azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

I am fully aware of the fact that Congress is discussing the matter. That's good. But what you're supporting is the idea that the US should completely ignore the situation, meaning that discussing it will not happen. Am I wrong? And my opinion has not changed throughout the course if this debate, its just that everytime I add another post, I have to try and simplify it more so you can actually understand what I am saying. And my age has nothing do with the fact that you can't grasp what I am saying to you. Please explain how my arguments are childish. And I'll say this again: I know Congress is monitoring the situation. But I want them to continue doing so as well. Them discussing the situation in the present is irrelevant in this debate since we are arguing about should they do so as long as its going on, aka the future. And I was talking about if we would go to war in a different situation, not pertaining to their current conflict. And yeah, I learned how government surveillance works when I was in 3rd grade, but again, completely ignoring that would stop additional information coming in relating to the conflict. Duh. And Saddam Hussein wasn't a government authority who had a voice among other world leaders, plus I knew chemical weapons have been used before. The fact that everyone wanted to stop using them is the point I was trying to make, but clearly you missed that. And if you didn't mean supporting the word "ignore" like its defined in the fucking dictionary, then why the hell didn't you just say "we shouldn't ignore it, but we shouldn't retaliate either" and argue for this side? When you add "completely" and "ignore" together, you get what I've been saying all along: pretending its not happening, not keeping tabs on the situation, and stuffing anything referring to the situation under the rug. So its HILARIOUS that you think I made a fool out of my self since, technically, you agree with me, and not vice versa. Lets see YOU respond to that.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

But what you're supporting is the idea that the US should completely ignore the situation, meaning that discussing it will not happen.That's not what I'm suggesting... because that won't ever happen! Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?I have to try and simplify it more so you can actually understand what I am saying. And my age has nothing do with the fact that you can't grasp what I am saying to youIt's actually too simplified. And my age has nothing do with the fact that you can't grasp what I am saying to you.Oh, so you are a kid? That explains a lot.Please explain how my arguments are childish.Your previous argument was full of childish insults.Okay, I'm going to stop. I skimmed over the rest of your argument and it's absolutely pointless. You completely misunderstood everything. I'm not going to argue with you anymore because you are just way too naive. Maybe you'll understand when you get older.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

That's exactly what you are suggesting actually. Just because it won't ever happen doesn't mean you're not suggesting it. Obviously its not simplified enough. Calling someone thick-skulled isn't childish when its true. You can stop arguing all you want, it doesn't mean you're right. And by the way, because you've stopped arguing, you're basically ignoring me.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

And are you saying that the 426 children in that attack deserved their deaths?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Those words can be taken as an offense against the codes of morality.No conflict nor tragedy ever gave men the right to murder the innocent, let alone with the use of chemical weapons
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

The Middle East has been in a civil war for thousands of years. Millions, maybe even billions of innocent people have lost their lives over there. Why act now? Every time the West tries to intervene, the situation gets worse. There is currently a genocide going on in Africa, what have we done for them?Why are Syrian civilians suddenly more important than any of the others?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Aye, but no one in the Middle East desires to continue their fight. And you are wrong. Iraq and Afghanistan are completely in favor of Western intervention against Assad's regime. Even saying that they will pay for the soldiers stay in exchange for joining the fightSyria isnt any more important than anyone. It is Assad who crossed the line and now deserves to face his music.Britain France and other allies are in favor of a military strikeRussia and China are withdrawing their support for SyriaAl Queda turned his back from AssadThis isnt a fight by America. This is the whole world hell-bent on bringing justice. Why do you resist?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Aye, but no one in the Middle East desires to continue their fight. And you are wrong. Iraq and Afghanistan are completely in favor of Western intervention against Assad's regime.That doesn't change the fact that they DO continue the fight... and wrong about what? Iraq and Afghanistan are in favor the same as Al Qaeda, who not only is at war with us... but supports the rebels.Syria isnt any more important than anyone. It is Assad who crossed the line and now deserves to face his musicAssad isn't the first person to use chemical weapons, nor is he the first to use them on civilians.Britain France and other allies are in favor of a military strikeBritain isn't for it! They voted against it! Russia and China are withdrawing their support for SyriaRussia sent three warships over there yesterday.Al Queda turned his back from AssadAl Qaeda isn't a person... it's a terrorist group.This isnt a fight by America. This is the whole world hell-bent on bringing justice. Why do you resist?Well, I just proved to you that it isn't the whole world... and most American's don't want to go to war.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

That doesn't change the fact that they DO continue the fightThat doesn't change the fact that they wanted to END the fightAssad isn't the first person to use chemical weapons, nor is he the first to use them on civilians.We created the UN to ensure never again to use weapons of mass destruction. And Never Again it has to beBritain isn't for it! They voted against it!WrongRussia sent three warships over there yesterday.Russia and China's support will depend on whether Assad will be proven guilty of violating the UN lawsArticle hereAl Qaeda isn't a person... it's a terrorist group.Sorry for the misinformation but it still changed nothing. It is still an ally of Assad that decided to join the rebels insteadArticle HereWell, I just proved to you that it isn't the whole world... and most American's don't want to go to war.Evil truimphs when good men do nothingChoosing to turn a blind ear towards the innocent makes you no better than oppressing them yourself
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

We created the UN to ensure never again to use weapons of mass destruction. And Never Again it has to beYou obviously don't have family and friends serving in the Middle East. If you believe so strongly in this, I recommend that you go and enlist and get your ass over there. Our war with Al Qaeda isn't finished. We can't afford another one.WrongBritain said that they might supply humanitarian aid. They still don't want to take action. So how am I wrong? The British parliament made it very clear that they don't support going to war. Russia and China's support will depend on whether Assad will be proven guilty of violating the UN lawsThis article is four hours old: http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-russia-putin-syria-20130906,0,1054459.story Changed nothing. It is still an ally of Assad that decided to join the rebels insteadAn enemy of an enemy is not our ally in this case. We are currently at WAR with Al Qaeda. Why help the people responsible for 9/11?I already know that Al Qaeda supports the rebels, you didn't need to share that link. So what happens? Assad's regime falls and Al Qaeda takes over? Oh, so now we're giving our biggest enemy a country! Lets say Obama sticks to his word and we only take out the chemical weapons, because his plan isn't to take out Assad... well, guess what? The civil war will still continue... and on top of that, Assad, Iran and Russia will be pissed. Oops! Looks like we just caused World War 3!Choosing to turn a blind ear towards the innocent makes you no better than oppressing them yourselfWhat do you want to do about Africa and the rest of the Middle East? How about North Korea? Innocents are being murdered everyday... but Syria is where we draw the line?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

If you believe so strongly in this, I recommend that you go and enlist and get your ass over there.Give me a reason why I should not believe it.Britain said that they might supply humanitarian aid. They still don't want to take action.I fail to see any difference. Supplying aid to the rebels is the same as going against Assad isnt it?This article is four hours old:Qoute:"Russia backs Syria’s contention that the Aug. 21 attack was a “provocation” on the part of rebels seeking international intervention in the country's 2 1/2-year-old civil war.Putin suggested Friday that to attack Syria without obtaining U.N. Security Council authorization would put the United States “outside the law.” The Security Council is unlikely to approve such action because Russia and China, another Syria ally, hold veto power."Putin is wise enough not to ruin Russia's name by protecting a criminal. He is merely waiting for decisions of the UN.After that, his leadership will be questioned. So what happens? Assad's regime falls and Al Qaeda takes over?and on top of that, Assad, Iran and Russia will be pissed. Better to take chances to change the future than cowering in fear and regret our cowardiceWhat do you want to do about Africa and the rest of the Middle East? How about North Korea? Innocents are being murdered everyday... but Syria is where we draw the line?We have no reason to intervene with them. Every country has their own set of rules to follow. But things change when the people started to revolt.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Give me a reason why I should not believe it.We're at war. Our soldiers are being killed over something avoidable. Going to war with Syria could lead to World War 3. Do you think our citizens lives are expendable? Like I said, if you want to go to war, then I recommend going over there and risking your own life.I fail to see any difference. Supplying aid to the rebels is the same as going against Assad isnt it?Uhhh... the difference is that our biggest ally doesn't want to fight along side us.Why do we have to go to war? Why can't we just supply humanitarian aid like Britain?"Russia backs Syria’s contention that the Aug. 21 attack was a “provocation” on the part of rebels seeking international intervention in the country's 2 1/2-year-old civil war.Which means that Russia isn't buying the evidence that the UN provided. They're sticking with Syria.Putin suggested Friday that to attack Syria without obtaining U.N. Security Council authorization would put the United States “outside the law.” The Security Council is unlikely to approve such action because Russia and China, another Syria ally, hold veto power."This quote supports my argument, not yours.Putin is wise enough not to ruin Russia's name by protecting a criminal. He is merely waiting for decisions of the UN.You truly don't understand what that article said, do you? After that, his leadership will be questioned.His leadership is already questioned... he's the leader of Russia.Better to take chances to change the future than cowering in fear and regret our cowardiceYou can't be serious? That's really messed up considering the possible outcomes.We have no reason to intervene with them. Every country has their own set of rules to follow. But things change when the people started to revolt.People are revolting in all of those places that I named.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

We're at war. Our soldiers are being killed over something avoidable. Going to war with Syria could lead to World War 3. It appears like you have forgotten that as we speak, more innocent people are being killed. Isnt it just humane to save them?Assad's Chemical attack is a violation of the UN laws. Refusal to bring in justice will only shame the codes of conduct and give reason for him to do it againWhy do we have to go to war? Why can't we just supply humanitarian aid like Britain?Remember the previous war in Libya? After the civil war, the armed rebels ruled the streets like thugs and up until now, they are still the countries main problem. If no one will stand to lead, no one will know where to go.Which means that Russia isn't buying the evidence that the UN provided. They're sticking with Syria.This quote supports my argument, not yours.You truly don't understand what that article said, do you?His leadership is already questioned... he's the leader of Russia.Correct me if im wrong, but the article states that Putin is ready to defend Syria but he is open to change his mind depending on the evidences that the UN will provide.It is basic for a leader to not protect criminals or else your people will lose their support for you. Putin should be aware of that and if he is wise enough, he will soon take his forces awayYou can't be serious? That's really messed up considering the possible outcomes.We have 2 choices1. Pretend we see nothing2. Do somethingBoth has its negatives, but I vote for the lesser among evilsPeople are revolting in all of those places that I named.Look again. They are too naive to rebel.Trying to free them will be considered an act of invasion in the UN laws. We cant touch something that we cannot reach
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

It appears like you have forgotten that as we speak, more innocent people are being killed. Isnt it just humane to save them?Innocent people are being killed across the World, why don't we save them too?Assad's Chemical attack is a violation of the UN laws. Refusal to bring in justice will only shame the codes of conduct and give reason for him to do it againWhat are we going to do? He moved his Chemical weapons into civilian areas and Obama says we are going to do a limited strike... how will we avoid collateral damage?Remember the previous war in Libya? After the civil war, the armed rebels ruled the streets like thugs and up until now, they are still the countries main problem.We supported the rebels in Libya. If they are Libya's problem, how do you think the Syrian rebels will turn out?Correct me if im wrong, but the article states that Putin is ready to defend Syria but he is open to change his mind depending on the evidences that the UN will provide.You're wrong. The U.N. has already found evidence, but Putin is going to continue supporting Syria. He has veto power, so he's saying that the U.N. Security Council won't be able to give the US authorization to attack Syria, because he won't allow it.It is basic for a leader to not protect criminals or else your people will lose their support for you. Putin should be aware of that and if he is wise enough, he will soon take his forces awayRussia is allies with almost all of our enemies. They are the ones who supplied Syria with the chemical weapons.We have 2 choices1. Pretend we see nothing2. Do somethingBoth has its negatives, but I vote for the lesser among evilsGoing to war with Syria will lead to a larger deficit. We're already trillions of dollars in debt. On top of that, Iran said that they will attack Israel if we attack Syria. Iran supposedly has nuclear weapons. Russia is going to defend Syria. Attacking Syria could lead to World War 3... and if that happens, then they might reinstate the draft. That means that they can enlist you and me, and if we say no, then we're breaking the law. The cons outweigh the pros when it comes to attacking Syria.Look again. They are too naive to rebel.Maybe in North Korea... but everywhere else in the Middle East and Africa has rebels. Besides, the ones who don't fight back, don't have the proper equipment to defend themselves. We helped arm the Syrian rebels, why can't we help the other countries? I think you're just too naive to see the big picture.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Innocent people are being killed across the World, why don't we save them too?The inability to help everyone is not an excuse to help someoneWhat are we going to do? My goal is to give you reason to punish Assad. How to do it is best left to those with experienceWe supported the rebels in Libya. If they are Libya's problem, how do you think the Syrian rebels will turn out?Exactly the reason why I said "Someone has to lead"You're wrong. The U.N. has already found evidence, but Putin is going to continue supporting Syria.Nope. It was America who says that only Assad has the capabilities to launch chemical weapons. But Russia has found links that connects the attack towards Rebels as they once used the same sarin gas at Khan-al-Assal but killed only 24 people.The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current “hysteria” about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.Russia is not an Idiot. They have their reasons for fighting. Convince them with evidence, and they will leaveGoing to war with Syria will lead to a larger deficit.The cons outweigh the pros when it comes to attacking Syria.And if no one give force to the judgement of the UN against the crimes commited against the international laws, it will only open up more holes to show how weak the UN congress is. Cowardice can only benefit us until when other countries started to do the same and violate the codes.But if we act, we can raise the morale of the world powers to protect what has to be protectedbut everywhere else in the Middle East and Africa has rebels. .And did they violated the UN code big enough for the world powers to act?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

The inability to help everyone is not an excuse to help someoneIt's an excuse to say "wtf?"Exactly the reason why I said "Someone has to lead"Too bad Obama's goal isn't to take out Assad or his government. He just wants to get rid of the chemical weapons.Nope. It was America who says that only Assad has the capabilities to launch chemical weapons. But Russia has found links that connects the attack towards Rebels as they once used the same sarin gas at Khan-al-Assal but killed only 24 people.What are you even talking about? That doesn't change the fact that Russia is supporting Syria.The Russian statement warned the United States and its allies not to conduct a military strike against Syria until the United Nations had completed a similarly detailed scientific study into the Aug. 21 attack. It charged that what it called the current “hysteria” about a possible military strike in the West was similar to the false claims and poor intelligence that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.You can show me articles all day. Russia has already made up their mind. Russia is not an Idiot. They have their reasons for fighting. Convince them with evidence, and they will leaveWe have evidence. Do you really think that they are dumb enough to believe that the chemical weapons they gave to the Syrian government were used by some other group within Syria? Why do you think they gave Syria the chemical weapons in the first place?And if no one give force to the judgement of the UN against the crimes commited against the international laws, it will only open up more holes to show how weak the UN congress is. Cowardice can only benefit us until when other countries started to do the same and violate the codes.I sure hope you took my advice and went to enlist. You can't call us cowards because we don't want to go to war. A war where we're going to be playing offense. A war that may lead to an even bigger war. What do you think is going to happen after we bomb Syria? Attacking a country is never just quick and easy. It will lead to something of a much larger scale.And did they violated the UN code big enough for the world powers to act?What difference does it make? So they didn't use chemical weapons... people are still dying! You don't find a problem with civilian deaths unless they are by chemical attacks?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

It's an excuse to say "wtf?"Let me rephrase that to: "The inability to help everyone is not an excuse to not help someone"Sorry for the bad constructionToo bad Obama's goal isn't to take out Assad or his government. He just wants to get rid of the chemical weapons.Civil wars are sacred grounds. Of course the force has to be limited or else it will be considered as an InvasionWhat are you even talking about? That doesn't change the fact that Russia is supporting Syria.Russia has already made up their mind.The report states that Russia's support will only last till Assad was proven guiltyWe have evidence. Do you really think that they are dumb enough to believe that the chemical weapons they gave to the Syrian government were used by some other group within Syria?The rebels has complete access to Chemical Weapons and they were caught using one in battle. Its just America again jumping on the conclusion that Assad is behind itYou can't call us cowards because we don't want to go to war. But this isnt a war. This is justice. Your a coward if you will ignore the voice of the innocents So they didn't use chemical weapons... people are still dying! You don't find a problem with civilian deaths unless they are by chemical attacks?Unless the deaths are caused by banned weapons in a massive scale, the UN is powerless to intervene.