azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Ok. Reading your explanation, I think it's a reasonable possibility in the US that someone convicted of tax fraud would actually be imprisoned and if they tried to escape prison that they would be killed.I gotta tell ya, you're the first person I've debated on this site to even entertain the thought. No one else would even acknowledge this.Anyway...I've yet to hear of a government that won't imprison/kill (if it comes to that) you for not paying it. This is probably because any government not willing to do these things didn't get paid and thus collapsed. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I take issue with all governments, I talk mostly about the U.S. only because it is the most relevant government to the people I talk to.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Just to clarify, I think it is significant to note why this fraudster would get killed. It would be because he was a fugitive. The US does kill fugitives but I think many countries avoid actually killing fugitives, unless they are armed, strongly preferring instead to apprehend them again. I hope you don't think I'm imagining governments handing down direct death penalties for not paying taxes.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

"I hope you don't think I'm imagining governments handing down direct death penalties for not paying taxes."I know. The government can't just kill people, the population wouldn't stand behind them. They have to be able to label the person as a fugitive first, then they can kill him.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Not true. Rent is a completely voluntary system. You agree on a price when you move in, if you don't want to live there anymore you can leave. Taxation is something you "owe" the government for just existing on land they claim, even though most of it is vastly unused.You don't seem to appreciate that the tax you pay for residing in a country, any country, is the analogue of the rent you pay for residing in a house. If you don't want to live in a house because the rent is too high and you're not prepared to pay it then you can leave. Similarly, if the you don't want to pay the taxes in a country then you can leave. I don't think there's anyone stopping you in either case. However, if you insist on staying in a house without paying rent then the owner should be able to compel you to pay the going rate or pay for your stay up to now and then leave. The national analogue of that would be if you refuse to pay taxes then you should have the owed taxes taken from you and then you're either deported or put in prison.The other piece of the puzzle you're missing is the sense that public property is and public funds are jointly owned by the entire citizenship. If the US government isn't actually acting faithfully for the interests of it's citizens then it is perhaps a little corrupt. On the other hand, if it is acting faithfully but is failing to make this abundantly clear to it's citizens then it's not corrupt but it's just not very good at PR. That's an important distinction: actual corruption vs. public perception of corruption.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I'll put it another way.You need to pay rent, otherwise the owner just wont let you live in the apartment, or whatever the property is. If you don't pay, you just don't get to live there.You don't need taxation though. Homes can be built without the government taking a slice of the pie, the government doesn't actually supply you with anything other than the land... which it only claimed so that it can charge you for living on it. And if you don't want to pay the government, it isn't a matter of simply not getting government services, they'll actually punish you for it. Isn't that a bit odd?Public property is an illusion. If everyone owns a plot of land, no-one does. When someone says "public property" they're really talking about government property. It's called public property, yet the state is the only one with any real power over it.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I LOVE how you always seem to bring things up after the fact, but still act as though it's something I should have just "known". XDI was using the word corruption as it is in the dictionary because all you said was "corruption". Now you mean "political corruption"?Well, Okay. Let's see what some of the alternatives to political corruption I might have meant:"Is a government absent of police corruption possible?""Is a government absent of corporate corruption possible?""Is a government absent of data corruption possible?""Is a government absent of linguistic corruption possible?""Is a government absent of corruption (video game) possible?"No. I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. "Political corruption" still seems like the most germaine form of corruption to a question about "government".Although, michey5321 did ask me to clarify what definition I meant. He writes:"Before I argue my case, pray tell the definition of 'corruption' in the context you wish to discuss and the scope of the corruption (ergo, only the leader; the highest placed members of government; or everyone)."Hm. Even though he asks for a definition, his parenthetical comments indicate that he really did "just know" that I meant political corruption. He was more interested in the specific definition of political corruption I was going go with and the scope of my considerations. Fairly reasonable question, I thought.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Yeah, the problem with political corruption is that it assumes the validity of the state and focuses on corruption other than the structure of government itself. I've been focusing on the later, to which the only form of corruption is general corruption. Simply the way the dictionary defines corruption. Since the question only says "corruption" I decided to interpret it as general corruption because it's the very structure of the state makes it a corrupt entity.Is that so wrong?
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I'm not sure. I guess it depends on how your dictionary defines general corruption. I'm not even sure what general corruption is. I've always taken corruption to mean political corruption unless I'm speaking on a specialised topic, like on data storage, where the specialised definition of corruption is more likely to be what is meant.How does your dictionary define general corruption?
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I'm not saying general corruption as though it is a category of its own. Think more of it as simply corruption in general.Corruption1. To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of.That definition works fine. Political corruption is using legislative powers outside of their original purpose, I say even the legislations themselves are corrupt.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

You're last three paragraphs pretty much seal the deal. I'm now convinced the US government is a pretty dodgy character indeed.However, you've made no progress with equating all government with corruption. A government having zero officials who are misusing their legislated powers for illegitimate private gain is a government which is not at all corrupt.What I think you'll need to do is disentangle your ideas about governments in general from your ideas about the US government because not all governments are like the US government. Also, you might find it helpful to think on what it means for something to be owned by more than one individual and what might be the fairest ways to resolve disagreements about what should be done with the commonly held property. You might first think about a married couple and their home, then three brothers and their business, How about a whole family or group of families? A neighbourhood, a town, a region and eventually a whole state?How would you resolve disagreements about what should be done with the commonly held property of a bunch of states united as a republic forming "one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". The words seem so hollow given your comments on the US government.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

cor·rupt (k-rpt)adj.1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.So, if you personally consider dishonesty and theft immoral, then government is corrupt. If you don't, then it's not.I'm a moral nihilist, so I wouldn't necessarily use the word corrupt, but if you're a moralist and you consider theft and dishonesty immoral, then government is corrupt.As I've said, I'm an anrcho-capitalist. Any problem caused by the government can be solved by abolishing it.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Ok. Maybe I'm also being a bit harsh on you. But I do mean to get at a real answer rather than merely take an opinion poll. I would appreciate your future contributions but please do justify the positions taken. And certainly do raise objections if I or anyone else make any mistakes. Like I said earlier, collaborative debates aren't about winning but about coming to a better understanding.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Take a survey of the people around you one day as you walk on the sidewalks in town. Then realise that government is made up of people like this, with the crucial difference being that they have an army and police force working for them that gives them power over you.This is why government corruption exists. No matter how many safety features and checks may exist, there will always be common slobs running that system, and the common slob doesn't tend to think of those grandiose thoughts that cause people to act with considerable respect towards the system, instead it's a job and if it pays well and a few special benefits can be received, he'll look the other way.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you here. What kind of survey do you refer to? Do you intend to collect ordinal or nominal data? What questions? What tests do you intend to use to test this data? What are your hypotheses? What is your sample size? Is this sample size adequate to use as a representation of the entire nation, or is it just enough to represent the town or state? How do you intend to interpret the statistics you may find? People like what?And how does 'this', whatever 'this' is, measure the existence of potitical corruption? What actions, if any, may define the behaviour you label as 'common slobs'? What are the 'grandious thoughts that cause people to act with considerable respect towards the system' of which 'common slobs' tend not to ponder about?And if all 'this', whatever 'this' is, is the reason as to why the 'common slobs' do not think of grandiose thoughts to which people stir to action for the system, but instead view 'it', whatever 'it' is, as a job that may or may not pay well with only some benefits the supposed 'common slobs' are entitle to receive would cause him to 'look the other way'?Please clarify what you are proposing.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

What kind of survey do you refer to? Do you intend to collect ordinal or nominal data? What questions? What tests do you intend to use to test this data? What are your hypotheses? What is your sample size? Is this sample size adequate to use as a representation of the entire nation, or is it just enough to represent the town or state? How do you intend to interpret the statistics you may find? People like what?I thought it was obvious, but the statement was implying that the majority of people that make up a nation are not particularly smart, and that government is made up of many common people.And how does 'this', whatever 'this' is, measure the existence of potitical corruption? What actions, if any, may define the behaviour you label as 'common slobs'?What does common mean? A person who is representative of the population, unexceptional.Corruption comes from common people treating their position of power like it is a job.What are the 'grandious thoughts that cause people to act with considerable respect towards the system' of which 'common slobs' tend not to ponder about?The power that a government position has, how any edicts or legislation will last for decades and may pave the way for other legislation that is undesirable, how the immediate wants and needs of this common person supporting his family and living comfortably are less important that maintaining a system that doesn't spiral out of control due to special interests or personal gain.Common people focus on small things like family, love, happiness, friends, etc.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

In the last point you do make some interesting observations. I think you're being a bit dismissive of 'common people' who are really just normal people. But even 'just jobs' can be designed to promote honesty or badly designed and encourage rampant dishonesty. You've converted a very large-scale problem down to an individual-scale problem. I think there's some mileage here but I'm not sure where to start yet. Ok. Thanks for the post.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Here, lets say the average homo sapien can think one week ahead. Fast forward to Benjamin Franklin discovering electricity, then to Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb. With all the advancements in technology and information available, are people still only able to think a brief period of time ahead, or just of immediate wants and needs?Yes, the majority lack good future planning.Any person who acquires all these skills but hate the 'job' they do with these skills must be a glutton for pain. Maybe, but it's a common practise.In a population of average people, the above average will rule. In a population of below average people, the average will rule. In a population of only above average people, no one will rule and they all disperse to different populations. In a population of only below average people, another population will come and control them. In a population of only average people, one of two things can occur: they will do as the superior people or as below average people.Which still misses the important fact that there are many government seats to fill, and the best and brightest will still gravitate towards the sciences and engineering. The bottom line is that for my argument's sake, government is made up of the people that it rules over. A few IQ points here and there aren't really important.Most college professors don't read the papers they have to grade. If I give you one hundred documents to read each day, each documents have seventy-five pages written in Times New Roman font size twelve, how many can you read? During the passing of the Patriot Act, as a nation, the United States was in a state of confusion. Most, if not all, citizens demand immediate results. The pressure of creating results trumps the need to fully understand the process to achieve these results.It's still an issue of incompetence no matter the excuses made.Let's look at conflict escalation. Suppose you and I are playing the dollar auction game. The highest bidder gets a hundred dollars but the second highest bidder also pays. How much would you bid for the hundred dollars?I don't bid, besides this it's a matter of incompetence. Normal people cannot cope with the workload, even above-average people have difficulty, therefore we need exceptional people.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: Yes

Gentlemen,Can I suggest you both split up your posts so that each post corresponds to a single argument for Yes or for No to the question. Also, when supporting or disputing an argument, make each separate reason a separate post. You'll find that it makes it easier to come to terms on some of the points and therefore tease out exactly the specific points you're both really disputing. I assure you, it works!Thanks.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

If the government is full of average people it is because the majority of the population is below average. There is no need for above average people, thus they privatize themselves.One last thing on this part, is political science not a science?Soft science, but you missed my assumptions.If you have a population hierarchy like that in our democracy, there will be seats of power in excess quantity of what the above average can fill compared towards the average. Add to this the simple fact that the intelligentsia are drawn towards academics and sciences, and most certainly not in pursuit of military careers, and you have a situation where many average people will fill up these positions. It's even worse when you consider the personality types drawn towards these positions. The very intelligent have a tendency not to be interested in military duty and rank climbing. Neither are they interested in the political social game.This explains why we see some intelligent people in government and military, but a majority of average people.In what sense does only understanding parts of what was instructed to the students okay to be average? So an average member of society need not understand every aspect of the concepts presented to him/her, complex or simple. Suffice to say dumb is the average American, some intelligence is their politician. Is this really what you're getting at? or does the C students wand the B students to have A student results?What I'm saying is that The C Americans tend to vote for and elect others like themselves, because of the "everyman/common man" image that is successful in politics, a few Bs and very rarely As. In fact the As are more interested in Physics, Mathematics, Archaeology, etc. than pandering to the C Americans by playing a game of "I'm just like you" followed by "my opponent is a communist."In my family, A is average, B is below average and anything below this means failure. Maybe it's time to raise the standards a little in the rest of the country, starting with ourselves.I think it is the nature of society. You will always have a few As, extra Bs and a whole lot of Cs, even if the standards for a C become that of an A.This is why I think corruption is unavoidable, there will always the less intelligent who feel inclined to take short cuts, or sleaze by.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

What I'm saying is that The C Americans tend to vote for and elect others like themselves, because of the "everyman/common man" image that is successful in politics, a few Bs and very rarely As. In fact the As are more interested in Physics, Mathematics, Archeology, etc. than pandering to the C Americans by playing a game of "I'm just like you" followed by "my opponent is a communist."It's actually not that hard to play the game of "I'm just like you", call it conning, manipulation, or whatever you want, it gets the tasks it was used for done. But it's actually a lot more than simply 'I'm just like you'; the first step is 'I like who you are', then it's 'I'm just like you', followed by 'Your secrets are safe with me', and last but not least 'I'm perfect for you' (Robert Hare, Snakes in Suits, 2002). Sexual politics, office politics, or even government politics, it gets the job done.The study of human nature and its applications are way too undervalued. And just about every person has an endgame, even the 'common slob'. (Yep, have kids and grow old counts as an endgame.) Playing the 'I'm just like you' game would really help. Why do intellects choose not to study this is beyond me. Morals, or lack thereof, in its applications?, please tell me no.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

It's actually not that hard to play the game of "I'm just like you", call it conning, manipulation, or whatever you want, it gets the tasks it was used for done. But it's actually a lot more than simply 'I'm just like you'; the first step is 'I like who you are', then it's 'I'm just like you', followed by 'Your secrets are safe with me', and last but not least 'I'm perfect for you' (Robert Hare, Snakes in Suits, 2002). Sexual politics, office politics, or even government politics, it gets the job done.I never thought it was difficult or ever ineffective. I just don't like it, and I'm sure that many academics who employ integrity throughout their work and life are deeply resentful of it.The study of human nature and its applications are way too undervalued. And just about every person has an endgame, even the 'common slob'. (Yep, have kids and grow old counts as an endgame.) Playing the 'I'm just like you' game would really help. Why do intellects choose not to study this is beyond me. Morals, or lack thereof, in its applications?, please tell me no.It's beneath someone who works in higher pursuits, I believe.I can't speak for all intellectuals, but I can make a hunch that that the kind who I believe need to be in politics to stem corruption, find the game petty after they've dedicated their lives to solving the great puzzles and mysteries of life.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I never thought it was difficult or ever ineffective. I just don't like it, and I'm sure that many academics who employ integrity throughout their work and life are deeply resentful of it.I assure you living life in the morally gray area is much more fun. Unless you feel that you must answer to a higher power upon your death or a strict set of personal moral guidelines restricts you from having a little fun in this manner.It's beneath someone who works in higher pursuits, I believe.No one is above doing something. Given the right circumstances any person can be forced to do what they don't want. Use your imagination, don't just limit it to politics or psychological manipulation. Just as no one is above a beating, and I mean no one.I can't speak for all intellectuals, but I can make a hunch that that the kind who I believe need to be in politics to stem corruption, find the game petty after they've dedicated their lives to solving the great puzzles and mysteries of life.There are only two types of people in life, the one that believes in the afterlife and the one that doesn't. Not much to say about the first because they all have different views; and of the latter I believe can be summed up in two quotes--the first from Rene Descartes: I think, therefore I am; and the second from Oscar Wilde: There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. Life is really what you make of it. I for one am much more interested in the great mystery of the Dow Jones Industrial Average than figuring out what gravity really is. Oh have you figured it out yet, last I check we only know of its existence and what it does?