azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Yes it is. Kids often aren't old enough or mature enough to understand the consequences that the politically correct society would have us use to correct behavior. One thing that they really understand well at that stage in their life is what it feels like to get a spanking, and it hurts, and it's not a pleasant experience, this is also known as a deterrant. Having a kid sit in a corner and "think" about what they've done only gives them the opportunity to think of a way they can get away with it next time, since you are openly providing them that opportunity to contemplate the inefficiency of their previous attempt. Spanking is more of a zero tolerance kind of approach that says "whether you choose to reflect on it or not, just know that what you just did is absolutely not tolerated in this house."
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Kids often aren't old enough or mature enough to understand the consequences that the politically correct society would have us use to correct behavior.You don't need to use the concept of consequences to correct behavior. There are non spanking ways to correct behavior that don't involve discussing consequences.Having a kid sit in a corner and "think" about what they've done only gives them the opportunity to think of a way they can get away with it next time, since you are openly providing them that opportunity to contemplate the inefficiency of their previous attempt.Except, this doesn't happen with sitting in the corner. This is seen with kids who are spanked though. Spanking is more of a zero tolerance kind of approach that says "whether you choose to reflect on it or not, just know that what you just did is absolutely not tolerated in this house."Without reflection they will do it again.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

I agree with all your points and not only are they well stated but they are clearly backed with evidence. It seems that the only case in this case is to vote "Yes"
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Where words fail, a swift kick to the rear end , or a wallop upside the head will get their attention. It got mine.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

The question isn't if spanking is effective to teach children, it's asking if it's okay, presumably from a moral standpoint. Is your argument "the ends justify the means"?
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Yes, it's morally ok to get their attention by other means when words fail if meted out judiciously.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Well, first of all, who decides what constitutes words being meted out 'judiciously?'And second, how many situations does this apply to? How is this justification different from someone who justifies beating their children? Or their spouse?
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Sure it is because a good attitude adjustment is needed from time to time !
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

That is child abuse to hit a child. A parent's place is to love and protect their children, not abuse them.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

I would like for you to show where spanking is child abuse if you can.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Prove me wrong. It is abuse to hit someone for no reason. .
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Spanking your children is now child abuse ? Show me where that law is located !
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

It is abuse in the eyes of God and of the Fourth Amendment which protects the right of people to be secure in their person. No one has the right to someone else's body.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Spanking is described as child abuse under what law ? Prove there is a law against spanking a child !
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Prove me wrong. Prove that it is okay to hit kids. Slavery used to be legal, did that make it right?
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

It isn't for no reason. Your abuse was different than real spanking.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Spanking is abuse. .
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Why is it that you can't ever defend your statements?
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

I have been defending my statements. You are just trolling for trouble.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

You have not defended them at all. You keep giving reasons it is abuse. I challenge your reasons, then you say it is still abuse.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

I agree with you I believe in grounding not spanking. A parent should always love and protect there child no matter what.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Thank you. It is like pulling teeth to find logic on here. You would make a good parent.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Until you become an adult, right? Then you get to keep your same shitty attitude for life.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

What might that have to do with the response i wrote ? All children need a good attitude adjustment from time to time so if calls for a good butt whooping then so be it.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

You are a terrible parent, and a terrible person.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

You stand by the position that you can make a claim as to what type of person i am ?
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

You stand by the claim that you can smack a kid. So, yes, I can determine the type of person you are.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

How might you even know that i am a parent ? Is this an assumption on your part ?
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

You are a terrible person. Although, you can make the same argument, since I am only assuming you are a person.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Another assumption for which you have zero validation ! But try again with a new assumption on your part LMMFAO !
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

Are you a bot? That would explain so much. I can't believe I can't even validate that you are human.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

"You are a terrible parent, and a terrible person." Words typed by you.So your proof i am one or both is where ? Back up your words there Junior
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

You are not human. I apologize for thinking you were.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Yes! Next question.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: No

No! Next answer.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Of course. The opposition's arguments all revolve around the three points that 1) It is your job to tell other parents how to raise their children 2) Spanking is inhumane and 3) Spanking is ineffective.First, let it be observed that the prompt states "is it okay to spank children" not "should you spank your children". Other parents do not tell you to spank your children, why do you have the right to tell other parents that they should not spank theirs? In a pluralist society such as this one, freedom of choice and will are key aspects which makes it what it is, to violate other people's right to discipline their child in order to make them a better functioning member of society would be to trample on the ideals of the pluralist society itself. That's not to say child abuse should be allowed, because Child Abuse is not spanking in any sense and illegal and perpetrators should be swiftly dealt justice to.Next, we must address how spanking is inhumane. It is as inhumane as you lecturing your children on how staying past curfew is immoral. Spanking simply adds a minor physical aspect to this lecture, and makes it more memorable. But enough of that, the effectiveness will be addressed in a later paragraph. Since it done with the intent to help, not harm, it cannot be considered inhumane, even at the slightest degree. Using physical methods in order to better incorporate offspring into society has been a popular methods since the beginning of mankind, and as you obviously can observe, mankind is still here. It causes little detriment, emulating a net positive, and the objection that spanking is inhumane should be as quickly as discarded as the objection that water is in fact, not wet.Lastly, opponents will attempt to claim that spanking should not be allowed because it is ineffective. However, the exact opposite is true. In an unbiased joint-study conducted by CNN analysts and BBC experts, it showed that children who endured spanking in their early childhood showed much better capacity for not only the ability to follow directions, but to show empathy and compassion for their fellow peers. Moreover, Children who have been spanked have a 42.58% reduced chance to commit minor crimes later on in their career, as proven by an open sourced study conducted by The Economists with support through commentaries from The Wall Street Journal.Although this may seem like a trivial matter, it is, in fact a major one that has garnered attention on the national stage from Democrats and Republicans alike. Although there are opposing views, as with any debate and/or disagreement, the answer to the question "is spanking ok" is an undeniable yes as in a pluralist society parents have the freedom of choice in raising their own children, it is completely humane, and it promotes better integration into society for children who lack the basic moral values to do so independently. Thank you everyone, I invoke you to vote yes.God Bless America
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Spanking is not considered abuse, according to my dictionary contrasting to others' rote definitions found in Google. Spanking is a rather derogatory term for "disciplining," but either will work if your child is insolent or just a trouble maker. A "child" (rather a teenager) myself, I have gotten "spanked" numerous times, and yet I am thankful for this unpleasant yet effective discipline. In no way is it abuse if you are hitting a child for no apparent reason. Now THAT is considered child abuse. Spanking is a way that enables the child to reflect upon their mistakes and regret their decisions, rather than just locking them up in their room allowing them to do whatever they want. When you think about it, yes, the child may be affected by melancholia when hit, but remember:the parent is doing this for the sake of their child's future and personality.
Debate: Is it okay to spank children
Side: Yes

Of course. The opposition's arguments all revolve around the three points that 1) It is your job to tell other parents how to raise their children 2) Spanking is inhumane and 3) Spanking is ineffective.First, let it be observed that the prompt states "is it okay to spank children" not "should you spank your children". Other parents do not tell you to spank your children, why do you have the right to tell other parents that they should not spank theirs? In a pluralist society such as this one, freedom of choice and will are key aspects which makes it what it is, to violate other people's right to discipline their child in order to make them a better functioning member of society would be to trample on the ideals of the pluralist society itself. That's not to say child abuse should be allowed, because Child Abuse is not spanking in any sense and illegal and perpetrators should be swiftly dealt justice to. Next, we must address how spanking is inhumane. It is as inhumane as you lecturing your children on how staying past curfew is immoral. Spanking simply adds a minor physical aspect to this lecture, and makes it more memorable. But enough of that, the effectiveness will be addressed in a later paragraph. Since it done with the intent to help, not harm, it cannot be considered inhumane, even at the slightest degree. Using physical methods in order to better incorporate offspring into society has been a popular methods since the beginning of mankind, and as you obviously can observe, mankind is still here. It causes little detriment, emulating a net positive, and the objection that spanking is inhumane should be as quickly as discarded as the objection that water is in fact, not wet. Lastly, opponents will attempt to claim that spanking should not be allowed because it is ineffective. However, the exact opposite is true. In an unbiased joint-study conducted by CNN analysts and BBC experts, it showed that children who endured spanking in their early childhood showed much better capacity for not only the ability to follow directions, but to show empathy and compassion for their fellow peers. Moreover, Children who have been spanked have a 42.58% reduced chance to commit minor crimes later on in their career, as proven by an open sourced study conducted by The Economists with support through commentaries from The Wall Street Journal. Although this may seem like a trivial matter, it is, in fact a major one that has garnered attention on the national stage from Democrats and Republicans alike. Although there are opposing views, as with any debate and/or disagreement, the answer to the question "is spanking ok" is an undeniable yes as in a pluralist society parents have the freedom of choice in raising their own children, it is completely humane, and it promotes better integration into society for children who lack the basic moral values to do so independently. Thank you everyone, I invoke you to vote yes.God Bless America
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

Here's the more relevant question. Since when was it ok to demand perfection for bad and ill paying jobs from put upon people most consider flawed who don't have the right to significant competition as it is part of health? We supposedly have the right to life without the right to maintain it. How duplicitous. Then one profession after another drops out of entry and survival levels then add our right to banish. Understand this no employer of any ethics has a right to perfection without the right of employees to competitive health. It is way too easy to diffuse responsibility. I've seen it. Examples that for all their unimpressiveness were singularly cruel and potentially lethal. That is not judgement, it comoditizing cowardice. Only nobody declines commodities, even those this corrupting. So yes it's wrong.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

Yes. Employers should mind their own business. .
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

Aren't their potential employees their business?
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

No. Employers do not own their employees. People have the right to privacy. .
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. Social media sites are public. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation ofprivacy
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

Do they have to own you to do a background check?Do employers have a right to google?
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

People have the right to privacy. What people do online is none of the employer's business.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

What if it turned out the person was dishonest, and posted passwords from the last company he was at on Facebook, which got him fired. Is a new business not allowed to know about that? Wouldn't that put the business at risk if they hired this person?
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

Employeres don't have the right to know what people do online. Privacy and freedom of speech are rights.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

Privacy is a right, but by posting something to the public sphere where it can be accessed by any, aren't people waiving their right to privacy?Also, how does free speech apply here? Just because some uses free speech to do something wrong doesn't make the wrong thing ok...
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure against law abiding citizens.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

That's true, but looking at something that is in public view is not unlawful search and seizure. You're trying to distract. It is illegal for a person to go up to you for no good reason and say, empty your pockets, and if they find illegal drugs, arrest you. But if you stand right next to them and smoke illegal drugs in plain sight, that's on you. You've said again and again on this debate the same thing, regardless of what has been said to you. it's fine to stick with your beliefs, but you HAVE to respond to what points other people are saying to you. If you believe it to be true, then you must believe their arguments are false, so explain why. If you cannot do this and continue to spam, I will ban you from this debate. This is your warning.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

If you walk up to a cop and hand him a kilo of heroin you will go to jail and your fourth amendment rights will not be violated. That's what it's like posting on the internet.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

Employers do not have the right to the employee's personal information. It is none of their business.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

then employee's shouldn't pout personal information online.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

Employers have the right to not close their eyes when information is presented to them.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

Employers do not have the right to the online accounts of their employees.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

Are you saying that employers should not be granted access to your personal account or should not be allowed to see content that everyone can see?
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

I am saying that people have the right to their online accounts. It is none of the employer's business.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

Why didn't you pick one of the options I listed? Why did you downvote my clarification question?
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

because she didn't read your questions.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

Evweryone downvotes. It is not a big deal. .
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

You downvoted a reasonable question because everyone downvotes?
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

as usual ignoring the main question. Though it's probably due to you not reading it.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

I did not ignore anything. You are just trying to start a problem.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

I did not ignore anythingYes you do just about every single post people make.You are just trying to start a problem.You are the problem so i'm not really starting anything.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

You have very clearly ignored a lot. For example, when I countered your point about search and seizure, you said nothing. (There are many more examples but I doubt you would read them if I put theme here)
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

Even though everyone down votes, you abuse the power, to the point where it a form of the ad hominem fallacy (you try to bolster your position by discrediting your opponent. On your reward point page, 57 of you past 96 points are down votes. That's almost 60%. You spend more than half of your time discrediting others as opposed to adding to debates. And that's all over 6 days.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

I have the right to downvote people who downvote me first. .
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

except you're the one who downvotes first.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

A) You have no proof that those people have downvoted you (I have never downvoted you, and you have downvoted me) and B) That's not how it works, unless you're in kindergarden.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

You have been granted permission to perform an action by the site creator. You are confusing an ability with a right.And it certainly doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

You don't have a "right" to downvote - whether they downvote you first or not (and I almost never downvote you, but you downvote me all the time - so don't pretend you play by rules that you don't.)You have a privilege granted to you by the website owner/creator. If Andy got rid of the downvote feature tomorrow, would you still have the "right" to downvote people?
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

except you always downvote first.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

You are the one using three accounts to downvote me. .
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

after you downvoted first.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

You are the one who downvoted me first. .
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

no you're the one who always down votes first.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

Prove it. .
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

http://www.createdebate.com/user/points http://www.createdebate.com/user/points/ LibProlifer
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: Yes, it is wrong.

If you can downvote me, I can downvote you. I will stop if you will.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

you claimed that I downvote first and yet I just proved I haven't downvoted you for a hour where as you just downvoted me a few minutes ago.
Debate: Is it wrong for employers to 'stalk' potential employee's internet personas?
Side: No, it is not wrong.

good job proving further that you downvote first.