azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

Well, i do not agree with you.Firstly, you talked about the 'hot topic' which is a picture of a maid carrying an NS man's backpack and you said that he is immature. I disagree as you might not know if the guy is injured or sick? The person who took the photo might misunderstand the NS man and when he uploaded the picture on stomp, more and more people will misunderstand the NS man.Secondly, you said that some NS men died while they are serving NS due to heat stroke and some during their fitness activities. Though this might be true, but do most of the opposite gender (in this case female) can take these strenuous trainings? At the same time, before a guy serve NS, he have to go for a medical check-up and if he is unfit for those physical activities, he will be sent to other departments and serve his NS there.Thirdly, if there is a sudden war between Singapore and other countries, the SAF should be well prepared to defend and fight for our country. If there isn't anybody to fight for our country, the percentage of winning would be absolute zero but if there were people from the NS and SAF to fight for Singapore, there would still at least be some percentage of wining am I right?Lastly,it is not unfair for guys to 'waste' 2 years just to serve NS as if they were not the ones to be ready to defend for our country, who will?
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

I disagree with the points you had said about NS should not be mandatory for all male Singaporeans. Firstly, it is true that boys mature over time, just as girls do and its not NS who had mature the boys. My question is, did NS just want to mature the boys through the NS? Or did NS want other purposes that are more useful ?Secondly, I understand that there is a hot topic of a photograph of an NS man having his army backpack being carried by a maid. Normal inference will be that he is weak, immature, and others. But what if people think. Think clearer, the NS man might be having a injury on his back or any part of his body that required a maid to help him. Thirdly, it might be true that there are several men died during their service. It might be true that it is due to heat stroke or any other reasons, but there is also a possibility that they are sick at the first place. Some men might even felt proud dying for the nation. You never know what they are thinking.Lastly, its the fact that Singapore is small. An atomic bomb can easily kill all of us and you will be thinking of, why serve the nation so hard ? But, when Singapore does not have any army, guard or anything, its even easier for other countries to invade Singapore. There is a saying ' Prevention is better then cure'. Not forgetting, Males definitely lose out to females as they hard a earlier start of society of two years. However, in Singapore, its the experience that counts. It does not mean that males are less capable then females due to the NS. In fact, some are even stronger.To conclude, NS should be mandatory for all male Singaporeans
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: No, it should not be mandatory

I totally agree with Tammy , because i don't think many would seriously step out to defend their country in times of war as many Singaporeans do not have patriotism and a sense of pride of their own country . Many Singaporeans would want to migrate to other countries to start their lives there. In this case will Singaporeans really stand together to defend their country? i don't think so , i think many of them would migrate to other countries in times of war leaving a few men to fight. Singaporeans do not also have strong endurance to pain and strenuous exercises as we have lived life luxuriously, we are pampered and we have not faced such intense training before. Should NS be only mandatory for Singaporeans? i don't think so! I think it should also be mandatory for all permanent citizens also. They too stay , live , study and work the same with Singaporeans.Thus they too should at least contribute to the country by engaging in NS. Many permanent male citizens try to avoid or escape NS by not applying for Singaporean citizenship.The permanent citizens leave once studying and back to their own countries to study further. That is very unfair for us Singaporeans. i think if NS should be mandatory it should also be mandatory to permanent citizens too.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: No, it should not be mandatory

I definetely agree with you, Tammy and Vino (Seriously, great minds think alike). Anyway, i think that singaporeans are so used to the luxurious life that we would not stay back to defend the country even in times of war. As a fellow singaporean, i feel that my life is more important than my country as i am seriously considering to migrate later on in life. As Tammy said, with the advancements in technology, manpower would never be able to protect a "little red dot" from the revolutionaries of science and technology. With a single impact from any advanced technologies(E.g Nuclear bombs etc.) the entire singapore would be whiped out in the blink of an eye no matter how disciplined, determined, and whatever qualities the military of singapore have. I feel that instead of wasting their time training humans, the military should be inventing more devices that is capable of protecting singapore from technology. In conclusion, my stand is that only technology can beat technology, not manpower.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

Nigel, Tammy and Vino, Think about the scale of atomic bombs. Could any country defend itself from such a monstrous thing? When Japan was hit with the bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it devasted the country. Leading up to the bombs, Japan was one of the strongest military forces in the world. What do you think about the argument that says WW3 will be the last war, because it will a nuclea and nobody will get out alive, regardless of their size?
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

The part about great minds thinking alike seems to be a one-sided opinion to me, as well as many others. So, can I assume that you are trying to say that there is no point in defending the country? Technology has advanced greatly in the 21st century, but it has not yet advanced enough to take the place of humans. We will still require human warfare on the front lines. Besides, who says that having a smaller army means having a certain loss? There is something known as "military tactics" that helps us to counter a bigger army. There have been many instances in history where a smaller army has conquered a larger force. For your information, Singapore keeps well relations with our neighbouring countries and if war were to break out, You mention your position as a "fellow Singaporean", but it seems to be intriguing that your next statement is that "I am seriously considering to migrate later on in life". So, basically, you feel that your life is more important than the country. Well, your position is understandable, but don't you think that you owe something to the country? If Singapore was not the way it was, you wouldn't be fed with a silver spoon, living life as a bed of roses, and much less even receive education on these issues. Shouldn't you do something to repay the country which you have lived in and was born in? In conclusion, I feel that there is a lack of patriotism within our youths and NS helps to solve these problems. It's not just about training for war, it's about gaining mental resilience and forging brotherly bonds with others. NS can be viewed from many ways, and I feel that you are taking a very pessimistic point of view. Thank you.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

I disagree with your view that National Service should not be mandatory for all male Singaporeans. Firstly, the main purpose for having NS is to train our young male Singaporeans, to make them strong and have strong will power to overcome their obstacles in the future. Also just in case of the attack of terrorist, SAF could save the day. When guys get trained, they will be fit and when they witnesses any crime taking place near them, they can help out. About the maturity part, boys can be matured through many ways not only through NS.Here is my points, thanks
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: No, it should not be mandatory

i dont think it should be mandatory because i dont like it. it takes away my time to play computer games and all that. when doing national serivce, damn annoying one. i would rather be doing english class than national service. also, it would take away relationships with my girlfriend. thats about all i can think of and i have no comments to make... thanks
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

Hady, I remember Ms Sam said to use proper English to write your debate. She also said it should be at least 150 words long, which your debate length clearly doesn’t meet. Also as a side question, you have a girlfriend? I highly recommend you comment on a argument unless you want Ms Sam to be mad on Tuesday.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: No, it should not be mandatory

Hey, that is not me. I don't know who is that but i would never ever put a jewish symbol as my profile picture. And by the way little mouse, my profile name is HadyAbdul.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

So,What you are trying to say Hady is that love,games and basically fun,are much more important than discipline,loyalty to country and even basic country-respect?I don't really understand your excuses or maybe general excuses made by people.National Service is usually seen as a torturing,tormenting house of hell but how sure can these critics be?Has anyone ever died because of National Service?No.National Service can be seen as a path to maturity and a next step to being loyal to the country.So if Singapore is under attack by,lets say a terrorist group,you,Hady,will just sit on your chair at home,busy playing games while looking at dating websites?Is that it?In addition,I would like to add that by the time you are permittable for National Service,you will not really care about your studies that much for the 2 years.Isn't that a blessing in disguise?Also,I am not trying to make a new topic like whether National Service is more important than education though.I seem to despise your attitude over National Service and furthermore,to contribute that National Service is no doubt mandatory for ALL male Singaporeans.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

Dude, don't use names in debate, or Ms Sam is going to get pissed. Studies may be important, but having all brains and no brawn is not going to help you achieve greater heights. Work attitude and discipline is something that we need to cultivate, and for those who cannot even pass up homework on time I see an urgent need for NS.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: No, it should not be mandatory

Look, the statement made above is NOT done by me. It is probably some joker who has nothing better to do than to impersonate me. If you want to argue with me, refer to the argument above.Profile name: HadyAbdulProfile picture: Nuclear bomb exploding
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

lol i thought it was really you hahah some joker go make u a jewish symbol
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

I support that National Service should NOT be mandatory for all male Singaporeans, but when you say that you prefer to play computer games and all that, I highly recommends that you better change your mindset for the better. If NS is abolished, male Singaporeans should do something that benefits himself or the country and not playing computer games!PS: Are you indirectly implying that English lessons is bad?PPS: You have a girlfriend?
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

That statement was NOT done by ME! My profile name is HadyAbdul.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

You think that it should not not mandatory just because you don't like it? I think it is time for you to change your midset. You'd rather play computer games and not protect the country? Well, let's take it in another view. What if one day your girlfriend gets taken away by someone else who is bigger and brawnier? Are you going to just leave your girlfriend there and play computer games? I doubt so. You will definitely have to train harder and become better to get her back, don't you?
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: No, it should not be mandatory

I do not agree with what you said (no offence) but for example when your girlfriend gets taken away by someone who is bigger and brawnier and you are a smaller sized. Logically there's no way you can get her back alone no matter how hard you train but if you have a team perhaps you can succede thus is not the amount of time you used to get better and stronger but is your teamwork in situation like this.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

Yeah,I agree.National Service IS all about teamwork.The time you use is both for your individual and for the team.
Debate: Should National Service be mandatory for all male singaporeans?
Side: Yes, it should be mandatory.

Life is not about playing computer games only. And please elaborate on what you mean by national service 'damn annoying one'? Also, taking away relationships with your girlfriend? What do you mean by that? Do you even have a girlfriend? According to Ms Sam we should not be using singlish in this website. Your paragraph should also be 150 words long. This is a public website and you are making this kind of comments. Please watch your behavior. Thank you very much.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: yes

Obama should be re-elected because he has been cleaning up the mess that Bush left for him in the office. He ended the war in Iraq, he is fixing problems with immigration, taxes, and the economy. A republican would mess up the country.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: Lebensgefahr

A republican would mess up the country.Why, because a Republican ruined the country in the first place? If you look back throughout history, you'll see that the whole mess began in the '30s with a Democrat. Obama's had four years and he's utterly failed, but electing another Republican you mayn't be reelecting Bush, for there are differences betwixt Bush and the sole worthy candidate.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: Yes

Why, because a Republican ruined the country in the first place? If you look back throughout history, you'll see that the whole mess began in the '30s with a Democrat.Specifics? And you're aware what the Southern Strategy was I hope.Obama's had four years and he's utterly failed, but electing another Republican you mayn't be reelecting Bush, for there are differences betwixt Bush and the sole worthy candidate.Specifics? You've seen the job growth chart, read the healthcare bill and seen we're leaving both Iraq and Afghanistan I hope.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: No

Bro, do you even "politicize", nothing is better, nothing. Obama raised taxes while extending unemployment for another 2 years! I do not see any possible way that is good for the country, also Obama is for sure unconstitutional.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: No

dude obama didnt fix the economy the economy fixes itself and the only reason it looks like he has done anything is because we didnt have any further down to go.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: Yes

I agree, bush put us in debt for the next 100 years, so we can blame him forever. You republicans are nothing more than a brotherhood of rich racists. You took us from our homeland and made billions of dollars off us and now you keep that money while we starve in the streets. You have kept us down so long we are killing each other because we have no money. It's time for you to give us your money and Obamas going to do it. You republicans are going to fall from grace and us poor Africans are going to take over this country, then you will know how it feels.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: yes

Why?Economy.Immigration.Gay Rights.Middle Class taxes.Energy Independence.Foreign Policy.Terrorism.That's about it. Feel free to attack any of 'em.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: Lebensgefahr

EconomyHe doesn't know a thing about it.ImmigrationYou're talking about him, right?Gay Rights.Doesn't fully support them.Middle Class taxes.He wants to tax them too greatly.Foreign Policy.WarWarWarWarWar!!!Terrorism.You mean the terrorism of the American people via TSA, extreme surveillance, NDAA, etc.?
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: yes

(Pardon spelling errors)How does Obama not know a thing about the economy? As far as i know he promotes progressive taxation, progressive taxation promotes aggregate demand which benefits everyone since this term is synonymous with economic health - see my other post about aggregate demand to know more about what i mean. Immigration - How could anyone talk about Obama with respect to immigration as though he is an immigrant if he didnt immigrate to this country? Are you really that unaware of the fact that he was born in Hawaii? Do you really think that he would be able to become all the things he has become if he had forged the documents that prove his origins? I feel like the scrutiny would be really extreme prior to his taking office. The notion that he is from another country is at least slightly racist because it is a reflection of his non-anglo-american name and ethnicity which are irrelivant to that fact that he was born in the US. On gay rights - maybe he doesnt fully support them, but he supports them way more than just about any other option. who is more in support of them than he? on Middle class taxes - taxes must reflect government spending, insofar as there are bariers to the greater taxation for the wealthy, he is necessarily forced to tax the middle class more if he is to be fiscally responsible. I doubt that he is truly in favor of increasing taxes generally and specifically not in favor of taxing the middle class. but what other option does he have that doesnt increase the national debt? On Foreign policy - are you arguing that he is pro war? Obama is trying to get us out of the wars we got into under bush II. Given the political (national and global) complexities of our modern world, you cant just withdraw at any arbitrary point once you have engaged in war. Also, as a nation we have a responsibility to ourselves (even though people would argue beyond this point) to prevent nuclear proliferation and instability in regions that supply us with natural resources as well as the threats to them - it is not only in our economic interest, but our national security interest as well. I am not pro war, but i also recognize that the complexities of geopolitical strategy suggests the irrationality of isolationist and immediate-withdrawl policies. Terrorism - I dont have much to say about TSA and NDAA. as far as i know, these are the way they are because of Bush II. Insofar as Obama is concerned politically, it might be a bad idea to undermine strong counter terrorist innitiatives. Political dance is more than just going with what you want, you have to navigate the will of the masses to promote the best ideas. Obama cant commit political suicide by appealing to the sensabilities of the people when doing so might cause others to question his stance on national security and defense.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: No

(o/t, but why can't I declare a side?)(Pardon spelling errors)If you are either undereducated or a non-anglophone, you are forgiving.he promotes progressive taxationi.e. Theft. Are you really that unaware of the fact that he was born in Hawaii?It was a bad joke.The notion that he is from another country is at least slightly racistNigh everything is perceived as racism in these über-sensitive days.who is more in support of them than he?Ron Paul.taxes must reflect government spendingNo, the reverse is true. If the government decides stupidly to waste a billion dollars they should have that billion dollars in the first place, rather than to count on future taxation to provide them with the necessary funds. Ergo, government spending must reflect taxes (which ought never be high, or else they'll have a nearly infinite amount of money with which to traverse the world in search of demagogues to kill).are you arguing that he is pro warAbsolutely. He's getting us involved unnecessarily in Libya, Uganda, South Sudan, etc., etc.Obama is trying to get us out of the wars we got into under bush II.All the while getting us into new ones.as far as i know, these are the way they are because of Bush II.Which is why I hate Bush, but they've been exacerbated by Obama.Insofar as Obama is concerned politically, it might be a bad idea to undermine strong counter terrorist innitiatives.So you are saying that he is saving his own ass, politically speaking, rather than doing what is right. Do you really want a leader like that?
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: Yes

Progressive taxation is not theft, if you think of it in terms of % of GDP and also in terms of maximal aggregate demand, as well as understanding that wealth accumulation is made possible by the whole system operating collectively -> the wealthy pay far less than they ought to, don’t contribute to economic prosperity as much as the middle class does, and all the while are able to enjoy a much higher standard and quality of living. Progressive taxation is necessary for justice and equity, not to mention that it reduces crime by ameliorating the stratification of wealth. Ameliorating the stratification of wealth reduces desperation and thus crime. "uber-sensitive" - using this phrase as a criticism of something that conflicts with your idea of propriety doesn’t invalidate the truth that what you said is racist. You appear to be engaging in cognitive dissonance. You should learn more about modern racism because what you said was well within the scope of this definitionGovernment spending cant reflect taxes insofar as we demand something to be provided for by our government Civilian Need + Demand -> Govt. Spending = Cost which is paid for by taxesI agree that it should not be in excess, that it should be as small as is prudent.I don’t know too much about the likelihood of those military conflicts, so you could be right about that. I don’t want a purely utilitarian president, but I also don’t want a dumb president that will do something out of idealism which may have a bigger costs in terms of the overall consequences.
Debate: Should Obama be Re-Elected?
Side: Yes

Money and wealth also have a decreasing marginal utility, so taking more in taxes from the wealthy is actually taking away less utility from the people, and giving the government more.