azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

Do you have any clear evidence that there are societal problems in the U.S specifically targeting blacks and pushing them toward a life of violence.That's a difficult question to answer, especially in the way that it's phrased. I look at societal problems not as ones who have specific targets, but problems that effect or impact groups of people disproportionately, so as to highlight, for example, some kind of disfranchisement. I mean there are many cases of Blacks succeeding in society.There are many, and Black people in America are generally in a much better place than they were decades and centuries ago, but why should I or anyone else be satisfied with tokenism? This doesn't seem to be a racist soceity to me.The great reply of Whites throughout America's history has always been "we get along just fine with our negroes", in one shape or form. Gallup asked White Americans in 1962 if they believed that Black children had the same education opportunities that they had. 90% believed that Blacks did. In 1963, White Americans were asked "Do you think that racial minorities are treated equally in your community?" 80% answered 'yes'. 1950s, 1940s, and so on, a large (enough) part of the population of White Americans have historically believed that race has not been a social problem. And they have historically, always, been wrong.For almost every generation, the level of racism in this country has been downplayed and outright denied. And I think that denialism is an example of one societal problem - one that continues today. 4 years ago, for example, saw the largest number of racial, housing discrimination reports in the nation's history. Not 1968, after the passing of the Fair Housing Act. Not 1950, not 1980, not even the 19th century. It was in 2006. That reflects some kind of problem that's happening in America today that's clearly not being properly addressed.I realize that the ancestors of the black were brought here by force and legally this is your country as much as ours but noone is forcing the blacks to stay here.I'm not African American. But, this is somewhat of a disingenuous position to hold.Why has the black ethnic group never historically developed a civilized society.That's just not factual: Nubia, Kemet, Mali, Ehtiopia were all, by any definition, civilized societies.Why do they have a history of tribal wars and violence.Every people, every country, every city has a history of - and continue to have - tribal war and violence. This isn't something unique in any way to Black populations anywhere in the world.Is it still becasue of the white man who oppresses them.A great many of the problems that we see in Black communities, in America and globally, are directly and indirectly consequences of historical: physical or cultural violence perpetrated against Blacks by Whites. And it's not unique to Black populations either.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

To Mahollinder: My problem is you don't actually bring any evidence of this widespread racism against blacks. We elected a black man for president. Thats my evidence that there isn't widespread racism. Whats yours?The fact that blacks don't get same education may be their fault. I have black people at my school and I have talked to them. They hate school.Also the "civilised " societies you cited are nowhere close to the numerous western and eastern societies in both size and achievements.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

My problem is you don't actually bring any evidence of this widespread racism against blacks.You didn't ask for evidence of widespread racism. You asked me if I could identify societal problems that specifically target Black people, leading them towards a life of violence. To which, I provided an answer. Societal problems don't have specific targets, they simply effect groups of people. But, quite frankly, I never even mentioned "widespread racism". So why am I now obligated to provide evidence of it - out of the blue?We elected a black man for president.Right, the country has had many successful Black people. We both agree on that. But the existence of successful Black people in any given country has no bearing on whether there is racism in a society.The fact that blacks don't get same education may be their fault.I don't know what this is a response to.I have black people at my school and I have talked to them. They hate school.Okay, I wasn't aware of a dislike of school being unique to Black people.Also the "civilised " societies you cited are nowhere close to the numerous western and eastern societies in both size and achievements.You asserted that Blacks have never developed a civilized society. I named a handful. You are wrong. That they weren't as big or "accomplished" is irrelevant to that consideration.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

You're right, it would be a safer place without African Americans. Oh wait, there are other groups that commit crimes? Let's kick them out too. Hold on, Caucasians also commit crimes? Let's remove them as well. Oh wait, there's no one in America now...
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

If you agree with the debate heading, shouldn't your comment be on the other side of the page?
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

no america would not be safer you dick head ass licking stank face................WHAT THE HELL DID YOU MAKE THIS TOPIC FOR BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS BLACK YOU LIL FUCKER SO WHAT THE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

I am also curious as to how you earned so many UP VOTES for your lame-ass comment which provided no substance whatsoever for your argument. You made no argument at all, just called me disparaging names. Somehow that carries weight with the Libtards on this site, who would've guessed?
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

You aren't capable of rational thinking are you?The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

The president is a mulatto, stank face, LOL. To describe him in his own words , he is a mutt. Do you have an actual argument or do you expect to win this debate with explosive emotion? I suspect you are black. I also suspect you are male. But, I doubt you would respond to my most recent debate "Men are responsible for more crime than women" with the same outrage. Why is that? There is very little difference between the two debates...other than one is politically correct and the other isn't. Think about it, stankface.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

Stankface?Mutt?You're like a 10 year old Hitler. Nice display of bigoted, ignorant, irrational, racist, immaturity by the way.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

Apparently, it is beyond your comprehension that I was only using the term stankface sarcastically because my opponent used it, but such humor is lost on the more simple-minded, like yourself. Why do the simple-minded always take the Libtard view of reality? Hey, that's an idea for a debate topic!
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

You can't just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a Liberal or simple-minded. That's a pretty primitive black-and-white view and is, on any level, lacking any rational thought. You have some progress to make.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

10 Year old Hitler? Haha what ignorant comment. Hitler had no bias in him or racism at that age.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

No you idiot. He means 10 years old in maturity and Hitler in personal perspective.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

You are a perverse, wretched donkey. You shall remain quiet for the remainder of the evening.Best regards,Enigmatic Man.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

What are you stupid? Whites are just as dangerous as Blacks as is everyone else. In fact, Whites become the most accomplished serial killers and make up some of the worst extremist groups.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

Not to mention, they actually know the value of what it takes to gain equal rights/privileges to live in this country unlike the whites who just took it from the Native Americans.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

Tell me, kind sir, what do you suspect the Native Americans' sentiments are of multiculuralism...hmmm?
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

Actually whites make up most serial killers because it takes a well above average intelligence to become a serial killer (a.k.a not get caught). But the intelligence thing is another story altogether.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

You're lucky to get any response whatsoever from me. But, since you actually typed out 3 whole sentences this time, I'll honor your drivel with a response, here it is. Do you have any evidence that the average white person in America is just as dangerous as the average black person in America? Do you offer any evidence to support your conviction or is it a purely subjective, emotional response? I am curious to see your response on my latest debate, "Men are responsible for more crime than women".
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

"You're lucky to get any response whatsoever from me."So you're suddenly superior to anyone? LOL Are you like 12 years old? You sure act like it. Trying to act all tough over the internet. You're pretty pathetic.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

Great argument. You totally destroyed my argument by calling me a 12-year-old. Damn, you are absolutely gifted at debate. By the way, I don't get into superiority or inferiority, since those sentiments are purely subjective.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

So not only are you incredibly stupid, you're also a racist white supremacist? "You're lucky to get any response whatsoever from me."You're more idiotic than I thought. You call yourself enlightened? From all the narrow-minded bigotry I've seen you drool on this site, it's safe to say you're no better than Hitler. You're scared of anything that's different from you or your interests. Sad.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

When logic, intelligence and facts are beyond your reach, just call your opponent "Hitler" and you'll automatically win every debate, whether you are right or wrong. Good move, Libtard.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

It's a bit of an oxymoron that a conservative is claiming to use logic, facts or even intelligence. I would agree with you but you're simply not displaying any. You're only puting out a biased opinion. I'm not Liberal by the way ; )
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

Thx for proving my point. You're not using logic or facts, just racist irrationality.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

of coerce not...................................................................................................
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

There are plenty of other people left in this country who would be more than happy to prove you wrong on that point.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

No, it wouldnt! Thats just a crazy question. It would not make a diffrence at all.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

wtf you bastards black people are awesome the person who made this is a homo
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

It's not fair to pin America's problems on African Americans. Are you implying that white people are perfect and never commit crimes? Are we not all human? We are the EXACT same on the inside and a white person is just as likely to kill as a black person is, depending on how they're raised. Point being, such a thing can't be pinned to race as a whole. I realize it's like a joke that all black people are thugs because it really is a legit stereotype and unfortunately there are people out there who really believe that that is the case. But with the African Americans gone, I think more white people would simply take over the vacant spots of the African Americans and thus nothing would change.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

seems like america WAS a safer place without white americans. before whitey landed, american was a very peaceful place. come to think of it, it seems like every place that whitey lands, turns into chaos. the white americans killed most of the native population. whitey killed most of the australian aborigines. killed most of the new zealand maoris. robbed india, turning it from the richest country to the poorest. has made africa poor, even til today, even though africa has a lot of natural resources. white euros have also opened up sweat shops accross the globe and exploited slave labour. whitey also creates some of the most vicious and dangerous weapons that kill massive amounts of people including nuclear bombs, and chemical weapons.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

I CAN'T Believe that people are contributing to the racist side! Seriously people, MORALITY!!!
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: No, it wouldn't.

There are a number of logical problems with the racism in this question.For starters, if Africans are genetically violent people, as you attempt to imply, then why isn't every other race equally violent? I assume you missed the Human Genome Project and similar efforts to unravel our point of origin, because it is plain fact that humanity is African (as in, it was at one point all black, but due to divergence in populations gained superficial differences due to evolution).Secondly, if Africans are the root of violence, or a major contributor towards it, then historical societies which had few if any black immigrants should have been markedly docile. For example, the Europeans through the middle ages should have had little turmoil, but did not. The Chinese dynasties should have been crime-free. There was much fighting between Native American tribes before Africans arrived.If it isn't social and economic status which causes violence, which you argued, then poor whites, Latinos, and immigrants besides blacks should have a quantity of crime that is proportional to the middle class and the wealthy.The most likely explanation is that blacks stand out in a society where they are a minority, and so they are more likely to catch the attention of police. A white murderer or drug lord is inconspicuous, but if he has black or brown skin he will stand out and be introduced to questioning. In other words a selection bias brought on by our evolved animal brains.
Debate: Would America be a safer place without African Americans?
Side: Yes, it would.

to avedske: There are so many things wrong with your argument I don't know where to start. First of all, just because there is a theory that we evolved from Africans doesn't mean that we are all the same. For thousands of years we have had a radically different environment and culture that may have lead whites to develop and evolve differently. Evolutionists don't know anything for sure. They keep changing their theories. How do you know that all the changes over these years are superficial. Maybe there are severe changes to personality and temperament that cant be physically seen or quantified easily. How come different races of dogs are so different. I mean they are all dogs and probably had a common ancestor. Oh wait there are huge physical and mental differences between different races of dogs.Now onto your second point. This is a quite bad argument. No-one said blacks are the sole cause of violence. I just argue that blacks are generally more violent than whites. I will use an example to make this easier to understand. Smoking is a major cause of lung cancer. If you eradicate smoking you won't eradicate lung cancer. Now why would you compare our society to the middle ages. It is completely different society with different definitions for crimes, different law enforcement capabilities, people lived differently(farms)and ultimately different people. These factors make it a wholly different environment and the comparison is worthless not to mention you don't have any actual statistics of the time.IF you were to try to use that argument you would have to find a society today which is very similar to U.S in every way(impossible) and then have hard statistics showing that the crime-rate is similar to the of the U.S with blacks and even that wouldn't explain why blacks commit more crimes in the U.S.I never said social economic status doesn't have any effect on crime. A poor white man may be desperate for quick cash so he steals. I am just saying that it may be the same black mentality that causes them to be both violent and poor. He decides to do illegal things and steal for immediate gratification instead of working slowly toward a better life. The ratio of poor white men to rich white men men is a lot smaller then that of poor black men to rich black men(in this case I group medium with rich). I argue that this is because of the black mentality that causes them to be violent and ultimately lazy.Your last paragraph is kind of a joke. I mean common. You think the police randomly roams the streets and pick up dudes that stand out to take them in for questioning. The way it works usually is a crime is committed. Police analyze evidence and look for suspects that fit the evidence. The they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty. They dont look for the guy taht stands out they look for a suspect that fits a description. Not to mention that poor blacks tend to clump together into black neighborhoods where its the white man that stands out.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: No, it's incompatible

Everyone on this side continues to fail to actually answer the premise I set out...interesting.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes guilty people go to hell

I actually did answer the question within the text. The question, however, is based on a wrong premise but not only would He, but He will, if you understand why and reasons behind it.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

you guys do not know God's plan. hell is not a place of torture, you simply cease to exist, thats why its called the second death, you just end in oblivion, nothing more, nothing less. but for people who think God would send people to hell who never heard about him you are wrong, God said he would show every human his existence, whether in this life time or not, so God never sends any one to hell for not knowing him.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

This premise is completely wrong. Hell is not a place where people stop existing. This is merely a JW's argument based on faulty doctrine and incorrect translations.The bible is clear that the devil, his angels and all those who reject Jesus Christ will go to hell, "the smoke of their torment will be a reminder forever, their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched’ ” (Mark 9:43-44,46,48). Some argue that this means that they become like unto garbage and the worm represents the eating away or unending destruction of the individual that will last for all time. Gehenna (Hell) was a refuse dump.In regards to people not knowing God, scripture is clear that God never leaves himself without witness regardless of how we humanly understand this concept. God alone judges fairly.
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

Revelation constantly informs the reader that 'hell' is the Second Death:Revelation 2:11b "Whoever is victorious will not be hurt by the second death."Revelation 20:6a "Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. For them the second death holds no power"Revelation 20:14 "And death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death--the lake of fire."Revelation 21:8 "But cowards who turn away from me, and unbelievers, and the corrupt, and murderers, and the immoral, and those who practice witchcraft, and idol worshipers, and all liars--their doom is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death."As for death, itself, the Bible also states that there is no life in death, no spirit surviving on. You're dead, in the ground.Ecclesiastes 9:5 "The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing"John 11:11 "Then he said, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep[1], but now I will go and wake him up."[1] The Greek word used here (koimaō) is also used in Matthew 27 to describe dead people. It also describes death in Acts 7 (Stephen's death), Acts 13 (King David is now sleeping), and others.So the first death is sleeping, but everyone will get awoken at some point in time. The Second Death would then be 'sleep' without waking. Dead. Gone.Thus, Hell is not an eternal fire-pit, but an eternal death
Debate: Would a benevolent God send people to hell?
Side: Yes, they rejected him

The problem with the view is that no one, given a clear choice, would reject god. No one of sound mind would choose hell over heaven. So then, anyone who does not 'accept Jesus' does so because it is not clear to them that he is 'the way the truth and the life'. The fact that the 'one true religion' is not clear to us humans would ultimately be god's fault. If God were real and wanted people to believe a particular theology, he could easily make the choice clear. The very fact that people are almost certainly going to adopt the religion of their parents attests to the lack of clarity in the 'choice'.