azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Noam Chomsky. The head of philosophy and linguisticts at MIT, hes written over 100 books (many of them best sellers), hes the 2nd most quoted author in history, he more or less created the modern field of linguistics.Where to begin? They gave Obama the Nobel peace prize before he did anything. They gave Yasir Arafat the Nobel peace prize. I'm not impressed. It's political.This guy is from MIT. So? He wrote lots of books (a lot of best sellers). So? He's quoted a lot by liberals. So? I'm not impressed. It's political. His views are slanted left. If his expertise is linguistics, then why does he talk about everything from Global Warming to conspiracy theories? He's a political activist and as such, he has an agenda. I don't believe everything political activists say (left or right, liberal or conservatives) especially if they have an agenda.You asking me to take Noam Chomsky seriously is like me asking you to take Ezra Levant seriously.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

First of all if you knew anything about the man you really wouildnt be saying these, i an assure. Please watch the movie Manufacturing consent, it condenses one of the most important books of this generation into 3hrs. Hes not political, hes not on the left (although some leftists do support his views or at least the ones they agree with). He is a linguist and POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER, thats why he talks on these issues. he doesnt talk about global warming hes not a scientist, i dont what gave you that idea. He doesn't beleive in consp[iracy theories either, in fact he thought the idea of te U.S. staging september 11th to be ridiculous.He is the one peson i think in the world without any clear agenda. He does what he does because of his morals and he applies the same standard across the board.He talks mainly about the U.S. because that where hes from and also becsue they happen to be the leading terrorist nation on earth for last 50-60yrs (relatively speaking). When your empire declines and falls theypages of history will reflect this fact whether you agree with it or not.You know all this if you actually looked the guy though but he i cant make you do anything.I dont know who Ezra Levant is and i dont plan on finding out gioven how little you engaged with the info ive presented.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I dont know who Ezra Levant is and i dont plan on finding out gioven how little you engaged with the info ive presented.Right. You are only interested in getting your point of view out there. You don't care about anyone else's point of view.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

No maybe you should have actually read what it is i said. I said you didnt engage with the info. i presented, meaning you didnt reply to any of it in any way. I didnt expect you to reply with positive things to say and i would have been quite happy to review any sources provided to me by you i stated this. Can you not understand this, its called debating, here let me tell you how it works, one person presents a piece of info. supporting his views the other reviews it for bias flaws, lies, misrepresentation of the truth.Then the ohter person does the same. At the end of the debate the person with the most factually correct info. and the best arguments backing it up is declared the winner. Thats what i was trying to initiate but your dont seem capable of it.Your just taking what you want from my arguments, your like fox and cnn who selectively edit their news in order to distort the facts and support their own heavily biased (much more so than most beleive me) agenda.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

OK, so if that is really what you think then why do keep on wasting your time? ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Eh, this is handy to kill time in between work (i do alot of work on computers). Plus i dont like giveng people tha last word even though it looks like ill have to with you, im not use to debate with people who aren't willing to look at the facts. Its one thing to disagree with my opinions and disregard my reasoning (since it not aligned with your own) but its a whole lot worse not to even entertain the other persons info. Why dont you provide me some id be happy to dissect it and tell you what i think of it. I can gaurantee that if there is nothing factually incorrect about thats the conclusion i will come to. Again, im a scientist and i wouldn't be a very good one if i let my opinions get in the way of the truth. But i doubt you'll send anything, this isnt serious for you, you dont care that you may be wrong (i do) thats the difference between me and you. Your not looking for the truth cause you've already rationalised it to your self that what you beleive cannot be circumvented i.e. disproved. No amount of info. or argument is gona change that, as i said i find that very sad and quite small minded. People like you are what the dalia lama was refering to when he said "their minds are closed." The only way to change your mind would be to actually show you the suffering and death first hand that your country is responsible but heh if that could be done with every american who thinks like you we these problems wouldnt have been allowed to continue.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I don't look at the facts because I don't care. I keep on telling you that you you just don't want to listen.I don't have to entertain your info. I know human nature. Israel and America commit atrocities. So what? Palestinians and the other side commit atrocities too. I don't care. They all commit atrocities. Big deal. If you had proof that one side committed an atrocity, it wouldn't matter. Nothing would change. Lots of people have pointed to the proof and nothing has changed. Things will only change when people take action against their government. People can only change their own government. They cannot change someone else's government. Only a country can change another country's government.But i doubt you'll send anything, this isnt serious for you, you dont care I've been telling you this from the beginning.you've already rationalised it to your self that what you beleive cannot be circumvented i.e. disproved. No amount of info. or argument is gona change that,I told you this too. There is nothing you can do or say to change my mind. You are wasting your time. What I believe is that the world has been in the mess that it is in since the beginning of time due to human nature and human nature is not going to change any time soon. There is nothing that can convince me otherwise. Even the Dali Lama cannot change human nature. You don't have to show death and destruction, I'm aware of it and it only reinforces what I believe. It's human nature. That's the way it is. That is life. It has been like that forever. It's not going to change any time soon. Grow up and stop believing in Santa Claus.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Firstly, people like you are the reason its never gona change can you not see that. Do you not realise that if every body wanted it to change it would change very quickly.Your like the person who sees starving childrebn in africa on t.v., feels bad for a second but then rationalises it to himself that he is powerless to do anything, then changes the channel watches some AMERICAN GALDIATORS. Seriously Bill Hicks you must have heard of him, best comdeian the U.S. has ever produced by a long way.Now i am scientist and ive dabled alot in philosophy and psychology also so please dont try to educate me on human nature. You call me a child but believe the arguments your presenting are child like in theit intellectual content.Your opinion perpetuate this suffering you imbecile.WAKE UP.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OMG! Are you serious? Are you kidding me? You really think that if I changed my opinion that the suffering will end? What kind of drugs are you on? ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

No if everyone changed their opinion, fucking hell, your like a child, did seriously not get that or are you just doing it to annoy me, honeslty i cant tell.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OK, I'll let you in on a little secret we are not supposed to tell anyone. The way it works over here is that we have elections where we decide what group of people we like the least and should get blowed up. Then we send our military over there to blow them up. Then we watch it on TV and laugh our heads off(we are sick and tired of watching the same old movies and we like to see action). Then they put the commercials with the starving children and the one were the baby seals are getting their heads bashed in and we laugh some more. Seriously. That's how it works over here. We are a bunch of blood thirsty bastards. And we do this so that we can get cheap oil so that we can run down illegal aliens with our cars as they cross the border. That's why we love those big SUVs. You should come over for a visit ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

That would be funny if there wasnt an element of truth nestled inside it.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Oh come on. You are not interested in the truth. I am providing you with a service. I should charge you money. All you want is someone who will listen to your mad rantings. ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

First of all your getting the same service, i could equally you that same argument against you, do you have any idea how many of your argument can be used against you, I mean i havent piont many out but there are a lot. And i think i do care about the truth, sorry thats just my opinion, but fucking hell i have to say that critism is fucking rich coming from you, you resist the truth with such force it would have to shoved up your rectum before you'd begin to digest it. If you can prove to me with a good argument and some irrefutable facts (just like i tried to do with you), id happily except that im just in for the mad rantings. I dont cling to small minded beliefs when the truth is right on front of my face. Read 1984 if you havent already its not in the top 10 of nearly every greatest books list since it was written for no reason. But your american and ignorant (and happy to be) so your not gona educate yourself on anything you'd much rather have your small minded opinions than know the truth.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I know that the truth is not either one of the following:1. It is ALL America's fault.2. It is ALL everyone else's fault.The truth is somewhere in the middle. Some of the problem lies with American foreign policy and some of it lies with the rest of the world. You want me to believe that it is All America's fault. And then you call me an idiot if I don't agree. And I laugh at your logic. Especially since you're supposed to be a scientist ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

You know you should really think before you construct your arguments. I really shouldnt have to point this out to you but nowhere will you find me blaming America for all of the world problems.Again, thats a riculous proposition.You Americans always trying to simplify everything so you can fit it into your tiny little narrow minded view of how the world is and how it works.I disagree that its somewhere in the middle, in reality its alot more on americas side, thats what you need to accept.Now ive called you an idiot for the simple reason that you've avioded actually debating i.e. looking at info. on various wars and polices of your government.Now i wanted you to send me your version of events (which you will think is correct) then i would have tried to deconstruct it (i.e. show you how it is false).I also sent you info. regarding this but you just dismissed it as propaganda without even looking at it. WHY DONT YOU TELL ME WHATS NOT PROPAGANDA SO? I mean everythings a little bit biased in some direction (except wikileaks) but i have a sneaking suspicion that the news you recieve is so far from the truth you might aswell be reading a roll of toilet just after you wipe your ass with it (and you had a red hot indian the night before). THATS MY OPINION WHICH YOU'VE REFUSED TO CHALLENGE ME ON.Thats why i called you an idiot, for sticking to your small minded beliefs.Right, ill point out again, America is (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) directly or indirectly(this ones a lot more complex) responsible for the a much alrge proportion of death and destruction over the last 50-60yrs than most other countries, at least based on currnt info. Now, you might go, thats not true. And, im not saying your goverment is at fault for all of it, in most cases its the multi-national corporations and the IMF who are all basically american and own your government anyway.Now ive acknowledged before that America is far from the sole participant in all this death, destuction, carnage, injustice.... etc. FAR FROM IT.European powers have also been complicit in much of it but you have to realise your country leads the way.Its ruthless in its persuit of power and resources.What countries do to there own people is a different debate(i.e. China, Libya now).Why do you think you live such a comfortable life, why do think americans have the highest satndard of living in the world, why do think you are the highest emitter of GHGs (per capita) in the world with the next highest country bearly 1/3rd of your emssions, why do think your government has invaded so many countries put in power SOOOOOOOOO many dictators, funded porxy armies, raped resources the world over, destroyed entire countries with explosive (Vietnam, Afghanistan, and others), caused so much starvation and hardship to so many.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OMG. Are you still on this tired, old topic? We have been debating this to death for days and not made any headway. Maybe we should move on to some other topics like abortion or time travel. For example, I am 100% for women to have a choice as to whether or not to abort. That way, hopefully, someday, in the future, I can go back in time and convince your mother to abort your ass ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Im completely pro choice so i guess thats something we can agree on. And your little time travel travel jibe isnt far from the grandfather paradox.If you know what thats is.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

grandfather paradox. If you know what thats is.No. Please enlighten me old wise one :)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

The grandfather paradox is a proposed paradox of time travel first described (in this exact form) by the science fiction writer René Barjavel in his 1943 book Le Voyageur Imprudent (The Imprudent Traveller).[1] The paradox is this: suppose a man traveled back in time and killed his biological grandfather before the latter met the traveler's grandmother. As a result, one of the traveler's parents (and by extension the traveler himself) would never have been conceived. This would imply that he could not have traveled back in time after all, which means the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveler would have been conceived allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather. Thus each possibility seems to imply its own negation, a type of logical paradox. (Taken from Wikipedia)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OK, so what you are saying is that I don't have to convince your mother to abort your ass, I can just shoot your father before he impregnates her with you ;)BTW, do you have any younger siblings or did your parents quickly realized they had screwed up ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Ya my parents had a couple more sprogs but they realised quite quickly based on the way i turned out that the best course of action was to club them to death as soon as they squirted their way out of my mothers vagina. One quick bash right on the noggin. Then we roasted them on a spit after sataying them in some ball sweat of course. Dam fine eaten.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

So..., you're an only child then ?
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Why are you so interested are you trying to fit me into one of your narrow minded psychological profiles, thereby explaining my opinions and feelings.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I am interested because usually (not always, but usually) the first born child doesn't hold your ideals for long and I was hoping that you have an older sibling who could sit you down and set you straight ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

THATS MY OPINION WHICH YOU'VE REFUSED TO CHALLENGE ME ON.OMG. You still don't get it; do you? I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION!!!!
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Dont you care that the opinion you hold so dear could be completely false. I mean really why woulkd be debating these issues if you didnt think that you were correct and if you think your correct then why are you so reluctant for someone to put it to the test.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

why are you so reluctant for someone to put it to the test.Because I don't care. ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Then i have to ask why do you bother debating on these issues that are serious by anyones standard if you dont care. I mean really it makes no sense. I can understand coming onto this site to get laugh kill somtime etc. but why debate these issues if you dont care. And i cant comprehend that you dont care that you maybe completely false, i dont get that, how can you not care even a lttle bit that everthing you may thing is one way os aactaully the other.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

These issues are only serious to young people who haven't lived long enough to realize that these problems have been going on since the beginning of time. If we haven't found a solution yet, then it is because these problems are inherent in human nature.Would you debate the nature of a lion? Would you argue that the zebras would have it easier if lions would just stop hunting them? Or would you consider that to be a waste of time since the problem has to do the nature of lions? You could kill all of the lions but then the hyenas would take their place. Maybe you would try to educate the lions by showing them youTube clips and articles you find on the internet. Maybe even quote authors who have written lots of books and are quoted by many. If only the lions would look at the truth ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Again, man the anology is very weak. Take my word for it i know quite a bit about human naute and futility of standing up for these.Its funny Noma Chomsky was asked more or less the same question. I remeber it well becasue i was just after reading excellent book by Joh Gray called 'Straw Dogs.' Its an excellent book and although it has some major philosphical flaws it but it makes an extremely convincing case for the fultility of humanist ideals.Seriously you'd love it, you've thrown that human nature jibe at me 3 times now and this book is in keeping with that whole philosophy.Anyway im not going to repeat Chomsky's answer here, if your interested in how your human nature rationalization can be proved wrong you find it for yourself.I strongly doubt you will though, i think it gives you great comfort to label it and then just take a side(whether it be the right or wrong one).
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Hmmmm, your argument reminds me of a little joke. A man asks a woman, would you sleep with me for one million dollars and she replies, "Of course!" He then asks her, "How about $20." and she says, "No, what kind of woman do you think I am?" and he says, "I thought we had already established that. We are now haggling over price."You see, you claim that many people die due to American policy and you are passionate about saving people. Except that if we were to dig deeper, we would find that you are probably OK with killing pedophiles or murderers or some other group you disagree with. Which means that you and I are just haggling over where to draw the line. ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Actually Joe thats not a joke, thats a famous quote by the playwright George Bernard Shaw. Now look you might think that we a haggling over price or the line but i dont. Murderers and pedophiles have commited serious offences against other people and many are repeat offenders and are a danger to society. Whether i'd condone killing them or not, honestly im not sure, im not completely against the death penalty.It really depends on the person and the individual set of circumstances vut i definitely dont take it lightly.Now i am talking about people who are guitly of nothing except being born in an undeveloped part of the world, which is being exploited. Theres a very clear distinction between the two, call it a line if you want, in my mind its a pretty be fuckin line.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

The world is not fair. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up for yourself. I think they are finally getting the message.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OK, so let's say that you want to save the human race from itself. One way would be to support space research (building a space station or a lunar station or a Mars station, etc.). That way if we ever blow ourselves up (or even if nature tries to kill us with Global Warming or a space meteor) the human race would still survive somewhere in space.But the problem is that I watch the news and from what I've seen, the human race is not worth saving ;)