azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

Most of EU countries are bring destroyed by a bureaucratic semi-socialist government and whenever the nation tries to cut spending, the people riot against the nanny state. We shouldn't try to be more like Europe, everything the government touches turns to shit, you want the touching your healthcare?
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Really? College education is shit? You really don't know what you're talking about.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

College education is good? Alright, tell me more about how over-priced education with pompous professors that will fail students who disagree with them and work together to get professors that are actually good at what they teach fired so that they don't look bad isn't bad? Tell me about how spending 4 years and $200,000 on a piece of paper that means almost nothing (and no, you don't learn shit in college, if you talk to the average college student they don't learn anything) so that now you get to start off your life with a debt the size of a home mortgage is good for you.Maybe you should stop just writing these little short responses and present an actual argument...
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

College education is provided free of charge in many European states. A cheaper educated workforce provides a competitive advantage.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

Europe is not a good role model, they are being destroyed by a centrist bureaucratic machine.Besides, handing education over to men who wish to indoctrinate you is not a good idea.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

You fell for Faux News talking points. In no way would the government make such decisions. And what about all other developed countries that have single payer healthcare? You really don't know what's going on enough to make that statement.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

No, universal health care ends up making health care universally poor. Ask anyone who lives in a country withh universal health care for their opinion. They will say it doesn't work.Andy
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

No, no, no and hell no! I lived with socialized universal healthcare in the UK for two years...it was great if you had a cold. They gave you all the meds free. It sucked if you were really hurt or sick. I got really sick and flew back to the US to get real healthcare!
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

To costly, and its not the U.S. Governments responsibility to provide healthcare.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Oh, so fire and police aren't costly?No, it would NOT be costly at all. We can easily do it.And yes, it's the government's job to tend to the people's health, since the government is BY the people and FOR the people.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

Local and state government is the same as the federal government Ted?? The federal government does not have that responsibility, you need to read the constitution. Your mentality is what will bring the U.S. to its knees, you and the rest of half baked generation want to vote themselves privileges right from the treasury. If you cant take care of yourself then go to a church or some other organization that is specifically set up for that purpose. The U.S. government is to protect the rights of the people afforded to them by the constitution, health care is not a right.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

Television is very harmful, because of direct effects on behaviour of televiewers. At nowadays sex and violence overcome all principles of ethics and moral values among television programs and customers of it. Mass media don't care that they are showing to people, their logic is "Sex sells and we will sell it". It is not my words or my fairy tale, this is words of the president of one advertising company in private interview. Also research of american psyhologist Anita Chandra has confirmed, that contents of TV shows, which teenagers are watching, directly impact on their behavior. Mass media shape social behaviour of teenagers, most parents know this, but research just confirms this obviousness. Because of this, violence, pregnants, using of drugs are increasing, too.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

I agree with you. I have many statistics and information about this material. Also it's harmful for your health. I think that everyone know about it.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

I think that you missed a major point. It is not the type of TV that is the problem (although that is one problem), it is primarily the quality of TV programming that is our problem. The 10 second news blurb, the propaganda, the lowest-common-denominator humor; these are doing the harm.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

I totally disagree with you. Tv is not single source of information. TV is losing the value for people. But what about violence on TV it is special issue. Because nowadays we can often see it. It has a bad influence for childeren. There are many cartoons that promotes violence. For instanse, my cousin he is 5 years old. He is growing on cartoons like SpangeBoB. It changed his mind. He begin to use words and all what was in this cortoon. It is bad words)). You understand me.))) This example proves that government should adopt serious measures to forbid violence on TV
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

I think that our society mind must be preserved from violence on TV,in films and in video games because it is firstly damage psychology of children and learned them to be bad and cruel.Our young growing generation will spoiled by violence on mass media. We must banned and avoid to children to see programs with violence etc. Surely,violence on TV not so interesting and beautiful show to us. Especially in some cultures (as in my country Kazakhstan) very old generation is not like look such programs about murders,porno,crime on TV, young people in room always are shy to transfer channels to channels with violence in presenting native old people as grandmother and grandfather,even usually my parents!
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

"damage psychology of children and learned them to be bad and cruel" This happens verrrry rarely. And plus, that is why we have TV and video game age ratings. It is usually the parents fault for allowing them to watch it.Oh no! Not the children! Children watching Extreme violence is not advised, but we can not shelter them forever. How do you think they will react if they ever run into a violent situation? We can not pretend they do not exist. (Usually the exposure to violence on TV is the parents fault, NOT the channels)
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

Violence in the media is a problem in our society today. Effect of violence can be severe and widespread. From my point of view humans have always been amazed by violence, but it was not until this century that it invaded the home on television screens, computers and took a hand in raising the young. The people that are exposed to media violence are mostly children. Mass media violence affects badly on young generation.I’d like to say that media today is a part of the children’ culture. In my opinion, media is an integral part of child environment and violence in media sometimes is the main thing in aggressive behavioral development of children. Some serious actions should be taken by the policy makers to decrease the media violence or to limit it. There is “culture of violence in media” already and we must do something to stop it.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

I'm neutral. But tv is harmful if you watch it 24 hours without breaks. As all of you know people tend to make the convenient conditions everytime. Television is in the list of the things which delivers the comfortability for people. So, by watching tv you have to economize first of all the time, money, phisically energy and many other things. On the other hand it takes you many disadvantages as phisically impact, psyche impact and also it influences on imagination about the world according to American Academy of child and Adolescent Psychiatre research found that American children watch an average of four hours of television daily. Television can be a powerful influence in developing value systems and shaping behavior. Hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may•become "immune" or numb to the horror of violence •gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems •imitate the violence they observe on television; and •identify with certain characters, victims and/or victimizers
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

I think it spoils young minds as lot of adult contents are being shown in TV now a days.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

As I suggest there are some people who just get addicted towards watching television and it spoils our eye sight.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

In my opinion TV makes you and your kids lazy, it weaken your metabolism, get you fat and slow your motor reflexes.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

First of all,it really depends on what you and your kids are actually watching. TV is not made only for entertaining the people but as well as informing and educating. Basically,even the entertainment based infants' programs such as "Dora,The Explorer" offers the participation and physical involvement of the child. Moreover,television is efficient for watching news instead of reading the newspapers. As Marshall McLuhan, the popular media theorist, suggested that people love bright ,sensational events . For instance, watching the BBC news concerning the murder on blah blah street is more effective than reading it as 3 of our senses are involved properly. Undoubtedly,it can cause the serious sight problems but seems like reading can't lead you to the oculist chair as well.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

Research has linked students who watched too much TV with poor school performance, behavior problem and obesity, said a University of Missouri Extension human development specialist.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

many also get addicted to the tv and after watching they do not have time for studies or outdoor games
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

I find that TV is not meet to educate or to enlighten us. TV studios are operated by big corporations and these corporations main function is profit by selling their products and services.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

I suppose TV weakens your imagination because everything is shown to you and all you have to do is sit back and relax.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

In my opinion, Tv is more beneficial for people than harmful and I can submit you several simple examples of usefulness of TV. First of all, TV is one of the biggest resource of information. With Tv many people can learn the latest news that happened in the worlds no matter where they wouldn't be.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

Most people watch TV only for entertainments, we do not use TV to get more information, business people use internet sources oftener than Tv, because they don't have time. Please don't say that there are many fake news or not reliable sources, people know thousands of reliable sources to find information which they want. There is no beneficially in TV
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

There is no argument that TV is useful; the question was "is it harmful". TV offers lots of information, but is that info helpful or harmful? Yes, TV gives us the news, but is the news accurate? Enough of the news story to be informative, or just enough to fool the masses?
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

No, SpongeBob is not a bad cartoon. All that you say I think is wrong. I am 18 and in young age I also watched SpongeBob, Tom&Jerryand so on. and I grew up with normal stable psyche. For me, these cartoons seemed very funny and i loved to watch them. I agree with you that there are a big amount of different violent scenes on Tv and if your children watch it, this is already mistake of parents that allow to watch such channels. However, i want to tell not about it. There are good informative channels like "discovery" or "explorer" as well. These channels increase the level of erudition not only among children but also adults. Why you said that today people stopped to watch TV. I think TV still left one of the good entertainments for all family.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

I agree because most cable companies actually let the parents block some violent channel so the children dont see those bad things on those channels. and yes spongebob is a very good cartoon and I think that most parents should not disagree. Also most 90's shows are much different from now then they are today so i think they should cut some slack for the creator. its not his choice anymore if the show is still going.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

even though my mother thinks that television will make me violent spongebob and teen titans ect. Are my favourite television programs because they teach us about friendship, honesty, facing your fears, and ect. So my opinion is yes tv is educational in a fun way to learn.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

Ok. I understood your point of view. You told that violence on Tv should be banned and Tv helps growing generation to be cruel and bad. I say again. Violence on tv is exist, but i think each of us understand that is only fantastic and it should take to heart. Let's remember the time of communism. In that time there weren't channels with violence and children watch only soviet cartoons where everything was good and cheerful. and what?? I mean violence tv helps people faster accept the reality of this world. Everybody know that today world is not so good and colorful like in fairy tales. It is not so. In my mind, children prepare to real life with watching of any information on TV.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

Yes, you are right about communism, that in USSR were not so kind of channels, TV Shows and films. There were only good programms. So children don't prepare to real life, after impacts on children, they (12-17) start to live by this "real" life. Children know that this world is not so good, also we know too, but we ignore this information and continue to live by our present lives. May be someone even take images of characters to emulate, and it is a problem. try to get it...
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

Furthermore, how you said TV is the resource of different films, serials and programms. Tv shows children different situtations that they can meet in their lives. and if children saw it on television before they will easier cope with them. In addition, right watching of Tv improve imagination of children.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

there are a lot of other sources to improve imagination of children. Also these sources better than TV, for example books. TV do not help to improve imagination, it only gives ready images(imageries or forms).
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

violent and cruel only in relation of children. And what is about adults? Have you watched the films without fascinating dangerous moments? i think no. You see only violence in it, when I see the level of actors and directors' professionalism. It is an art to express credibly convey the feelings and emotions. We all like to watch colorful films with good plot and famous actors and we don't pay attention what is thiese ones violent or not. We just watch them. It is my point of view.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is harmful

So Yes, we can, we like watch films, but we are adults. Films ot Tv shows have age limit. Nowadays children dont pay attention on age limits of films whch they are watching... It is ok if they watch cartoons or something that they are allowed to. What do you think about it, for what they put age limits?
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

Sure violence is stupid, and sure television is stupid; but so is assuming that violence on television is stupid. I think it makes as much sense as uptight Christians getting all butt hurt about 'mosque building'. It's linear logic, but it doesn't mean I have to be influenced by or partake in it.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

TV is bad and good (But mostly good) Bad: -It can harm the minds of young children (oh no! not the children!) That is why we have TV ratings! Example: TV-14Good: -Spreads information, opinions, and ideas rapidly -Also provides a source of entertainment
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

There is not too much violence on tv today. That is more for the movies where restricted groups of people go. There are more "other" problems on tv today ( I think you know what I mean)
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

I think that TV is good for health because you can know a lot about them, Specially about health. You can know a lot about health on TV. So < my opinion is TV is Good
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

Our president uses the television, so television must be used for educational purposes.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

TV relaxes so many people. Regarding violence on TV, parents have a responsibility to explain to their children that what they see is not real and they should never imitate that violence.
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

yes i too agry that tv is beneficial bgggggggggggvyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Debate: TV violence
Side: TV is beneficial for people

TV operates under supply and demand. If people stop watching particular types of shows or content then the programmers and show makers adapt to give them whatever will sell. If there is violence on TV it's because that's what a lot of people want to see.Second, TV has been present through almost a century now. If it's ruining us as a bad influence then we should be seeing a whole lot more damage than we do. Yet the truth is the vast majority of people are fairly normal and know not to resort to Tom and Jerry style violence.Third, violence in all its forms and entertainments, was widespread in the US before TV and possibly even worse back then. Don't forget that our great grandparents lived in a time of widespread corporal punishment, domestic violence, the wild wild west, and many extremely dangerous and exploitive work arrangements which would be considered brutal today. It is quite possible that TV and the rest of the media has served as a safety valve for these feelings instead of as a direct cause of them.
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

Smoking should be illegal. Look at it like this. You are a cancer physician, and every day people are coming to you with Lung Cancer. What caused this? Smoking. Day after day they put a ciggie in their mouth, and day after day someone ends up in the hospital or the morgue. My point? More people go to the hospital from smoking,and doctors have to care for them,instead of helping other patients. Most of those people don't have enough money to even buy cigarettes, nonetheless pay hospital bills.
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

I think I agree with you. Well said. :)
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

I meant to up vote you. :(
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

My parents smoke and they're in bad shape and my grandfather died from smoking I think they should make it illegal.
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

If they want healthcare, yes. Obese people, and smokers are ruining the healthcare system.
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

yes it should be illegal because smoke is the harmful thing to our life . if you are smoking that mean you mines your age that have you given . or as everyone know you bought things that makes you dead or that can cut your normal age . because this all that smoking should be illegal into any country . that is moral hopes to all how smoking ,,,,
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

Yes it should be illegal because it damages your body and it can cause an addiction but if we do make smoking illegal the people who made cigerattes would go out of buisness because people can't smoke.
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

Of course. The job, one job, of the government, any government, is to make sure the people under it are well both mind and body. Even if it goes against their ignorant and stupid wishes.
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: no

Oh boy. You just opened a large can of worms with that statement. Governments have a pretty bad record in history, now you want to trust them with everyday life decisions? That's just gives the government waaaay too much power over you. Now they want to say how much food you can eat, and give you too little. Now they want to take your money, so you don't spend it on foolish things. Now they want to take your gun you use to protect yourself, so you don't shoot yourself or others with with it.
Debate: Should smoking be illegal
Side: yes

The question was "Should...", and I gave the right answer - yes.Governments have a pretty bad record in history, now you want to trust them with everyday life decisions?I do not care about history.How about instead of looking back we begin thinking objectively and logically, and considering present conditions and present state of everything? Times change, people change, ways change. If all that has changed, or can change and will change, then it is very stupid to base anything on the ways of the past.That's just gives the government waaaay too much power over you.The only purpose of a government is what I already stated. Otherwise they are simply massive corporations who are only in it for personal wealth. And, oh yeah, things are really fucked up right now; the people in leading positions literally do not know what is right and what is wrong, if they did things would be very different. So, currently, governments are massive corporations. Really does not matter what or who they claim themselves to be; it is easy to write things down or to say things or to just act, but in this case it's wiser to look for yourself, assuming you already know enough about the world and humanity so you can actually see how things really are, not read what's written down or simply listen and credulously believe.Now they want to say how much food you can eat, and give you too little.How much food someone needs depends on the persons and how they are built. In this the government has literally no say. If they do say something then the people, as is said the people have the power, and they really do (physical power, honestly...), should show them how things must be, assuming the people themselves know how... The you look at the current state... and the people do not know.Now they want to take your money, so you don't spend it on foolish things.About money I'll just say this much - there should be no money, no medium of exchange at all.Now they want to take your gun you use to protect yourself, so you don't shoot yourself or others with with it.Why need a gun if you can snap the offenders neck with your hands? Too weak? Some physical exercise would fix that.Or to protect yourself against someone else with a gun? And the government wants to take your gun away? Then the government is the offender by removing your ability to defend yourself and the government in this case needs to get a solid fart from the metal crapper.Humanity is too young, too ignorant - the reason everything is so messed up.