azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Except where are all the instances where mass surveillance has worked? In 2013, the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies did an analysis on NSA's bulk collection of phone records and found that it's barely even working. Out of the millions of data collected only 24 criminals were found using the bulk collection of phone records.It's the same that goes for the internet. Why give up all your data and privacy to a government that is yet to prove the successfulness of its idea when you can settle for not doing that. For example, after the 2015 Paris Terror Attacks, authorities called for a crackdown on mass surveillance. Except all of the terrorists had been monitored prior to the attack. They also used encryption to communicate with each other, which is impossible to crack. So what's the use of mass surveillance?
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Living in the UK with high levels of surveillance I feel more safe and protected compared to living in America. When in the UK I don't necessarily feel my privacy has been compromised.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

If you aren't doing anything wrong on the internet or in your daily life, you shouldn't have to worry. So with the fact that you know you aren't doing anything wrong and with surveillance you have more privacy I feel like pros out weigh the cons.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

How does anybody have more privacy with surveillance? Not only do you get your privacy completely taken away, but you also loose control of your life in a way. The government knows where you are every second of every day, even if you choose to do something it's because the government essentially allowed you to do it because they didn't stop you while they where watching you.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Security everywhere could help to protect those who are innocent. There are many people in jail now who never committed a crime and just were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Having video evidence would help a jury convict those who are truly guilty.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Security cameras do not usually have the best quality, and these cameras could potentially misidentify somebody as a criminal, and the camera evidence would be used to convict an innocent person.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

In the case of Trayvon Martin, in which the eyewitness accounts were conflicting with one another, video evidence of the altercation could have made it easier for the jury to make a decision.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

While privacy is valued, it is more important for the population of the whole country to be safe rather than individual people feeling comfortable.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

National security guarantees all citizens of a country safety however privacy only warrants a few of their safety. National security is for the most vulnerable while privacy is for the privileged.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

But how safe is watching our every move? These systems could easily be hacked and some footage of us could get leaked or used against our own will. That is not the definition of security. Even if we don't think we are doing anything wrong, the government might take an action out of context and flag us as "dangerous".
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Surveillance of social media and Internet activity can prevent shootings and bombings from occurring if certain keywords and searches were red flagged, potentially protecting the lives of many people.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Algorithms that track search results are not aware of everyones' situations, and they could potentially be flagging people who are no threat, and are simply looking up something considered "dangerous" for informational purposes.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

It can potentially, but there are also millions of trolling accounts who do not plan on actually committing a crime, but often talk about it online. As well, so far we have this kind of technology and yet, the crimes are still coming. People will just NOT talk about them online, thus making any keywording useless.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

When someone commits a crime, sometimes the first thing police turn to is "surveillance". Take this surveillance away, and there is potential for less evidence in regards to trying to solve crimes.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

What is having surveillance makes terrorists and criminals smarter? because they are aware that they are being watched people will come prepared and will learn more about how to hack into a system to shut it down.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Surveillance does not always solve the crime. Just because you know what someone looks like does not mean you can find them. The cameras are not always accurate in showing what someone looks like exactly, and sometimes part of the crime could be missing if it is not visible from any of the camera angles.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

The debate isn't about taking surveillance away completely, it is about not increasing surveillance to the point that there is no privacy for anyone. Before surveillance existed, criminals were still captured and prosecuted. However, the amount of surveillance we have now is PLENTY, and an increase will harm more people than it will help.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Living in a society where there are surveillances all around protects us and can serve as evidence in a potential case where someone is found guilty of committing something. As long as you never committed a crime or have nothing to hide you should not be concerned about being watched.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Security is what keeps this country going. Even though it seems a little much at times, when things go wrong we realize how much we appreciate it.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Without privacy, many violent acts or even terror attacks could have been prevented. In the case of school shooters, many are searching and plotting on their home computers and are able to carry them out because they have so much privacy
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

i think yes. i want to live in a country which is very safe.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

If you have nothing to hide, you don't have to worry about being watched and should be able to give up your privacy.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Everyone says that they have nothing to hide, but having cameras everywhere would trouble anyone, regardless of whether they have nothing to hide or not. If everything you are doing is being watched, that is going to make you feel as if you are on display, and lead to a dystopian, Black Mirror-like conclusion.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

If having cameras would trouble everyone, why do we all have cameras on our phones? Why is that when something is happening, people pull their phones out and record? This is the equivalent to having cameras everywhere.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Yes this is true however do you really want people recording your every move. Often people make mistakes and when they do many times they don't want them recorded or for others to even know so how would you get around this if you've been recorded and watched.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Just because you aren't doing anything wrong, doesn't mean you should be okay releasing all of your personal information.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

It's not really about releasing your personal information as much as it is about being monitored. You release a lot of personal information every day by choice on social media.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

I've never committed a crime, and I hope to never be caught in a situation that puts me in a bad position with the government. Therefore, I would be more comfortable being watched and safe than the opposite. As long as the government could ensure the respect of my footage, I would be okay with it.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Nobody can ensure anything, I am sure there are hackers out there that could probably obtain that information. Although that could still happen by giving up security, we would have the access to abilities that could protect ourselves. With no privacy whatsoever we have no protection even if we aren't doing something wrong. Also, how could the government even ensure our safety? Although they may say it's safer, there are no guarantees for anything.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

I agree. I think that the government would protect the footage and only use it if they needed evidence. It does not seem like they would just be putting it out there for everyone to watch in their free time.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

I also believe moderate forms of torture such as waterboarding in order to ensure national security, because I think terrorists lose their natural rights as soon as they threaten millions of people. The point of trying to extract the information, peacefully or with force, is to get rid of any privacy there and make things clear.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

No privacy it's not a bad thing for many Chinese parents. Here is a statistical data of a missing person in the United States and a missing person in China. In America, Citing the NCIC report, taking 2016 as an example, the number of reported missing persons in the year reached 647,435. But also in this year, the number of previous reports deleted for various reasons (such as finding missing persons) also reached 644294. In other words, there were only 3,141 missing persons who could not be identified in the actual increase in 2016. However, according to Voice of China’s report, according to different statistics, every year, the number of missing children in China is incompletely estimated at about 200,000, and only about 0.1% of the missing children are found. why there is a huge gap between China and America, I have to say, even China's GDP ranked second in the world, the level of urban integration is not so. That means, most of rural area in china no monitors and no surveillance system, when you say you want to get absolute freedom, this first thing is to make sure the surrounding is safe.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

With terrorists becoming smarter, our government has the obligation to do everything in its power to protect against potential attacks. If this requires them to surveillance society, we should let them do it. We shouldn't expect the luxury of privacy when we don't have the luxury of total security.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

With the government having all of our personal information, it gives terrorists the chance to hack into the government and access everything in one place. There is no "luxury" of privacy. Privacy should be a given and guaranteed at all times.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

National security ensures that users are safe. When a situation happens where a potential criminal posts online about hurting other individuals, we want national security. This is a good way to prove the innocence of certain people while also targeting those who are not
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Without cameras and people monitoring over the internet checking to see what people are doing. There would be many more attacks, which could potentially hurt or kills many people in the world
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Yes but don't you think that there should be a separation between common everyday people and terrorists with this case? There should be surveillance on people who are potentially going to danger our country not on normal people grocery shopping.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

I think that living in a society that ensures national security is better than living with complete privacy because if you aren't trying to hide something you shouldn't be worried. Obviously privacy is very important and there should be some restrictions, like for example the government should only look into your data if an issue arises that you are involved in. There are multiple crime cases that could of been solved if surveillance security was greater developed. The issue with hacking can be solved because there are many security companies that can protect your information. Personally I don't do anything illegal on the internet so I wouldn't mind be watched to insure my safety. I think the world needs more safety especially in todays society.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

If we think about our future kids, we would want to know that they are using an internet that has national security to protect them from the harmful content that could be posted. We would also want this security to know that our future child isn't doing anything bad
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

When we're using the internet, we're essentially signing away our right to privacy because we have to remember that nothing we post is private. However, in the way that this works now, we aren't ensured national security. It would be better if we had this along with our already prevalent lack of privacy
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Having an internet that is a full free for all gives those who are behaving the same credibility as those who are not. With national security, justice is served based on how you acted online which is fair
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Surveillance of the internet and online activity could be beneficial to us because it could flag suspicious activity and potentially prevent a terrorist act. The safety of all is of greater importance.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Everyone has an obligation to help law enforcement, and under certain circumstances, that entails that one gives up some of their privacy (personal information, social media, etc.) to help them with a problem or case that they need to solve.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

My position on this is similar to a few other issues, in that you can't have your cake and eat it too. By this, I mean that one can't expect to be safe in their country and enjoy all of the liberties granted to them at the same time. If we want to be safer, we have to give up some personal freedoms.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

And you can guarantee that being completely out in the open, vulnerable to hackers and our personal lives and information infiltrated, will keep us safer than before?
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

If there's no information to be compromised, there's no blackmailing to be done.What do you mean "personal lives"? If no privacy exists, you don't have a personal life, per se. Sure, you'll know people and have friends and a family, but you won't have anything to risk information-wise. Everything would be known by almost everyone, including hackers.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

We are actually living in this type of society were all the information searched by us on Internet is collected and stored as data. I am from India and there is always a risk of data leaks and our Privacy is not more than a word. We actually live in this type of society with no privacy.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Yes, the Internet does track everything we do basically giving us no privacy. The government needs to somehow find a balance between providing us a safe and secure place to live and watching our every move. Instead of tracking our data on he Internet, one step forward would be to stop targeted ads that follow you once you look something up. This isn't really a matter of "privacy" but it still freaks people out and is a constant reminder that we are being watched more often than we need to be.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

While I understand that people may be concerned about privacy, surveillance has yielded positive results. For example, if not for wire tapping, there would still be a much higher amount of organized crime that threatens national security. People's comfort is important, but safety is vital.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

We already know that our information is stored by websites and seen by companies. We all still use these websites and do business with these companies, so unless you are doing something about protecting your data, your privacy is already compromised.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

People claim that it would be best if only terrorists and dangerous people were monitored. But how will it be decided who has malicious intent? This is flawed because those people will be very careful and strategic to avoid suspicion. Then by acting innocent they will never be flagged down, will avoid surveillance, and will be able to carry out malicious acts. It is best to monitor all people. Trying to pick out who is dangerous is not dependable, as seen in the disproportionate mistreatment of minorities in the incarceration system and in police brutality. Or another example is the arrest of two African American men in a Starbucks last week even though they didn't break any laws. They were waiting for someone, didn't buy anything (which is not uncommon) by were seen as a threat by the owner. It is unrealistic to pick out who is dangerous and only monitor them.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Establishing effective national security at this time in which we aren't actively at war on our own soil is important. Many times in the past, individual freedoms, like security, have been sacrificed in times of war. But if we are able to set up a good system of national security before a time of panic, it will be much safer. Things done in a rush are not done as well, and we cannot be unrealistic and say that we will not get into wars in the future. And if these are put into practice now, they are less likely to be changed in extreme manners during war times.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Safety is needed so that people do not feel like they can show up and do something illegal and think thy can get away with it.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

You cannot expect the government to ensure national security without invading or without the capability of accessing the privacy of somebody when it is neccessary. Through privacy invasion by the government it is easier to tell the where abouts of a suspected terrorist hence making it easier to protect the nation against terror attacks. So I totally agree that i can surely live in a society where privacy is invaded for the sake of protecting the society.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Yes, security takes priority over privacy. I myself would rather live in a world where I wouldn't have to worry about a terrorist attack occurring at any moment, rather than a world where I don't have to worry about anyone seeing my personal messages. While privacy does hold high value, at the end of the day, a citizen's protection is what's at stake here.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Nothing can be truly private today. Having security cameras trained on all of us every day does nothing to help. These cameras can be easily manipulated or abused or hacked. If gotten into the wrong hands the information and footage can be used to blackmail and does the exact opposite of its original intention.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Maybe cameras can be hacked and abused, but then again who would you blackmail if everyone knows everything about you? If nothing's truly private, then there's nothing to be blackmailed with.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

everything has two sides, if we have CCTV cameras we can track this hack too and on the other hand, we can utilize the surveillance system prevent criminal happen again. There is an other question, When everyone is using electronic devices, does the privacy protection you seek and the privacy protection you think could disappear due to lack of monitoring?
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

I feel as though we do need privacy because in no way should it be allowed for people to constantly be watching what you are doing. If you want to walk down the street and go into a store you don't normally go into then this shouldn't be recorded and you shouldn't feel as though you are being watched. It is important for everyone in our society to feel like they have freedom in all things they do.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

I support your argument. You have made some great points here.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Yet you do have the freedom to do whatever you want. You walked into a store that you may not normally go into. This may be recorded not to track you, but for the security of the store. You aren't being watched unless you performed a crime.