azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

What someone does outside of their job affects how well they can do their job. Drugs affect various parts of the body which are used to do what the job requires.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

True, but not all drugs do, like if someone is using meth or heroin well then of course, but if someone is drinking or smoking weed on the weekend or even using some lsd or shrooms here and there it will not effect their job.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

A little here and there can soon turn into an addiction and depending on the person may even start affecting the body early on. With drinking and smoking I can agree that it shouldn't be considered in hiring because it takes many years for the effects to be serious. But LSDs and Shrooms last from 4-7 hours and can definitely affect their job. If someone is taking drugs it becomes an unnecessary risk for employers.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

Exactly, shrooms and LSD last 4-12 hours, im not saying "show up for work tripping balls" I'm saying that if you take some a day or two before you go back to work its fine, btw, LSD and shrooms are non-addictive. But anyway, if your high (being drunk is a kind of high also) or tripping outside of work it doesn't matter.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

Many jobs last outside of the workplace and getting high for 4-12 hours once you get home will affect what you can do."LSD and shrooms are non-addictive"That I didn't know :), but even if it was not addictive people will still use it irresponsibly. For example I'm not addicted to my computer but i still use it irresponsibly to get out of doing my work.With regard to alcohol, many people drink but not everybody gets drunk everyday. Alcohol takes many years to create any of the severe problems such as cirrhosis and if the person is extremely careless about alcohol then it is reasonable to take that in consideration.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

People can be careless with anything really so I don't see drugs as a problem for work, people will always be irrisponsible, whether they use drugs or not.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

When you're careless with drugs there is a much more serious problem. And secondly shrooms and LSDs are illegal.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

As for the illegal side, legality is not an issue when it comes to the job, I mean yes I guess they are "criminals" but it doesn't hurt anyone and would not effect their job . As for being careless with drugs, again, you can be careless with anything and I'm a little annoyed with this way of thinking that if you ever use any drug, doesn't matter if its booze, weed, phsycadelics, persriptions or hard drugs that you wil no matter what use the carelessly... because you won't!
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

"legality is not an issue when it comes to the job"If they are arrested that would affect their job possession of lsd has a 1-3 year sentence. And when you're imprisoned you can't necessarily work. With the being careless part: Firstly no matter how bad this sounds a person using a drug (Clear line between medicinal drugs and drugs used to get high) is being irresponsible, they are wasting money, risking going to prison and risking their health. Its like saying "I'm taking cyanide responsibly."These drug tests can also help to identify the people that are using illegal drugs. This can better a community and also help the user to hopefully stop before its too late. With less drug addicts on the street the demand goes down and the sellers will hypothetically go out of business. There is no reason why a Pre-employment drug test would have have any adverse results.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

I meant legality doesnt effect the job in the sense that just because its illegal doesn't mean its terrible. Now not all drug users are irresponsible, there is thing called moderation. As for "its like taking cyanide responsibly" well let me remind you that there is a large difference between weed, alcohol, psycadelics and cyanide. The prison part is true, but the money and health part is not. Not all "drugs" are bad for your health (alot of medical drugs are though ironically) just some like MDMA, meth, heroine, crack, stuck like that. Its not a waste of money, its a form of recreation, its like going to the movies were you pay a fee, get an experience and then its over. As for helping the user "stop before its to late" you can't just act like all drug users are exactly like heroine and meth addicts, there is a large diffference between them and phsycadelics and pot users. As for the drug dealers going out of business, there will ALWAYS be a demand, no matter how many people you throw in jail, there will always be more suppliers and more people who want to use them. What sounds better for the community, people being able to use substances to enjoy themselves and they act responsibly, or making it hard for users to get jobs and throwing people in prison over it?
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

Again, if the employee is caught taking any illegal drug they will be arrested. If they are arrested they cannot work if they cannot work they will have to be fired. Now the employer has to advertise the position again and has lost the candidates who would have been a better choice.Even in moderation using something that is harming your body is irresponsible. You cant argue that drugs have no side effects.The "it's like taking cyanide" is a hyperbole. Next you said "not all drugs are bad for you." Drugs are illegal for a reason. The courts don't make drugs illegal because they're mean, they do it because it is necessary. I'm assuming that you mean psychedelics when you say that. But just because they are the safest of the all drugs out there doesn't mean that they are safe. This is why it was made illegal :"However, drug studies have confirmed that the powerful hallucinogenic effects of this drug can produce profound adverse reactions, such as acute panic reactions, psychotic crises, and "flashbacks", especially in users ill-equipped to deal with such trauma." Medicinal drugs can be described as "necessary evils" they also have side effects but are usually a lot less harmful than what they cure. That is why we have the FDA to reduce the risk from medicinal drugs.It is a waste of money because drugs can be very expensive and they may give you a few hours of superficial "happiness" but unlike in a movie the fee is also physical and psychological. Many euphoric drugs make users feel depressed about the real world and they take them more and more often to feel better. (You cannot just rule out harmful drugs as they are still used and will be tested for)The "stop before it's too late" you can't rule out heroin and meth addicts as they are users as well. With psychedelics you can still dissuade someone from using them. "large diffference between them and phsycadelics and pot users" I can't believe that you refute the side effects of pot but that is for another debate ;)I know that whatever you do there will still be users and dealers but the key point is that there will be a reduction.It does affect the community. If there are less users then less people will get introduced to these drugs and more people will live a life without being burdened by drugs. (By this I mean less people will be introduced to harmful drugs if you still don't accept that even psychedelics are harmful)The answer to your last question is the second option. Sending criminals to prison for willingly breaking the law is GOOD. Letting people use harmful substances by believing in "Human goodness" doesn't work in the real world. Most people are not going to be responsible (again if that is even possible) and therefore it is is an unnecessary risk (it's probably not a risk but more of an inevitable danger)Finally if there is no good reason against it and if you agree that it will stop people from risking prison then why not do it?
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

I'll reply to the rest of this later, but for "Drugs are illegal for a reason" then main reasons they are illegal is because of lobbying, propaganda and it being branded as part of social normality. I didn't mean psycadelics are the safest, I meant weed is the safest and the only substance that cause flash backs is LSD and that is because when it is made correctly it doesn't cause flash backs, but when it became illegal the makers too a cheaper and easier way to make it which is what causes flash backs. But besides LSD, mushrooms and ayaoska have no long term effects.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

Now we are going off topic, we are debating whether drugs are okay or not.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

Thats the point though, if most substances labelled as drugs aren't all terribly bad for you, why should you be drug tested for them?
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

Why shouldn't you? What wrong is there in checking whether you are using an illegal substance. Its just like checking a criminal record.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

'Drug testing' implies all drugs would be tested, not just illegal drugs.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

So, if you don't have have anything to hide what would be the problem? The records would be confidential and it has greatly cut down on the use of drugs in many places. The use of drug testing in the military had the following results: "illicit drug use in the military dropped from 30% to 5%."
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

Drug testing only tests for the presence of active components of the drug in the body, there are too many variables. Me, well, I'd fail a drug test; depends on the week, but I could fail several parts of the expanded drug test, but that doesn't really mean anything. I may spend some of my own free time stoned, or tripping, stuff like that, but that doesn't mean I am incapable of performing a task extremely well. Psychedelics have never hurt my education; if anything, they've potentiated it.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

When testing for marijuana they are not even testing if you are high, which I find to be the biggest issue with employment drug testing.They're checking to see if you engage in marijuana on your spare time, which should not be of concern for employers. Employers should really only worry about people who are showing up to work fucked up, and that would be obvious in their performance.Drug testing is one of the most useless and expensive things that some employers have gotten into.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

Actually, if you have any trace of it in your system they can arrest you for being "driving under the influence" for having the minimal amount of THC detectable in your system, people have been arrested for "driving under the influence" because they smoked a joint last week.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

Pre employment and random drug testing should be completely banned in the US.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

Hair follicle test in which some employers use can detect drugs for at least 90 days. http://www.ehow.com/about_5434595_hair-follicle-drug-testing.html
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: For it

Depends on the drug. LSD can only be detected for a few days after use, ganja a few months.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

Again I would argue that this practice is the same as a warrantless search, entrapment and a violation of peoples civil rights. While the courts have ruled for drug testing in the past they have lost scope of our even most basic rights in the US. If you want to work you must take and pass a drug test or the employer will not hire you, or the employer will fire you if you test positive. For an employer to tell me I will not hire you unless you take a drug test, or I will fire you if you do not submit to a random drug test is the same as the employer and my own government holding an assault rifle to my head and making demands against my own liberty, life and pursuit of happiness that simply should not be required as a condition of employment. In the State of Texas, no drug test labs are regulated by the State, thus due process is denied. There is not a formal grievance process, therefore due process is denied. There is no formal complaint process, thus due process is denied. Even if people are using drugs outside of the workplace then any employer choosing to place employees or potential employees under duress by implementing a drug test policy in the workplace should be subject to Civil and Criminal penalties. Once they are challenged and loose in court on enough occasions, it will permanently resolve the problem of pre employment and random drug testing in the workplace.
Debate: Pre-employment Drug Testing
Side: Against it

I think it is an invasion of privacy and I don't think the money should be allocated for such a program.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

Government restrictions kill business. Look at California they are practically Communist at this point (exaggeration for the sake of making a point) they have very burdensome laws regulating business. Because of this companies are fleeing California in droves, their economy is tanking (faster then it was already) and as a result California alone is responsible for the majority of the nations debt and unemployment.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

California is nowhere near Communist. You have literally no clue what you're talking about.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

I think that's why he said 'exagerration'. Also I'm not so sure if you're using literally correctly or not.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

exagerration isn't a word and the exaggeration is nowhere near accurate or relevant.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

Oh no, a random typo appeared! Go, Grammar! I'm well aware exagerration isn't a word. Everyone's mortal.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

See parentheses (exaggeration for the sake of making a point) I'm remarking upon the state's strict control over the private sector and over saturation of welfare and food stamps recipients.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

I think they should limit monopolies but they really have no say in how most businesses, well, conduct business so long as it doesn't impede on our rights as citizens.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

Preventing monopolies is having a say in business.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

I'm aware, kiddo. Not everything is an absolute choice. Because I feel government shouldn't interfere for the most part, that's why I'm on this side.But please, educate me more.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

You haven't been abused by a power-hungry boss, nor have you ever lived in a world without a minimum wage.If you went to a place where your right-wing policies are in place, you'd see how much abuse and corruption it's open to.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

There are companies who sell shit at a loss for a temporary amount of time just to drive a newly forming business to the ground and then return to their former price.There are also groups of corporations that push a company out of business by agreeing on a universal discount between them.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

This right-wing bullcrap is the reason that there is poverty on Earth. ever noticed how all the countries with poverty are right-wing to the bone, or left-wing to the bone?Extremist wingers are both retards.#centrist4life
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

The topic says nothing about political partisanship. I don't really know where you're getting this right/left wing conspiracy stuff but eh.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

This is right-wing. Stop posting bullshit when you haven't studied what the wings stand for.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

I'm non-partisan. I don't believe parties have any place in politics, whether it's left wing, right wing, or centrist.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

The right-wing and left-wing aren't parties. Wings relate to theories of government's influence on business and the economy.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

I'm fully aware. But most parties are one or the other, and most kids your age don't really know the difference anyway.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

Firstly I am not sure how you would know my age but regardless of this I do know the difference and this debate is a right-wing debate.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

That is your picture, isn't it? Looks fairly young to me .
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

Firstly, I look young for my age.Secondly, I don't think this has anything to do with the debate.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Agree

You asked .
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

The government should have "some" say in business, in order to keep products safe for the populace.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

if the govtr stops buissness you wont have anything to buy ...no shoes, no books, no clothes ,no computers.
Debate: The government should have no say in business.
Side: Disagree

The Government needs to have regulations on businesses to prevent monopolies and corporate greed. The Government also needs to get involved in order to end discrimination.
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

i have many reasons that lotteries are bad for people. one, they can be very addicting and can cause people to spend all their money on it. second, people can get thoughts of suicide if they don't win. lastly, 1/5 of your winnings go to the government for other uses.
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

hello peeps and i am a boss. now, i know u may think ur cool, but youre ont if u play the lotteries alot. i have a friend named rob and he is addicted to lotteries. and do u want to know how he ended up? he lost his wife and family, and his rent is overdue. that is what u get if u play the lottery to much
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

loteries can mess up your life. you spend money every singal week and it starts to add up. let's say it costs $5 dollers a ticket. every year you would spend $260. that's a waste of money. Even when you win, the goverment takes some of the money. People who win the lottery tend to be robbed, taxes raised like crazy. all of this will mess up your life.
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

asdfkljasdlfjasl;fjaskl;jsadfjkasj lajkf askldf asdkl klasdj ksdljf sdklj sdklzj sdkla klsdf klasd asdfk
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

assja skl a fskla kaslklsda sdkl skld sasakflsadfjasfldsdfkl lfjaskl;jsalj sklaj saklj skl sdkl
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: yes

yes ,because it makes people lazy, callous. It makes them belive in easy way of earning big with less efforts. so it tends to slow down their efficiency. It changes their mind in working hard .This is why it adversly effect new generation basically over youngster if some body spend 5 dollers one time and win 5 times to that in the first chance so it lures him to play again and agin .it is not less than a addiction like drug . it is not wrong to say that it help state in way of collecting taxes or increasing states wealth but on the other hand it makes their people less slugish
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

yes it could ruin people's lives and it could make them suicide
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

Just keep this in mind.Lottery=GamblingThere is a very little chance of getting the prize. These people will ahve a DREAM and be in like a fantasy world for themselves and think that they can get the prize. But this will lead to addiction!
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

i also believe that lotteries shiuld be banned because many people are just waisting their money and playing a game that theuy have a one in a million chance of winning
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

45sgdfseq223135523515 k kk ;jgkls;gj kljgjklsgjkasdjklkgh v bnh bhj jh um yumn tynvbygvb
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

1i eat gummy bears2i am a boss3 cool beans4 adjklf asdjl skajl kalsd slj alskj ljf jlaksj lsakj ksl skldj kls skla sdkl lsda skla klasd kdlsa kasl jkasl kslaf lsa `1kj 3kl4jkl12 jk123 jlk12 412kl;3 41l4jk 1kl3 22lk4fd
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

deabte class is amazing. ajklffjasljdsaljk sdfjsdlasklj jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjj j j j j jbn j jjjjj j jj
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: YES

i think state lotteries are boring.bye. hj fksa kfsk fsa fjd jask dskdsa dfsa dsja kfdfdj kfjsad salfjlsd dsfklj kfldjs slado; salj fdsk;sklflsdsal dsalsd jldsl flsajk dlsaj sla;kdls;a fsl;a ksla flsaj
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: yes

yes it should be because it makes people end up on the street
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: NO

like how exactly? May I know the answer? Because they get addicted or what exactly? Why and how would they end up on streets! Clarification please.
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: No

Playing the lottery is a free choice and is by no means confined to the poorest. The issue of regression relates more strongly to what the revenues from a lottery are spent on rather than on the principle of a lottery. In many countries the general taxation system is far from progressive in any case, with an increasing share of government revenue coming from indirect taxes such as fuel duties and sales taxes, rather than from income or property taxes.
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: No

A lottery is significantly different, and thus much less harmfully addictive, compared to other forms of gambling. The chance of winning is minuscule.
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: NO

But on the other hand...These people have hope! Hope! HOPE!Plus, how about the individual freedom? They have the right to enjoy their hobby. Buying lottery tickets may be a hobby and something real fun for some ppl. We can't just say no to this.Plus WTH? Most of the ppl who actually like lotterys aren't addicted.
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: NO

hello peeps is a boss and a person who should be known. i will now type random stuff. sadklhf ahkdjsfsksdahfshkf jaskdf ksafks fjsk j klsd lksd ldks kdfs asjf dslda; akjl adsfjsdkl djaks asdljf;as klfsjsal dj sadlkds jskdlalf l aj
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: NO

the lottery is a very useful game if u want to get some money. for example, if a poor person spends their last 2.00 i=on a ticket and won the jackpot they would be less poor. i support lottery tickets in this debate.
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: NO

no. state lotteries are bad. i cannot type anymore because of my burnt fingers. bye! asdfsd sa fdf sa as sf sa a dsad fsda dsa sfadf sasa as dsadsds a sdadsafa s saf ad dasdassa dassasfdfassa