azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

I guess we're ignoring that a muslim headdress doesn't say to worship a specific god on it, or that it is not paid for by tax dollars. That's okay, it's a pretty indefensible position.Anyway, I've again scoured the internet for articles in the Dallas area that even mentioned the words bible and student anywhere within. All I found were kids getting raped by bible study teachers.1. It's highly improbable that a minor was arrested for anything short of a felony in the US ever in the last 20 years.2. It sounds like the kind of propaganda Christians pawn off on the ignorant to enforce this victim delusion you and JesusFreak seem to suffer from.3 And finally even if the student was sent to the principal's office it sounds like what the book happened to be had 0 to do with it. Seems like they would have received the same punishment had it been any book on earth that the child refused to put away after repeatedly being asked to.Like, if I'm in school, and say I have a ball of rubber bands on my desk and the teacher says it's a distraction, and I refuse to put it away after being told several times - guess what, I'd be sent to the principal's office. Don't worry, you are not the first one that a bible study teacher lied to. People have been making up stories about that book for about 1700 years.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: YES

Presumably it was this case:http://amarillo.com/stories/2000/06/10/tex_LD0717.shtml Superintendent says no Bibles were thrown away and Liberty Counsel dropped the case.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

no islamic people are arrested for head wraps or indian people for wearing the jewel on their foreheadislamic woman take of her head dressThat's because none of those items are religious requirements....
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

"But no one makes a islamic woman take of her head dress in public"An Islamic woman is not a piece of property, much less government owned property. You honestly don't know the difference between a government building, at which no religion can be endorsed, and a private individual of faith?"christian students can be arrested for having a bible in class."Prove it. Provide one piece of evidence from a reliable source this has ever happened. I doubt it has.But, again, you can not distinguish between a government owned building, in this case a school, and people with certain cultural customs.Also, its not a matter of "being offended", it's a matter of religious symbols or objects on government owned property.Three strikes and you are out of the game. Sorry, but them's the rules. :)
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

There is no need for this in our NATIONAL pledge. If the churches want a pledge, they should get one but, the church should be kept far from the country policies. Isn't that part of why we had the revolutionary war??? ~ to get freedom of religion
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

Even if you believe that God is the driving force of this country, you can't believe that we have done a great job (Iraq, South America) of holding any truth as the Light of the World that you claim we are with your divinity. We are a nation, not all of us claim to be under God. Let it be done and let's move on.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

Iraq is a muslim country. They do not believe in the Christian God. So if i was him, i wouldn't help them either
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

... Your comment originally said South America and Iraq... Did you just change it then downvote me for pointing out S. America has more Christians than the US? Jesus wouldn't approve of such behavior.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

Nope. No he estado en línea desde la noche anterior. Acabo de cumplir mi ordenador
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

Something about elves stealing your computer last night... I think.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

It said i havn't been online sincel last night. I just turned my computer on. Yo escribir más rápido en español. ¿Por qué no todas las personas bilingües?
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

God loves America and wants us to speak English so he probably hates you as much as he hates Muslim countries
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

South America has a higher percentage of Christians than the US. Your counterpoint doesn't make sense.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

Judaism, Christianity and islam all have the same god. They have additional texts they use or don't use but they have the same god. The torah, or the old testament is used by all three.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

Yes, that is one thing i have done research and came to an understanding with. But Christianity believes in Jesus Christ, he is the one, they and myself pray to most of the time. Judaism believes in Jesus Christ but not in the same spiritual context as christianity. They do not think Christ has come a second time like the Christians do. Islam believes that Jesus Christ was a disciple of God, but their main man is Muhammad. But the country was founded on CHRISTIAN beliefs not judaism, islam, hindu, etc.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

This country was not founded on Christian beliefs. The founding fathers were deists, Christians, and agnostics/atheists. However what they were or wern't doesn't matter, this country was in-fact founded on philosophy, such as the social contract theory, not religion. If it was founded on Christianity, which was around 1700 years before this country you would think the ideas so important to america would of came up a lil sooner don't cha; like before america was even found by European kings, or before there was medieval kings even. Judaism believes christ never came the first timeChristians think christ will come a second time and that he has already once. (unless your Mormon then he came over to america after he was resurrected)Muslims think jesus is a important historical figure but not the son of god.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

Islam they don't believe in the same God Christians and Jews. They say that Jesus was a prophet and he came down from the cross and became a muslim with them and that he never rose from the grave. When God did die on the cross and rose from the grave on the 3rd day. Also its specifically said that Jesus is the Son of God not a prophet. Prophets are people like Daniel Ezekial, Isaiah and many more prophets from the Bible.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

"Islam they don't believe in the same God Christians and Jews."Actually they do." Prophets are people like Daniel Ezekial, Isaiah and many more prophets from the Bible."oh right thanks for clearing that up.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

Its the same god, and (most of) the same prophets but they believe that previous texts before the Qur'an and hadiths were corrupted so they differ on the details. Well you can be picky, generally speaking its the same god. They believe Christ lived and wanted to live subservient to god as subservience was defined for his time frame, and that thus makes him a Muslim(which is how they define the term)
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

the whole pledge itself is useless - who are you pledging to? what repercussions are there if you don't keep your pledge? why do we have people that have no idea what the pledge means saying it (including 1st graders)? does an elementary school child know their position on god? the complexities of a republic, whether saluting a flag is idolatrous? do they know that even though the teacher doesn't tell them they can remain seated, that they can, as long as they are willing to be ostracized?when it reminded people of the Nazis, they shouldn't have just changed the salute, they should have said let's not indoctrinate children."Features: Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Bookmark Craft and learning learning activities: shapes, colors, citizenship. Discuss taking care of our school. A number of United States public and/or private schools require learning The Pledge of Allegiance in early elementary, usually first grade -- these materials can be useful for introducing this topic."http://www.first-school.ws/theme/h_back_to_school.htm
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

The pledge of allegiance has done much damage to this country. It is used as a tool against everything the flag stands for and thus the only way to pledge allegiance to america is not to ever say or stand for the pledge.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

It wasn't there originally and it violates Separation of Church and State.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: YES

The United States is not a "Christian" nation in the sense that it is a theocracy. People are certainly free to express their religion as they choose. However, adopting a pledge that alienates ANY significant portion of the populace is decidedly unAmerican. Leaving "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance only serves to strengthen the incorrect idea that one cannot be a patriot without embracing Christianity. What our founding fathers intended should never be the issue. Their opinions and decisions reflected the society in which they existed. Our decisions should do the same. As our understanding grows, our ideas about what equality and freedom mean should be adjusted.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

We are suppose to be a Government run without the influence of religion. Separate religion from Government, it's the only way to have a fair society.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

I agree the government should not be run by religion. But a reference here and there about God is not in any way controlling our government. A lot of it is heritage. Early America was primarily Christian, and a significant amount of American history reflects that.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

Yes. It respects an Establishment of religion therefore it violates the First Amendment. If a valid challenge were brought before the SCOTUS, it would fail the test outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The SCOTUS has been too chicken shit to address the matter, so they don't hear the arguments based on standing grounds. The day when a challenger wants to fund the costly litigation to hire the appellate attorneys to handle this case and has standing to do so, the court will either find the words "under God" violate the Establishment clause...or they're going to create some new test to analyze these issues to keep it in.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

$$$$$ money money moneywe should save ourselves the money it takes to fight the lawsuits, the time and money it takes teachers to create lesson plans about the pledge and lead in reciting it every day, save the time and money of police officers who get called out to arrest people for not saying the pledge (usually arrested in error +, but some states do require a parents permission to not say the pledge ++)and the productivity that people like us could be capable of if we weren't having this debate+ http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2010/02/24/teacher-punished-making-student-stand-during-pledge ++ http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000074
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: YES

It is a clear violation of the separation of church and state that wasn't even added until the 50s. I feel the same way as a Christian would pledging allegiance to "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under no god".
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

It isn't going to kill them, most likely. It'll make them think that they are drowning. They will, potentially, give information which could save thousands of lives - now why would anybody want that to be illegal?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Because it's wrong to torture people. The U.S. government even signed a treaty saying that we would not torture: The Geneva Convention. We tried and convicted Japenese soldiers for doing the same to Americans...why was it wrong then and okay now?In addition, most of the people being waterboarded have not gone through any type of trial. It is very possible (if not likely) that there are people being waterboarded who are either completely innocent or have no useful information. In both these cases, the information gotten from waterboarding will almost certainly be false. Ask any law enforcement agent, and you will find out that the best way to get informatuon from a suspect is through interegation, using proven methods. There is a reason why we don't do this sort of stuff of citizens.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Other nations signed that document. It is not wrong to do it because they are potentially a great threat to America. North Vietnam has made threats to wipe America off the map; Osama bin Laden has sworn to launch another attack, etc.There is no time for a trial. Even if they are innocent, waterboarding has minimal lasting effects and is considered much more humane than other forms of torture.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

... did you even read what he said?If torture doesn't work anyway, and if it breaks our own laws, what is this magical bonus of torture? You either watch entirely too much of that 24 show, or are some kind of sadist.These detainees are not privy to some immediate code that will turn off a ticking bomb somewhere terminator, and all torture leads to is lies to make the torture stop.andsoccer, and professional interagotors are correct. Torture serves no purpose, unless it is the purpose of great PR for groups who want to destroy Western society.Because as far as that goes, that we waterboarded was a great recruiting tool for extremists.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Firstly, and as I've said to everybody else, I do not watch 24. Nor do I consider myself a sadist - I am more of a masochist.Nor do I believe that a bomb will go off minutes after he is apprehended. What I do believe is that, if there is a chance that American fatalities will occur - then why shouldn't the people behind it be tortured to - even if there is only a slight chance - discover the location or other details surrounding the, for example, bomb. I have seen no proof that torture does not work. My memory is not what it once was, but I am quite certain that I've read of the efficacy of torture. Lastly, waterboarding does no permanent damage - and to say that it serves no purpose is a logical fallacy, namely: generalization.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

What I do believe is that, if there is a chance that American fatalities will occur - then why shouldn't the people behind it be tortured to - even if there is only a slight chance - discover the location or other details surrounding the, for example, bomb.First: many of the people being tortured have not been proven guilty in any sort of court of law, so there is no way to know if they are actually the people responsible for the death of Americans.Second: Because torture is wrong. We don't use it on even the worst, most perverse criminals in the U.S. because we know it is wrong to torture, and even violates numerous international treaties.Third: Torture doesn't work! You say you want evidence? Here it is:SourceSourceSourceSourceNow I understand that you probably won't read these because that would require you to actually question your beliefs, and that in turn would require you to think (something you clearly aren't very good at), but hey, at least I tried.Finally: You completely ignored david's point about how when we torture, it makes us look worse, and this in turn leads to more people becoming terrorists.In short: our use of torture is a threat to national security.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Fuck you. I actually use my brain - something you bastards don't seem capable of. I use logic - you use emotions. Almost all of the arguments against waterboarding have been based upon either a fallacy, morals and ethics, or emotion.The claim that torture is wholly ineffective is a generalization.Torture is wrong? Says who? Nobody has given me a convincing argument as to why it is better to let hundreds, if not thousands of innocent American civilians die - rather than to torture one or two suspected terrorists.Torture makes us look worse?We'd look a hell of a lot worse with our fucking cities being blown to bits - suicide bombers running the streets.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

You cannot necessarily decide what is wrong and right. Nothing DEFINES torture as bad. It doesn't kill, so the universal struggle to thrive is not disturbed. With torture, we potentially save lives to not even take one. It may not always work, but if it's to save the lives of the innocent, we need to take our chances, instead of not doing anything.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

With torture, we potentially save lives to not even take one. It may not always work, but if it's to save the lives of the innocentThere is 0 proof torture has ever saved 1 life. In fact, there is proof it does not work and we get bad info, potentially diverting resources and costing lives. In addition, it is used as a recruiting tool among extremists "they say they are better than us, but they torture our people" etc, and get more recruits, which again costs more lives.we need to take our chances, instead of not doing anything.We don't "not do anything." We use tried and true interrogation techniques. These though, unlike torture, are actually proven to work. Further, they cannot be used as a recruiting tool. The opposite in fact, when we don't torture, extremists have more problems recruiting.I saved your first point for last.You cannot necessarily decide what is wrong and right. Nothing DEFINES torture as badThis is a slippery slope. We define our own morality and always have. We can and do define torture as bad. We could not define it as bad, but where then does that lead?If we can torture a suspected terrorist, what about a suspected murderer? How about a suspected thief? I mean, who's to say? Maybe we should torture little kids who interrupt their teacher during class?Sure that kid gets screwed, but think of all the kids who get to learn more because they aren't interrupted.Torture is wrong. This is how we define it. We have made laws saying it is wrong, and we have convicted foreign generals of waterboarding our own soldiers. So it is wrong. And it is illegal and I have not seen a single legitimate argument that says otherwise.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

But how many of the people being tortured are innocent? For example a lot of detainees from afghanistan were turned in by militants interested in receiving the bounty being offered by Americans. Many people of disliked minorities were turned in without any sort of evidence linking them to terrorist activities. This is why we have a justice system that relies on evidence and not just suspicion. What if your neighbor had it out for you an accused you of a crime you did not commit? This is just one reason why torture is unacceptable. Not to mention any 'benefits' for the many are dubious at best, since war and torture creates animosity which leads inevitably to a future filled with more conflict, not less.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

The Terrorist would not think twice of Cutting your head off on video and sending it to the TV nightly news, now that is torture to watch! Water boarding should be legal and used at every possible opportunity.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

So you're saying because they do it (or they can/would do it), we can/will do it too? Perhaps we should be a bit more level-headed and humanitarian in our efforts to interrogate, rather than sinking to the level of a terrorist. Otherwise, what separates you from them?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

What separates us from them? We do it to save lives - they do it to end lives.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

They also do it to save the potential afterlives of their brethren. They do it to save their souls from the "consumeristic, materialistic, heathen, infidel, corrupt" ideas of Western thought. I'm not saying I agree with them, but for any side their are an infinite amount of justifications for immorality. Simply saying "They do it, so we can do it too", doesn't mean anything. In that kind of contest, you really are no better than the opposing force.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

They are doing it to save their soulsWhy should Americans care? Most Americans don't believe in Islam.They do it, so we can do it tooWe do it to save our lives - have we not more right to save ourselves then they do to end our lives.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

I don't care why they do it! We need to make it unbearable when they do........................................
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Oh my god! Do you have no soul? Just sentencing them to torment? Despite what they have done, they do not deserve to be treated like animals or worse.In order to defeat your enemy, you must understand them. Just saying torture/kill them does little to stop others from rising up to take their place. Torture just breeds greater resentment in all those around the one being tortured. The only one who actually is fearful is the tortured person.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

"The only one who actually is fearful is the tortured person." and he is the one we want to make talk! sounds like its working."Do you have no soul?'maybe.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Is it not better to save many lives at the cost of one or two?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

by that logic, is there any reason you should not be waterboarded once a week just to see if you have any information?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Me, no! you, maybe..............................................................
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

through selective application?? or any coherent set of values?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

If they aren't willing to tell us the information we ask then we have to get it somehow. May it be waterboarding, or some other form of torture. We could possibly save hundreds, thousands, and even millions of lives.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

read the question again "suspected" terrorists - there isn't always information "they" are withholding
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Is it not better to risk the torture out of the possibility that they are withholding evidence, rather than let innumerable innocents come to harm?