at your mother's body being violated sexually for the sole reason that you wish to be the person engaging in the act with her likeness.That last word in my truly ridiculous extension of his laughable theory is the most important. A body is a likeness of a person, it is not the person itself. Just as the Jews will not write the name of God on anything which may be violated, neither do most humans want to have the sacred image of a loved one violated, and what can be a more sacred medium to convey one's likeness than one's own body? I realize that you appear to agree with my thesis, but I cannot convey this strongly enough. It is for this reason alone that I support the decriminalization of necrophilia, and the desanctification of the human body. There is nothing left: if the mind had a soul, it has departed; if it hasn't, then I see both more and less reason to respect the corpse. Still, it is only a likeness.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

Your argument is inconsistent. If it is merely an empty shell, why should nerves be hit? The fact that you would be miffed implies that it is not merely an empty shell!Thanks for contradicting yourself.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

When the soul leaves the body, the body becomes an empty shell in that sense. I understand your view of the contradiction. Why should we care, it is an empty shell. Im saying that we shouldn't care for an empty shell. However, i just do. These two statement are contradictions but they still hold true for me.Contradictions can be true especially with your thoughts and emotions. Ever heard of the phrase "it is wrong but it feels so right." A person's mind and emotion can contradict each other but it is there; it exists.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Funny.

When the soul leaves the body, the body becomes an empty shell in that sense.All assuming that there is such a thing as a soul at all. However, this is a synthetic assumption that you have not proven to be true. So until that you prove that there is a soul, your argument fails completely.Why should we care, it is an empty shell.No. Not why should we care, but why should YOU care. Your argument is simply attacking a straw man.These two statement are contradictions but they still hold true for me.Which proves that you are incapable of rational thought.Contradictions can be true especially with your thoughts and emotions.And these have no bearing on whether something is true or false. Thus, if the statements cannot be proven to be true or false by thoughts and emotions, there are no contradictions that can be proven to be true, as far as you're concerned.Ever heard of the phrase "it is wrong but it feels so right."That is not a contradiction. It is still wrong even if it does feel right. Such arguments are mere appeal to emotions and there is simply no logic as to whether such arguments can even be considered to be true.it existsAnd may I ask what the fuck is "it"?You seem to be missing the whole point of debate. TheThinker apparently doesn't think. I don't get why people bother honouring you with a reply. I obviously do because it is fun getting you to say stupid things. It's not for my benefit but the benefit of others laughing at your stupidity.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

All assuming that there is such a thing as a soul at all. However, this is a synthetic assumption that you have not proven to be true. So until that you prove that there is a soul, your argument fails completely.There are youtube videos of counts of "out of body experience." One experience was this woman who left her body and found a shoe on top of the hospital. This can't be a DMT hallucination experience when she was correct about the shoe. Thus, souls do exist. That is not a contradiction. It is still wrong even if it does feel right. Such arguments are mere appeal to emotions and there is simply no logic as to whether such arguments can even be considered to be true.It is a contradiction. How you feel is opposing your thoughts. And now you are even contradicting yourself. You stated in your first argument that it was a contradiction. And may I ask what the fuck is "it"?Emotion. Thoughts. These two things exists in time making the contradiction true. You seem to be missing the whole point of debate. TheThinker apparently doesn't think. I don't get why people bother honouring you with a reply. I obviously do because it is fun getting you to say stupid things. It's not for my benefit but the benefit of others laughing at your stupidity.No, im not missing the whole point. The Marines are urinating on dead bodies, and im thinking if whether it is right or wrong. Horrible or funny. In some sense, i think it is wrong in the sense of morality. In another sense, it is not wrong in the sense that they are empty shells. Which proves that you are incapable of rational thoughtNo, it doesn't prove that im incapable of rational thought. You are honestly the rudest debator i ever encountered. And i do think. And im capable of rational thought.
Debate: Marines Urinating on Taliban
Side: Horrible.

There are youtube videos of counts of "out of body experience."Which are not evidence at all. Even if there are a million videos, they are still not evidence. You need to prove your claim. Where are your arguments?It is a contradiction. How you feel is opposing your thoughts. And now you are even contradicting yourself. You stated in your first argument that it was a contradiction.You are misconstruing my words. Feelings are not logical arguments at all.Emotion. Thoughts. These two things exists in time making the contradiction true.Your command of English is truly mediocre. The word "it" can only refer to one term at a time. To say that "it" refers to two things simultaneously is ridiculous. Shame on you.In some sense, i think it is wrong in the sense of morality. In another sense, it is not wrong in the sense that they are empty shells.Then again, if according to you that morality refers to "the human mind's opinion on right or wrong", there can't be anything judgement outside of morality. Furthermore, the words "right" or "wrong" are statements that refers to moral duties. Thus to say that they are wrong "outside of morality" makes no sense at all.No, it doesn't prove that im incapable of rational thought.Yes it does. You haven't provided any good rational arguments for your claim. I am well justified to make such an accusation.You are honestly the rudest debator i ever encountered.You are honestly the most unintelligent, vitriolic, uneducated, illogical and irrational debater I ever encountered.