azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Comparing globalisation to what America has done deeply upsets me.The more connected countries become, the more they will be inclined to tell each other what to do since their actions will affect each other.WHAT YOUR FALING TO GRASP IS that what is going on right now is exactly what needed to happen decades ago. People in the Middle East finally get it and they are revolting against their oppressive governments.The people in the Middle East are finally having their war of independence. Don't you see that? They finally realize that government derives its power from the people being governed. If the people of Egypt no longer want to be governed by Mubarak, then Mubarak will not be able to stay in power.The proof is right there and you refuse to acknowledge it. You wanted me to show you and you said that it would change your mind. Well, I am showing you ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

You really are brainwashed. Firstly why can you not say that YOUR government is responsible for Mubarak in Egpyt, Ben Ali in Tunisia and all the others. Do you not ever question why it is that Iran are demonized so much in your meida yet the brutal regime of Saudi Arabia is never mentioned even though from what is known about them they are much more brutal, represive government (but he they play by your geovernemnts rules). I cant actually beleive you compared your war of independence to the Egyptian revolution.Why cant you see thatv what the people of the middle east are revolting against the the foreign interference of Western governments (primarily yours) propping up brutal dictators in roder to control the flow of OIL. You're just so blind. Let me ask you a question, you think your government supported the Egyptian revolution dont you, so why do you think there trying so hard to ensure that Omar Sulliman is the next dictator.Mubabrak was just a man, your government told him to step down when they realised his position had become untenable, but the government in place there is the same one thats been there for the last 30 years. America dont want real democracy in any of the middle east why is so hard for you to see that. Cant you not understand that if the middle east actually had governments that were for the people your government would lose out massively cause suddenly their governments would be using their countries wealth for the betterment of their own people and not the ruling elite and foreign power. Do you know how worried your government are right now that they may for the first time lose their iron grip on the middle east nad at the same time they have to walk the tight rope of pretending to be for democracy casue thats the lie they successfully been able to shove down the throats of so many americans. BELEIVE ME LEAVE YOUR COUNTRY, GO ANYWHERE ELSE AND ASK A RANDOM PERSON DOES AMERICA STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY. You people want to beleiev the lie thats the problem.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

America dont want real democracy in any of the middle eastI think America has been told that repressive governments is the only form of government that the Middle East understands. I mean, what's the ratio of democracies in the Middle East to repressive governments? Can you name one democracy in the Middle East? Are you saying that America supports every repressive government on none of the democracies? What are you talking about? ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

What am i talking about. Im talking about the fact that middle eastern peopel havent been allowed have their own self determination, primarily because of your governments involment. Ive stated from the beginning America support whoever plays be their rules and invariably the governments who do that dont provide much for their own people as America is by-inlarge exploiting that countries resources.Listen to yourslef;I think America has been told that repressive governments is the only form of government that the Middle East understandsSo, those uncivilised arabs just arent capable of governing themselves.ya, there much better off with a brutal dictator that will make their existence on this planet hell. Hey aslong as we get our oil and the muslim brotyherhood dont get into power.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

So, those uncivilised arabs just arent capable of governing themselves.ya, there much better off with a brutal dictator that will make their existence on this planet hell. Hey aslong as we get our oil and the muslim brotyherhood dont get into power.Correct. Except that they are finally coming around to becoming more civilized. However, history teaches us that when there's a revolution (like the one in Egypt) and they succeed in overthrowing the government, there's a power vacuum. Then a group rises up and unites the people by pointing to an outside enemy (probably Israel). If they resist the urge to attack the straw man presented to them by the group rising to power, then their lives will improve. If not....., they will fall back into oppression.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

That argument would be all well and good if the original problems werent cause by a foreign oppressive power. And that power is still presently deeply involved in ensuring nothing changes.Wake Up.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Huh? What? I'm sorry...., I fell asleep reading your argument ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Well wake up then, i clearly said this in the previous argument. Fuckin hell man are ya thick or what, me ol boyo.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

It's just that you are so boring sometimes. Always trying to be serious and all.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Your debating serious issues, if you want to talk shit why dont you go create a debate with some of these titles:•Who make better companions - cats or dogs?•Is summer the best season of the year?•Is Rock 'n' Roll the best kind of music?•Vampires vs werewolves?•Hamburger vs cheeseburger?•Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler?•Funny movies vs scary movies?•Guys with Tight pants or pink T-shirts.•Pirates vs Ninjas•Tandoori chicken vs plain chicken•Do vampires get AIDS from sucking infected blood?•Edward Cullen or Jacob Black•Why I always come late to class as opposed to why i am never late to class.•Should dating techniques be taught in schools?•Are there any advantages of wearing braces?•Is the Barbie doll an icon?•What if there was no Harry Potter?•Long pants or Short pants?•Are Ghosts real?•Should girls be allowed to wrestle?•Should crushes be taken seriously?•Are UFOs a hoax?The you talk about whatever you want, your sweaty balls, how ignorant you all are, how fun it is to label all arabs terrorist etc. etc.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I participated in the pirates VS ninjas.I already did a debate on vampires vs werewolves.But some of those are good ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

You didn't answer any of my questions. ; )
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?No, aslong as fags exist, we will never defeat terrorism. I recommend killing all fags.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I have to say no. Not because of any flaw in non-violence (plenty of economic, social and political strategies can be used to disrupt terrorist activities without firing a shot), but rather because I don't think terrorism can BE destroyed. There will most likely always be violence, hate, "us vs. them" mentalities, etc. All we can do is try to mitigate it as best we can, which is probably best accomplished through a combination of violence and non-violence.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Heck no. You think that a terrorist would just surrender over a freakin sob story. wth
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Sure!If by defeating it you really mean surrendering to it, making those who practice it the rulers, thus ending it.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

There is no possible way to take down a force as violent as terrorism without having violence be the answer.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

No, becasue if we use non violence, terrorits will put violence on us!
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

No. We need to kick the terrorists' asses .
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

They want to kill us and you want to try to shake there hand and make them salad.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

If they are willing to kill themselves to kill and bring pain to people, I think doing nothing will not help.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Hell no we must continue the fight against terrorism no matter how many men die in order too win
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

No, terrorists will never stop their attacks upon other countries.They may say that USA and the UK are killing Muslims.Yes, they are killing Muslims, however the USA and the UK are killing Muslims(under a dictatorship such as Saddam Husein) who are killing other Muslims!So therefore terrorists can not attack other countries.Not only are they attacking the west, they are also attacking Muslim countries in the east! In fact, their real aim is to spread Islamic extremism, which results in many deaths.They are so determined, they kill others, even if it cost them their own lives!So therefore it can only be destroyed to destroy terrorist groups completely.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Does anyone remember that the MLK peace movements ultimately ended in violence?
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Terrorists only listen to the sound of gunfire. That's the only language they understand.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Yeah, and I can use pie to time travel and cure ebola! That was sarcasm, you can't stop terrorism without violence.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Non-violence cannot defeat terrorism but then nothing can 'defeat' terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic an under certain conditions it becomes a seemingly logical tactic for it's proponents. Looking at all terrorists rather than narrowing in on the Islamic Extremists shows this. Terrorists exist in many places because terrorism is one of the last resorts in a conflict. If your enemy has nukes, bombers, drones, helicopters, missiles, aircraft carriers, satellite imaging, tanks and special forces while you have an AK-47 and an online bomb recipe terrorism seems a lot more appealing than conventional warfare.The goal of terrorism is to cause sufficient fear in the general public to force a government to take or not take certain actions. Non-violence would not succeed in preventing terrorism but neither would violence. At this point in time terrorism cannot be defeated and as weaponry becomes more powerful and requires less personal risk it is likely to become a more serious threat. Anyone can buy a drone now, it's only a matter of time before someone starts using drone bombs or manages to use some of the more dangerous weapons that the US sells to unstable dictators like Saddam Hussein or terrorists like Osama bin Laden (or before they arm someone like ISIS enough for it to be a more serious threat).
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Terrorists create terror to get a point across. You would probably have to go through countless meetings just to get them to release those hostages they’ve taken. Terrorists won’t stop until they get thier point across.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

No, terrorists aren't exactly going to sit down and think "oh, that person doesn't want to hurt anyone, I'll purposely avoid them when I'm choosing what I want to destroy!" They don't care how good you are to them - they have their own beliefs, they don't pick and choose who to kill, they just want to kill. For example, if you look at ISIS, they want the whole world to be a part of their empire. It wouldn't matter whether everyone else said "we don't want to fight". They're still going to try and take over the world. I won't deny that some terrorists are only terrorists because of violence - but if we weren't to use violence, the smaller amount of terrorists would still be able to kill more people because we wouldn't be defending ourselves.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

They're still going to try and take over the world.Like Pinky and the Brain ;)but if we weren't to use violence, the smaller amount of terrorists would still be able to kill more people because we wouldn't be defending ourselves.In theory we could defend ourselves with out violence by increasing security like TSA at the airport ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Yes but then what do you do if you find someone with a gun, or a bomb? Politely ask them to be nice? Chances are, that won't work and they'd just kill you
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Kill them all! Let God sort them out. That's his job ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?As long as there are homos there will be terrorism.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

How very unchristian of you. It is no the gay people's fault that terrorism happens, you bigot.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Really, tell me the link between gays and terrorism. Try it.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency. This comes from the competitive nature of Capitalism. The government has no one to compete with. In fact, the government wants less consumers (as we see with how it treats the issue of immigration). While privatization isn't perfect, it sure as hell beats leaving the government to do all the work. What should be privatized? Well, most likely things not granted to government through the constitution (a well regulated militia... but we can still create mercenaries and private security firms).As for entitlements that liberals constantly like to bitch about, merely create a voucher program. Instead of spending billions of dollars on countless infrastructures, use less than half of that money to cover the same things through a voucher program. Users of the vouchers will be able to choose which program works for them (given that the private sector is in control of those programs, such as education and healthcare). This would create competition within those realms (unlike subsidization, which only takes away incentive to compete).I understand that my views are extreme... but in Capitalism vs. Socialism, I choose the extreme that doesn't give power to an unstoppable corporation (government).
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency. I'm sorry, but that statement is patently ridiculous.Please work through how we get the US interstate system without the public sector doing it.Or how we get a space program.Or how we get a military you'd actually want to have protecting the nation.I see you mentioned "vouchers"... do tell how we use "vouchers" to build the interstate system or the space program or the military and what the end result would be. Please. I'm all ears.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

The public sector hired contractors, who are from the private sector, to build railways and the interstate system.Now, I actually disagree with the public sector contracting private entities since it causes an unfair advantage towards some businesses over others. This is how monopolies are formed in the first place.Now, I really don't see how any of what you said defined how "private sector is not as good as public sector". The military and space program? If you are referring to how the private sector could have the same results with mercenaries and privatized space exploration with far less money and resources used... i don't see how that helps your argument.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

The public sector hired contractors, who are from the private sector, to build railways and the interstate system.And? Was there a point to that statement that you forgot to finish making? Something about how if the public sector hadn't been there to do that then the private sector would have still produced the interstate system seeing as you said the private sector can do all the jobs of the public sector and do it better and more efficiently? You might want to start with what private sector entity is going to decide building the interstate system would be a profitable project to pursue, and what possible reasoning they would use to arrive at that conclusion.If you are referring to how the private sector could have the same results with mercenaries and privatized space exploration with far less money and resources usedI'm really, really not seeing as there is no chance that would happen. But by all means, show otherwise by explaining how it would in just one of these circumstance. How would turning things 100% private sector in any of these circumstances have produced a superior outcome?
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

I was pointing out that the interstate system was built by the private sector and paid for by the public sector. So THEY were the ones who built it... in fact, most items used by the military and Nasa are built by the private sector.Would it be profitable... that's up for them to decide. If society needs it, there is profit behind it. If society does not need it, there is no profit. We pay tolls, correct? Why would it be any different if the private sector had built it instead? Even with sunpass we see how the private sector leans more and more into the interstate system.But in the end, you're merely saying that because government was the ones that hired these contractors, this somehow proves that public sector does it better... no, it only shows that the public sector is useless without the private sector. The same could not be said the other way around.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

You see, you already helped my argument by pointing out the corporations that need an interstate to be built.Here's how it would work, in a nutshell:1. It is established by many businesses that they need to transport many goods for the customers.2. They decide that the costs will be covered by raising the prices of some goods or charging service fees to customers who require certain items.3. The interstate will be open to the public and would still charge tolls, which would generate even more profit.Now, even if everything I said would never happen, your argument that the private industry would NEVER have built roads is kind of... speculative. The fact remains that the interstate system is already built. If YOU wish to destroy them all and set the system to a completely privatized system, be my guess. That's just going to take a while, though.But what I find most important to point out is that I said that the private sector does things more efficiently and less costly, and you brought up the interstate system as an example as to why the public sector is better EVEN THOUGH the private sector is what built it. The Public sector hired contractors... who are a part of the private sector.And this is what I find most important. That in the end, even using your example of the public sector's involvement in making the interstate system, they would have done nothing without the private sector. As stated in an earlier post, the public sector needs the private sector in order to get their needs finished, this can not be said for the other way around.
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

If you think I helped your argument you're not trying very hard to think this through. Yes, corporations need the interstate to be built... but it is a COLLECTIVE system. There is ONE national transportation network and EVERYONE uses it. So which specific corporation should take on all the costs of construction and how do you think they're going to make a profit doing it? Instead of just throwing around vague "they'll pay for it by passing on the costs somehow" statements how about trying some actual math and real analysis?Just building the stretch of I-70 between Denver and Utah would cost, in present day dollars, at a VERY conservative estimate.. 12 billion dollars.That. One. Section.How long do you think it would take to make 12 billion dollars in additional profit above and beyond what any corporation normally would have been making before they built this road... as a result of their ownership of that single stretch of road? And if you think that company is going to just somehow pass that cost along to their customers in the form of higher prices, how do you suppose they're going to compete with any other companies who didn't take on 12 billion dollars in road construction costs and can thus easily undercut their prices?While they are trying to earn that 12 BILLION dollars, what do you supposed the maintenance costs are going to be that they are ALSO going to have to earn just to break even? how long do you suppose THAT would take? Please, break out some ballpark figures that any corporation would look at to come to the conclusion that it was even marginally sane to take on such a project and show me you're actually thought about this. And accusing me of being "kind of speculative" while you go on and on about how the private sector would do all the jobs of government better when they.. .ummm... never have, ever... is a little silly don't you think?
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Capitalism

As stated, it doesn't have to be one corporation.And you're still speaking as if the interstate system doesn't already exist.And you never explained why you disputed my very first post in the first place (because clearly the private sector is what built the interstate system in the first place).sigh
Debate: Capitalism or Socialism
Side: Socialism

Then tell me which team of corporations would do it and why in the world they would. The math doesn't change. And yes, you're damn right I'm speaking as if it didn;t exist because if we took your approach that the private sector should do everything because it's better at it than the public sector then IT WOULDN'T. That's the whole damn point!!!!And no, the private sector did NOT build the damn interstate system. The government built it. They paid the workers, they made the plans, they directed the work. The private sector just provided the labor TO the public sector project. A project that wouldn't have ever existed if we used your approach to running a nation.