azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I meant to write "but not in the way it was actually conducted."You think im an arogant asshole, look at what your acusing me of, firstly i never claimed i had a better idea of how to conduct such an intervention, OK. So dotn try and fuckin insinuate that i did just to make my piont look worthless. If i had said i would be more than deserving of your "arrogant ass hole" comment. Now i dont claim to have known how to conduct that war just in the same way that i dont claim to know what is best for Libya or what the Nato forces should be doing in there. WHAT I CLAIM TO KNOW IS THE FOLLOWING (BTW i dont think it makes me an arrogant person to say this, if anything it makes me perceptive); Nato forces are not in Libya to help the Libyan people achieve democracy, if that was the case they would have done the sme when the Yemeny peopel were being slaughtered by their US backed leader last Friday, Oh what did you not hear about that, oh. So FOX and CNN let you down on that one did they, what about when the Saudi army (armed by the US) was called into Bahrain to quell an actual revolution (not a civil war like Libya) and slaughtered the protestors, wait did you not hear about that either Joe, Jesus looks like my anti-american leftist propaganda is telling me things your news isnt telling you. Actually its funny many people have suggested the idea of making Noam Chomsky president, so that idea isn't as far fetched as you make out. He's been asked by countless people and his response is always the same "my first act as president would be to resign." You see he doesnt beleive in the defunct system you have operating currently. Therefore, theres no piont in someone like him trying to make a system that has a inherent malfunction in it, work."yet no Government has asked for his opinion on how to do things and no news organization"Actually your completely wrong his opinion is widely sought after by many governments accross the world, just not your government (as he is considered a paria shunned by your intellectual community for not agreeing with your capitalist imperialist model).But if you knew anything about him you'd know what your typing is complete shit. Get a clue, investigate the man before you make outlandish claims likfe that, dont you realise you have no idea what your talking about.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OMG! I would never trade our system for your socialist crap system. If you want Chomsky so much, make him YOUR president. I'm sure we would be more than happy to deport his ass ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Your an fuckin idiot you know that, Chomsky isnt a socislist and to label him as such is highly insluting to him and even to me. Your an ignorant idiot who doesnt have clue what hes tlaking about. The system of government chomsky thinks is best is democractic govenment, but he states that it is a idela system that can never work in practice, he proposes a system that strivese towards democracy, its called AnarchoSyndicalsim. Look it up before shoot your mouth off you ignorant fuck.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Chomsky isnt a socislist and to label him as such is highly insluting to him and even to me.What are you talking about? You're one of the biggest socialists I know ;)AnarchoSocialism, that's what I said ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

he just explains the moitvation of Western power in that conlict AND you can be sure its very different to the way it was portrayed at the time.So when you finally find a girl friend who's willing to pet your dick, you'll be like, "Oh, I'm in love. This is love!" And someone else can explain, "He just want his dick stroked."There are many ways to spin anything and N.C. is good at spinning and you're too stupid to realize it.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Thats a pretty grim assessment of any relationship, why do you have a wife or girlfriend, and if so, are you only with them to get your dick stroked as you so eloquently put it.Yes there are many ways to spin the truth, everyone uses the truth to their own advantage and any opinion is acceptable in a certain context, im not saying you should look at his opinion and bow down before your new God, im saying he present facts that are intentionally omitted from the information you receive. Are you trying tell me the aim of the international force currently in Libya is to help the Libyan people.Ok, you think hes spinning the truth, give me one good reason he would spin the truth. Do you not realise what the man has sacrificed in order to tell the truth, he could have been one of the most famous intellectuals in your country has he not opposed the amerrican agenda, most the support he gets in your country is underground and independent support.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

im saying he present facts that are intentionally omitted from the information you receive.He presents HIS interpretation of the so called FACTS. Are you trying tell me the aim of the international force currently in Libya is to help the Libyan people.Yes. But mainly because it'll piss you off ;)give me one good reason he would spin the truth. In order to sell more books, make more money and get quoted more ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

He presents the facts, then he makes his conclusions based on them, if you ever studied him you know why he has soo much respect, but agin i dont expect you to. "In order to sell more books, make more money and get quoted more ;)"Why do think the man would give a fuck about this, if you knew anything about him you'd know his moral philosophy determines his actions, your claim would only be valid if he had accepted his place in the hieracrhy of the american intellectual elite, can you not see that.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

if you ever studied him you know why he has soo much respect, but agin i dont expect you to.You always say this. If you don't expect me to, then why mention it every chance you get? ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

He presents the facts, then he promptly spins it ; )
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

As for the rest of the history lesson...., what's your point? Where's the part where it is America's fault?
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Can you not keep up with the argument, i cited Iraq as the only conflict in the last ten yrs where a foreign oppressive power came into a country and caused trhe deaths of 1 million people, i used that to justify my claim that America is more guilty of war crime that any other country. I said to show me one other example in the last ten years and you brough up the Balkans (which occured in the 90s) i gave youn the wiki cut out to prove nothing has been going on there for the last ten yrs, thus defeating your original claim.BTW its not Americas fault Iraq is, that the piont, there are no other countries (except maybe the UK for tagging along) as guilty as yours.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Maybe if they hadn't put up a fight they wouldn't have lost 1 million people ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Really Joe, i dont kow how you can care so little about the death of 1 million people. I'm not speculating about anything, these atre the facts, this is the best estimate of the amount of people who have perished. Seriously how can you act as if this isnt a big deal, id love if you could just see some the death and destruction your country has casued, your life is too sheltered, you dont get to see what really goes on so its safe for you to hold your bigoted opinions cause they'll nerve be brought into question where you are and if they ever are you can always plead ignorance, i find that sad, i deicated my life to pursuit of truth and beauty, this doesnt always imply happiness but i beleive it will provide me with the richest life availble to me.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Truth is over rated. Mainly because truth is subjective.As far as the people who have died (for whatever reason) they would have died regardless. Maybe later, maybe not. But in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? Especially when you consider what may have been if they had lived. Maybe it's better they died.Besides, a lot of these people want to meet Allah. If that wasn't the case, why would they blow themselves up? So who is to say that it is wrong for a U.S. Marine to arrange such a meeting ;)Look, when a lion kills a cheetah cub, you don't go on a rant about it because that is just the way it is. Same with humans. There's nothing special about our species ;)Let me put it another way, if I were to die tomorrow, would you be as devastated? Or do you only care about poor people ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Real truth is not subjective i compleltly disagree, we've discudssed this before. I base my opinons on facts, you dont, so please dont come back with that truth is subjective crap, ok, truth is subjective cause you want it to be subjective, if it wasnt you might have tp acknowledge that the deaths of 1 million people in Iraq wasnt such a good thing and that maybe your partially responsible for it goven that you supported the war. Thats the fuckin truth and theres nothin subjective about it.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

the deaths of 1 million people in Iraq wasnt such a good thingSays you. There are lots of people that beg to differ.Look, your statement is clear indication that YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST. Any scientist worth his salt knows that categorization such as "good" and "bad" are based on criteria. If your criteria is different than mine then the categorization is subjective. Is that a hard concept to grasp for a simple mind as yours? A mind that sees things as black or white and NOT as shades of gray? Are you still in High School? Have you not matured past your adolescent view of the world? ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

You keep saying im not a scientist, i have to ask, how the fuck do you what way a scientists response would be. Your attempt to discredit and annoy me is quite pathetic my weak minded friend. I'm sorry yuo dont have the heart in you to realise that 1 millioni dead Iraqis is a bad thing, maybe if they American or you knew one of them, huh Joe, i bet then you'd take notice then, fuckin hypocrite.i bet you'd shed a few tears then, wouldnt you.As for your scientist jibe, look i analyse things objectively, i have arrived at my categorisation based on quite good criteria actually, the kind formulted in the international court of human justice and international law itself.Any scientist would agree with me on this, when you break international law and it leads to the deaths of 1 million people, that can normally be classed as a BAD THING. Is that a hard concept to grasp for a simple mind as yours? A mind that sees things as black or white and NOT as shades of gray? Are you still in High School? Have you not matured past your adolescent view of the world? ;)I fully acknowledge that the world is gray, but that conflict isnt half as gray as you want tomake out my friend. You went in there against the wishes of th eineternational community, thats a breach of international law, IS THAT A GOOD ENOUGH CRITERIA???????????????? Or how about the fact that you continually defy international law in allowing Isreal to kill palestians and evict them from their land. How would like it if someone called to your door and told you becasue so tribe had live on the land 4000yrs ago you need to leave your home. I dont think you'd like atr all. You talk about criteria but you dontn have a clue, you think you were fighting terrorism, you were creating terrorism by commiting terrorist acts against a people that had never provoked you in nay way. You my friend have a seriously fucked up view of the world, the fact that you can excuse the deaths of i million i cannot understand, you are clwearly a fucked up human being.I think you need to educate yourself on international law my friend:http://oneutah.org/2010/01/12/dutch-commission-iraq-invasion-breached- international-law/
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

maybe if they American or you knew one of them, huh Joe, i bet then you'd take notice then, fuckin hypocrite.i bet you'd shed a few tears then, wouldnt you.Oh...., I'm sorry...., I hadn't realized that you were the sensitive type ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

As for your scientist jibe, look i analyse things objectively, i have arrived at my categorisation based on quite good criteria actually, the kind formulted in the international court of human justice and international law itself.What a bunch of shit! You have arrived at your categorization based on emotion.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

the deaths of 1 million peopleDoes NOT have to be classed as a BAD THING. Think about the reduction in the carbon footprint! Hell man, we are helping turn the tide on Global Warming. How is that bad ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

International law? We don't need international law. We are the law ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I find your rationalisation that they would have died regardless to be quite hilarious. I mean not the argument just tha fact that you can beleive that shit, it really shows just how ignorant you are. In the grand scheme of things o dont it matters at all Joe, in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter if Iran get the bomb and lauch it on every American city, I mean in the grand scheme of things, right.What is this racist shit your spewing, they went to see allah, so you think of the 1 million peopel who died they were all redical islamists, how does that not sound completely wrong to you. 100,000 died in fighting at a push you can say that those people were probabkly radicals, even though from their perspective they were just fighting a foriegn power that had invaded theit country but to say that the 1 million that died in all the bombing and raids and accidents and bad healthcare due to depleted infrostructe etc. etc., to sayv that they were all suicide bomber demonstyrates how how fucked up you are. Again, i have to re-iterate, whos the real extremist here, i not the one trying to rationalis the needless deaths of over a million Iraqis just casue it was my country that was respobsible. You know it takes a big man to admit when your wrong, your clearly not big enough.Again, with the humjan nature shit, fuckin hell man. I'm gettuin tired of this. What would you rather live in the jungle with jungle rules is it, a completely lawless society based whoever is the biggest wins. Is that what you support, cause if so fair enough but i dont think you have any idda what that means to be quite honest. Now society isnt suppose to functino thast way so when it does you have to acknowledge that what went on was wrong, morally, ethically, legally etc etc. WHY CAN YOU NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THIS. Oh wait i know cause you dont want to beleive your great country can ever be in the wrong, oh ya i forgot your completely indoctrinated, it ok you dont need to answer.It depends, if you died becasue you were denied your basic human rights, than yes i would be devastated, i base my moral code on how i would like to be treated if i see another human being trated in a way that i cannot agree with e.g. palesetians then i get upset and i want to do all that in my power to stop wehat i beleive to be wrong. Now what you need to realise is that rich peopel are very rerely the ones being mistreated becasue money and power go hand in hand, but you know this so please stop patronising me.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Look, you just have this insatiable need to feel outraged and so you side with the underdog. That way, when they can't win, like in the movies, you can rant your little heart out. Besides, i think you are the one being racist for claiming that their religion is a bunch of shit and that they are NOT with 72 virgins. At least I acknowledge their religion and state that they probably are with 72 virigns ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

WTF i never claimed there religion was a bunch of shit i actually beleive in what it teches i just think the extreme elements of it have been twisted to suit the terrorist agenda. Now i do go for the underdog cause when i see peoepl being killed and subjected to the kind of treatment i wouldnt wish on my worst enemy i empathise with them, imn sorry your incapable of this.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Well...., if you believe in God then you would know that if He can part the Red Sea then He can keep shrapnel from hitting you. It is not up to us to determine who's evil and who's nice. It's up to God. That's His job; to sort them out. He separates the good from the bad. All we do is send Him some a little early. No big deal ;)If death was a bad thing, God would not have created it ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

its foreign policy is more hypoctrical tha n any other coutnry on earthI'd like to see you try and prove that ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I can prove that that in one sentence Joe, your country claimed the Vietnam war was for the benefit of the Vietnamese people, you claimed you were there TO HELP THEM.This is what the soldiers believed, as im sure they do now in Iraq. You killed 3 million of them and lierally flattened their country, you destroyed the fillings in their fuckin teeth (not that they could afford them or eve had dentists). You dropped napalm that literally vaporised entire villages buring men women and childen, cats dogs, frogs, ants alive. You dropped Chemical weapons "Agent Orange" (look it up) that killed thousands and thousands of people, just killed all life around the area it was dropped (you know like Saddam gased the Kurds, sorry but you did first in vietnam). I was there during the summer, the effects are still very much being felt but they proud that they forced you from THEIR COUNTRY.Your troops were using the natives for target practice, from choppers above the list of atricites associated with that war are endless, you behaved like midevil savages equipped with sophisticated weaponry. You killed another 2 million in neighbouringAnd you did all this under the pretence that you were there to help them. Now if that isnt hypocracy on a massive scale i dont know what it my friend.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

We were there to help the non communist Vietnamese. We were there to kill communist Vietnamese. We killed communist Vietnamese in order to help out the non communist Vietnamese. That's how you help people during a war. You pick a side and you help them by killing the people on the other side. What planet are you from? ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

OMG, OM fuckin G you did not just try to justify what your country did in Vietnam did you. I cant beleive what im reading, seriously is this honeestly what you think or are you joking. If your serious your ignorance knows no bounds my friend. YOU killed 3million vietnamese, yes at the start of the war you had the support of the puppet south vietnamese government but once you started killing and raping everything that had cross eyes you kind of lost the support of the indegenous population, once you started buring entire villages in one go and kiiliing at random etc. etc. the vietnamese realised quite fuckin quickly . Dop you know how many US senators are guilty of participating in horrible war crimes in that country, look it up seriously, it makes for some interesting reading, maybe the next time you go to vote you might not want to vote for a man who in his lifetime was guilty of picking children up taking his knife out and disembowling them (you probably think im exaggerating but im not even scrathing the surface).Vietnam is probably the single worst crime your government and army is guitly of, you had no side. You are unbleievable, seriously if thats what you beleive i strongly urge you to go to vietnam and look into what you are talking about.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Oh, here we go again. Again with a million. You really like that number. So much so that this time you multiplied it by 3. Apparently America doesn't do anything in small quantities. Everything America does is in the millions. Hell, even McDonalds does things in the millions (over 6 million sold). Maybe we should change the name to The Land of the Millions ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

How ignorant and stupid can one man be, fuckin hell. IF YOU DO NOT BELEIVE ME CHECK THE FUCKIN FACTS FOR YOURSELF YOU FUCKIN IDIOT. Ok. 3 million vietnamese lost there lives over the course of the 10 yr war, the overwhelming majority of these were civilians, approximately 50,000 American soldiers were killed. Now why not instead of disagreeing with me you go and look the fucking facts up. Ok. In Cambodia and Loas approximately 2 miilion died due to aAmerican bombing of those countries, basically the vietcong were using those countries as bases so you bombed them back to the stone age as well. Best estimates put the numbers killed in the Indochinese wars your country waged against the helpless people there at between 4-5 million, go check it out, check it out on a fuckin ameriacn source, you dont have to look up my anit american propaganda as you call it. These are facts, well known facts to deny them is to deny reality but we both know how good you are at doin that, dont we Joe.Also, please dont patronise me, ive been to Vietnam twice in my lifetime, once when i was just 10 yrs old and i returned for 3 months in the summer just gone. I absolutely love the country, i i adore its people, there the friendliest on the face of the planet. I also have deep interest in the vietnam war so dont try and tell me what i know is wrong when your so fuckin ignorant that you obviously have no idea what your "brave" "good" country did to that place.The fact you even have the guile to disagree given that you clearly havent a clue sickens me.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Hey, what does dog taste like? Hopefully not chicken. I heard they eat dog over there. I was wondering if you tried some dog while you were over there. Those people probably died from eating bad dog meat. Even if they didn't, think of it as punishment for eating some poor pup. ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Nop they dont eat dog over there Joe at least not to best of my knowledge, its not a delicasy in the country but good job changing the subject, well done.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I Googled it. You're right. It's not dog. It's monkey on a stick ;)