azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

I'm not sure we even agree on what the free market is, but I will go ahead and drop this thread as "unresolved". If you want some good reading, I suggest:For a refutation of protectionist policies, a good, short, and very funny read is Bastiat's "A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting. "http://bastiat.org/en/petition.htmlEconomic philosophy:-Bastiat's "That Which is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen" http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html  or Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson."http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf ('one lesson" is an updated version of "that which is seen")-Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3300-Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State"http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.aspGeneral political philosophy:-Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia"http://www.scribd.com/doc/8291827/Anarchy-State-And-Utopia-Robert-Nozick (I disagree with some aspects of this, but his arguments are very compelling)-Rothbard's "The Ethics of Liberty" http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp (I disagree (morally) with some of the conclusions, but the logic is unassailable)Do you have any reading suggestions?
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Power and wealth accumulate without force everyday. Rich people gather money, poor people throw it away."ONLY LEGALIZED" force scares me. That idea screams of corruption. If there is only one "strong party" there is corruption. Two strong parties, less corruption. Three strong parties, even less. The more people watching from different perspectives makes other people more honest.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

I think what controls "corrupt legalized force" in the US is:- Our multiparty democracy as you said- Free media. They make money (indirectly) every time they discover corruption.- The fact the our government workers, military and police personnel come from "the middle class" means that their actions directly effect themselves, their friends and family. Their corruption hurts them as much as everyone else.That not to say it does not happen, but these things keep it in check.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Ummmm...hello? Where do you think the rule of law comes from? Your argument is not logical. Someone has to make the rules and someone has to enforce the rule of law. It's called government.Who would benefit the most without a government? Power and wealth. So you have it backwards.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Poly-centric law is a great example as to how the rule of law can still exist without government monopolistic law.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

No government means anarchy - no laws, no police, no firefighters, no National Guard, etc. You may think that no government is a good idea. If you do then you are an idiot.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Yes, Governments are usually riddled with corruption and nepotism; however, what would be do with out a government? Should we entrust gangs, mafia, and corporations to build roads, schools, and provide security? I know it is imperfect, but we need a government managed directly by the people to keep things running smoothly. Anarchy just cannot work on a largue scale unless humans are perfect.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

A society definitely needs government. Since the beginning of time, man has had some type of government. The problem with government is when there is too much, or too little. I believe in a system where there is limited government, like the founding fathers intended. A republic, not a democracy.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

In Russia is limited government "like the founding fathers intended". There is word for it. >Oligarchy<. It means that rich people rules.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Oligarchy, by Merriam-Webster: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such controlThey can be rich or poor for that matter. Our Republic is not an oligarchy. The Founding Fathers were rich, but they wanted a country that had checks and balances. Russia is not a limited government like ours. It is a federation, and a parliamentary democracy. If you think the Putin can still arrest people and accuses innocents of crimes against him legally, then you do not anything about the Founding Fathers. So stop assuming. Merry Christmas!
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

What I know that the "anti terrorist law" allows to arrest anybody in US without an actual reason...Oligarchy is what Romney wanted, reach people not paying taxes and make them rule. US would be exactly same as Russia.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

How did Romney want an Oligarchy? I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Now I believe that the rich should pay taxes, just like everyone else. But in France, they are taxed at 80% or higher! Look at how France is doing. They aren't any better. Look at California. They are increasing taxes, and people are leaving because of it. Hundreds of thousands of people have been leaving California to other states. The surrounding states have benefitted from this in the billions of dollars. Taxing works. Excessive taxing is foolish. Show me different.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

France is quite extreme but I don't see reason why rich should pay much less than others.Yes, small government means more power for rich people, no social system, no health case. Like monarchy.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

I believe of a small central government, more powerful state governments. Smaller government means more people can get involved in politics, even more than now. Localized and small is better. State governments can take care of health, education, taxes, and social works. The federal government takes care of defense, foreign affairs, import/export, and some taxes.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

you've said:"I believe of a small central government"and then "Localized and small is better"These are exactly opposite.Centralized gov does not work, it's extremely slow and ineffective. It was use during Communist era in Czech Republic. It was horrible fail.You need mufti layer system with efficient feedback.Ordinary people should not have vote on education, it's the most important area and must controlled by professionals. It cannot be defined by people's personal beliefs and feelings. Switzerland has direct democracy system which I find as the best.As ideology the best one is Communism but all it's previous and present applications are/were true fail. It's the final stage that any society could reach but it may take hundreds of years util people will be ready to live that way without turning US into North Korea 2.0 Making smaller government you do not solve any problem, you just restart the cycle.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

How are they the exact opposite? Small, central government with checks and balances, and more of a say by the people through local say. Also, we already have votes on education. School boards are elected by the locals, and the board appoints principals and other executives. Education should be run by professionals, but influenced by the parents of the students. A total control of education by one person or a small group can turn into propaganda and wrongly influence students. Switzerland's government is very good. That example supports my thoughts. The locals meet at the town center and vote on an issue. It is very local, and everyone has more of a say. I do not believe in Communism. At the basic core of it, it is a smart idea, but it is not applicable for society. The only way communism has worked is by the force of the government. Why do you think the Soviet Union fell apart and China has turned more capitalistic. The only true communist government is N. Korea, and they are hated by everyone in the world. N. Korea kills its own people, control everything, and violates their people's basic rights.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Central and local are very different things. Switzerland has local system, China has Central system.Simple central system (with checks and balances) opens doors to extreme corruption, it's easy to see trough and those people are who works there controls more less everything soon or later someone will show up with an "envelop" to speed up the decision procedure (which would be very long) and it will became a standard as it always did and does, because nobody steps against, because it's not about their money, they do not want to have problems... This is a big problem in China, even with death sentence for corruption.Large mufti layer system like US gov are very complicated to get trough, everything goes trough many people and different departments it's not the fastest, cheapest or most efficient system but is very difficult to hack in.I've heard that in some states rednecks step up against biology, they have no clue how Evolution works but they feel that it's against their personal beliefs. What if they will be demanding to teach flat Earth theory as alternative for Geography because bible says so? Or teaching exorcism on medical schools as alternative to psychiatry? Do you realize that kids who undergo that kind of education will be same idiots as their parents and it will get only worst and worst with every generation.Also I saw interesting talk where group of parents demanded "reducing the amount maths" that their kids have to learn because it's hard... if it would pass it would in long term end up as a catastrophe.The key area cannot be touched by some some random people nor people who they elect. It has to be done by professionals.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I believe that there should be government but the government should serve the public. Today, the United States Federal Government is destroying our civil liberties through unnecessary regulations such as the Patriot Act. The government can now install a GPS in your car, and track you down. I believe that a good government should do the most good for the most people. Good government must pass laws which benefit the people. A good government must set the best humanitarian example for other nations. For a government to be more humanitarian we need to drastically reduce our military budget by 50% and focus our efforts more on the Peace Corp. The United States federal government spends way too much on war, and we need to avoid conflict at all measures.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Because y'know, without goverment we would be fine. Bandits running around. People killing people. Brothers spilling blood. Yay for anarchy!
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

Maybe I'm just getting old, but sarcasm in a debate is counter productive. In many situations it's not what you say but how you say it that matters. In debates, this is not true. What you say is more important then "how" you say it.If you express your ideas with sarcasm, for example: "without government we would be fine. Bandits running around and people killing people, etc, is good."There are actually people in the world and a couple of my neighbors that feel that way. Being cute in debates doesn't make your point clear.So in this case, I am going to take you for what you said. People killing people is already happening. Most of the time, we don't like it. We don't want it to be the standard system of justice.So, I dispute you. So there.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

"Dispute" seems like the wrong term, but I really couldn't find a better reply version. I wasn't trying to be cute, I was just trying to get my point across in a better maner then the usually plain old words. Though, I'll take what you said into Consideration, and try to lower the amount of time I'm sarcastic.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

If there is no government, human nature dictates some other, more un-desirable, power will take over, such as a biker gang. This is the main reason why we have a government.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Although there are many people who could organise themslves to keep society running, the efficiency wouldn't be the same, and it would end up as a goverment anyway. Another alternative is tyranny- which can lead to abuse of power.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

Government since man needs to be coordinated and should answer to a single power to avoid chaos.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

That depends entirely on your definition of what constitutes a government, but by and large I would say this is a moot point. Government is more entrenched in collective patterns of human behavior than even religion and it is in the nature of human beings to order themselves into societies with some system of governance. If you would like a glimpse of what a society without government looks like, I direct you to the case of Somalia which has been without a functional government for some time. You will note that they have since been attempting to organize a functional system of government to replace the chaos the results from lacking one.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I favor a state. However, the only moral and legitimate function of a state is to enforce property rights and preserve liberty. Anarchists always say that a government can't possibly protect property because it must tax a citizen to do so, and taxation is inherently a violation of property rights because it takes a citizen's money without permission and may not use it for its stated purpose anyway. However, the reason why rights can't be better protected in a stateless society is simple: Rights don't exist unless others objectively recognize them. So, in a stateless society, your property rights could theoretically be violated by corrupt private DRO's and legal agencies perpetually without a monopoly on force in place. Sure, if every human was rational and sane the entire society would recognize rights as universal and we wouldn't need a state. But humans are not rational actors so we need rights to be declared objective by a monopoly on force to make sure that enforcement happens. Yeah, a state can be corrupt, but so can any private organization. There is simply no foolproof way to keep power completely in check; to believe otherwise is Utopian and frankly, really stupid. We're all human beings, not perfectly programmed machines.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

No government is anarchy. Would be much like cave men lived. Think about it, without government you either live in a gang or you are a victem of a gang. If you are in a gang, chances are that the leader owns everything of yours including your spouse. How would you like that? If you are the leader of the gang you have to sleep with one eye open. I am with government and I would suggest a new form of genuine democratic government aside from any that exist today to be more specific.
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

I don't always like every thing the government dose but the fact of the matter is government is essential to the success of society they provide for the public safety and as long as they respect individual rights and liberty ill stand by them
Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

There has to be a ruling Government or else there will be chaos.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

In a perfect world, everyone would not be selfish and would use their talents and abilities for the good of humanity, but we don't live in a perfect world nor will we ever. I think that everyone has a God-given talent that can be used to better the world. If everyone put a little effort into improving society, our life would run a lot smoother. You can also combine the two if advancing the common good doesnt sound appealing to you. Their are plenty of jobs that do just that.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

i agree. There is always a way to combine the two. By advancing the common good, no matter how you do it, you usually feel better about yourself and sometimes gain a great reputation for yourself as well, which could ultimately help you achieve personal pursuit
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

Same here; an endeavor that's a personal gain along with advancing the common good would go a very long way. Makes the whole world go round.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Personal Pursuit

You say this but what about the people with talents for crime? People with lack of talent? People who are mentally unstable? In a society like this you will get people who would just be happy too leech form the system and take advantage of it doing absolutly nothing but recieving the benefits from the hard work of other people!
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Personal Pursuit

Yeah, I'm really good at stealing. It's a talent I restrain myself from practicing, but I could steal something from you while you're looking at me. Luckily for society, I don't want anything I don't have that can be stolen :P
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

Sure, a personal pursuit will make you money but will it make your days feel fulfilled and happy or will it make them long, boring and stressed because your constantly worrying about money? I think that advancing the common good is better because their are certain kinds of feelings of satisfaction you can get from knowing that you have made a positive change in someone’s life somewhere. Differences are made one step at a time. For example, about 3 years ago I went to California. I didn’t realize how many homeless people there were until I got there. But one night me and my sister decide to go buy MC chicken’s and give one to every homeless person we saw. We didn’t have to go spend our personal money (or our dad’s money) to go buy them food but we did it out of the kindness of our hearts. It gave me a filling of satisfaction. I felt relived that at least someone who’s used to going hungry didn’t go hungry that night because of my sister and me.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

Whether you are in a venture purely for yourself or others, you still end up affecting the people around you. When asking someone why they decide to help with the common good, the response would be something along the lines of, "it feels good to help out." Ultimately, people don't help out people unless they get some sort of satisfaction out of it, be it whether they community service hours, material rewards, fame, or just having the satisfaction of knowing that you have importance. So when helping out others, you make others feel good as well as yourself.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

I think the common good is a better endeavor, because it's better to give then to receive. It's better to give other people you're hand out in help then you holding your own hand.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

I say the common good because of the type of forces that you can make as a whole group. like that person that says that by not voting they are not making a difference and when you look at the whole the population or percentage is bigger than of those who did vote. So if you want a good to be down and win you need more than yourself to win by looking for others with the same views.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

Advancing the common good is always better than personal pursuit. If every person decided to advance the common good, then every person would see the effects of it. Of course, most people chose personal pursuit because they will benefit from it.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

I do not think I use one more than the other and I feel that most people have a well balance of both the common good and personal pursuits.I feel advancing the common good is better because by helping others I help my self. One of the things I do is community work for the hospitals in my own free time. I help out my friend Disarray for free with her baby who just got out of the hospital. I am on call 24/7 for a family who has 2 kids with turrets, I seem to be the only person they trust with the kids because I know what to do and when to do it. When and if I can I try to help out the people around me as much as possible because you never know when ill need the help in return.I do personal pursuits. Daily I better my self through education and I also hang out and have fun with all my friends and have fun for me self.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

I think that advancing the common good is better than personal pursuit. The reason for this is that it is better to help others than just to think about yourself. We need to improve our community first before we think about ourselves. If everyone tried to take care of their community then there would be no dangerous places.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

I think that advancing the common good is better because its helping out the community. But personal pursuit will be better because i know that if i dont go to college after high school then i wont go at all so i would choose my personal pursuit.
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

Simply WrittenSeeking to advance the Common good allows doors to be opened and barriers to bebroken, and after a journey (or) series of considerate acts one can have an less-difficulttime Persuing a "Personal" goal or Lifestyle.The word for this debate is[sacrifice] How much would a person really "sacrifice"for his or her neighbor without beingblinded by the light beemed from selfishness??No matter where a person is in thier life....Remember, you MAY NOT know what they did(or) WHAT they gave-up to be there!
Debate: Which type of endeavor is better, a personal pursuit or advancing the common good?
Side: Advancing the Common Good

While striving to make advancements for the common good you can change the world forever. Allot of people have succeded in doing so. Our founding fathers, Thomas Edison, George Washington, Martin Luther King jr, and many more. These people made huge advances for the common good and they are honored for it.