azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

That's not true. People do address candidate's ability to make decisions, their age, emotional influence, the kind of person they, their capabilities, etc. etc.. It's definitely the primary one, but since there is more than one person a party, it can't be the only one.They discuss it, but it only ever comes down to the policies/beliefs.Hillary is not the only person to announce her candidacy.Of the people you listed, she is. Plus, no other candidate has been discussed at all. And, to answer the question of the debate, just because someone is in the same political party as you, it doesn't mean they should be president.Who in their right mind supports ideas they don't think should be in the president? If you don't think your own beliefs are the correct ones to have for president, why would you have those beliefs? Everyone thinks they have the correct answer.Wasn't meant to be a major criticism, merely pointing out the flaw in her logic here.It wasn't a major criticism of your argument, but you are the one with the flaw, not her. I am all for pointing out her flaws, but this time it is only you.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Who in their right mind supports ideas they don't think should be in the president? I supported Gary Johnson, despite being close to the opposite of a libertarian. I believed that, even if he was in opposition to my beliefs, he was a better candidate than the Democratic or Republican options.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

Your objection is only valid if you can demonstrate you are in your right mind. ;)But, that is the opposite of what I was saying any way. If you had picked someone who had your beliefs it would be valid. If you supported Gary Johnson because the Democrat or Republican didn't hold your beliefs either than you have proved my point since none of the three candidates fit the criteria I mentioned. If you chose someone who had views opposite yourself while a candidate with your views existed I think it would be fair to call you insane.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

They discuss it, but it only ever comes down to the policies/beliefs.So? The question of the debate was should. Just because the general public usually only focuses on things like beliefs that doesn't mean that other things, like ability to be president, aren't important. Of the people you listed, she is. Plus, no other candidate has been discussed at all.Um, that doesn't mean that other candidates don't exist… Who in their right mind supports ideas they don't think should be in the president? If you don't think your own beliefs are the correct ones to have for president, why would you have those beliefs? Everyone thinks they have the correct answer.There is variation among liberals. For example, Dana is a liberal but is pro life. If she was running for president, it would be illogical for me to say "She is liberal, so I support her" because I fundamentally disagree with her on several things. It wasn't a major criticism of your argument, but you are the one with the flaw, not her. I am all for pointing out her flaws, but this time it is only you.I think I've just shown that's not true. Don't say you've won a debate before someone has responded to your arguments.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

So? The question of the debate was should. Just because the general public usually only focuses on things like beliefs that doesn't mean that other things, like ability to be president, aren't important.You are giving her grief over doing what everyone else does. There is variation among liberals. For example, Dana is a liberal but is pro life. If she was running for president, it would be illogical for me to say "She is liberal, so I support her" because I fundamentally disagree with her on several things.I find it strange to criticize someone for picking someone to be president based on what they believe, but picking them to not be president because you don't like their beliefs.I think I've just shown that's not true. Don't say you've won a debate before someone has responded to your arguments.You said something was bad to do then did it. I count that as a win either way.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

You are giving her grief over doing what everyone else does.That says nothing about the logic of my argument. Just because everyone does something doesn't mean that what they do is correct...I find it strange to criticize someone for picking someone to be president based on what they believe, but picking them to not be president because you don't like their beliefs.I am not criticizing someone for picking a president based on what they believe. I am criticizing making that the only factor. All I am saying is the what someone believes doesn't necessarily make them a good leader, so that shouldn't be the only factor in if you vote for them. You said something was bad to do then did it. I count that as a win either way.What did I do that was bad and then do it? I never said I won't this debate...
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

If everyone does it it is the standard making it not a poor reason since poor is below standard.You said that only using beliefs is not good for determining if the candidate is good then only used beliefs to determine she was bad, a double standard, I win.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

If everyone does it it is the standard making it not a poor reason since poor is below standard.So are you arguing that if everyone does something, it is the right thing to do? I claimed it was a poor reason because I had a better alternative. And honestly, not everyone only uses someone's beliefs as the criteria in deciding if they would vote for them. My family, many of my friends, and many other people I have talked to often talk about the kind of a person a candidate is, and their ability to lead. It's something that I find important, and I am not alone in this. By her logic, how do you differentiate between two candidates who are both liberal? You said that only using beliefs is not good for determining if the candidate is good then only used beliefs to determine she was bad, a double standard, I win.You are trying to twist my words (or you do not have a grasp of what I am arguing.) I said that in trying to determine whether or not you should vote for a candidate, you should consider more than just which political party the person belongs to. I pointed out that someone having political views you believe with is not the same thing as someone being qualified to be president. I did not say that Dana was a bad person for this belief, I just pointed out the flaw in her argument.On a debate site, when you raise a point, others can respond to that point with opposing viewpoints. Dana made the point that she supported Hillary because she was a liberal. I pointed out that I believed that she should have more criteria in supporting a candidate than that. I did not attack her personally, I merely addressed her argument. You then attacked me. You claimed that I was 'giving her grief' and are now arguing that I am in the wrong for raising the point, which you have not disputed in any other way than saying that more people than Dana are guilty of this. Can you explain further how I am falling into a double standard here? Do you mean to say because I argued that in choosing a president you should value all the factors that go into being a president I am hypocritical for not considering all the factors that go into choosing a president when responding to a comment on a debate?
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

So are you arguing that if everyone does something, it is the right thing to do?Just read what you quoted. You are trying to twist my words (or you do not have a grasp of what I am arguing.)So you could feel at home see above.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Just read what you quoted.Well, I was asking for clarification. Was my interpretation that 'if everyone does something, it's the right thing to do' correct? You said 'If everyone does it it is the standard making it not a poor reason since poor is below standard.' I'm just going to repeat my counter to your argument because you did not respond to it. Well, to respond to that, a) not everyone does this. As I said before, not everyone only uses someone's beliefs as the criteria in deciding if they would vote for them. My family, many of my friends, and many other people I have talked to often talk about the kind of a person a candidate is, and their ability to lead. It's something that I find important, and I am not alone in this.b) By her logic, how do you differentiate between two candidates who are both liberal?So you could feel at home see above.I was unclear of your argument, which is why I asked a question on if what I was saying was correct. You claimed that I made an argument that I had not made by using the term 'belief' vaguely. I responded in detail why your interpretation of what I said was false (which again, you did not respond to).
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

Well, I was asking for clarification. Was my interpretation that 'if everyone does something, it's the right thing to do' correct?NO!!!!!!!!!You claimed that I made an argument that I had not made by using the term 'belief' vaguely. I responded in detail why your interpretation of what I said was false (which again, you did not respond to).You claimed that your only criteria for believing that LibProlifer shouldn't be president is because of her beliefs which is in direct contradiction to your stance that only using beliefs is a bad thing.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

NO!!!!!!!!!Ok, care to elaborate more? Clearly your point was not made clearly, which is why i asked for clarification. You claimed that your only criteria for believing that LibProlifer shouldn't be president is because of her beliefs which is in direct contradiction to your stance that only using beliefs is a bad thing.I never made any argument about LibProlifer being president, and that is exactly not my argument. Please, when did I say anything like that? Please identify. My original argument is "you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs." You are correct in saying that my stance is that you should consider more than just someone's stance/political views. I went on to elaborate, saying that things such as the "candidate's ability to make decisions, their age, emotional influence, the kind of person they, their capabilities, etc. etc.." I argue that more factors than whether someone is liberal or conservative should be considered. When did I ever contradict this belief?
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

Ok, care to elaborate more? Clearly your point was not made clearly, which is why i asked for clarification.I would rather have you just read the argument, but ok. Poor means below what is expected. See the word below? The word below is important. Doing what everyone else does is the expected. Therefore, it can't be poor since it is the expected.I never made any argument about LibProlifer being president, and that is exactly not my argument. Please, when did I say anything like that? Please identify."There is variation among liberals. For example, Dana is a liberal but is pro life. If she was running for president, it would be illogical for me to say "She is liberal, so I support her" because I fundamentally disagree with her on several things."You disagree with her beliefs so she is not presidential material.My original argument is "you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs."I agree that you only became hypocritical later.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

I would rather have you just read the argument, but ok. Poor means below what is expected. See the word below? The word below is important. Doing what everyone else does is the expected. Therefore, it can't be poor since it is the expected.Another definition of the word poor is "less than is desirable." That is more along the lines of my meaning. Just because something is expected doesn't mean it is the desirable or, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Just because something is what is expected of society doesn't mean that it must be a good thing. "There is variation among liberals. For example, Dana is a liberal but is pro life. If she was running for president, it would be illogical for me to say "She is liberal, so I support her" because I fundamentally disagree with her on several things."You disagree with her beliefs so she is not presidential material.Yes, that statement was not a good argument on my part as it wasn't a good response on my part, but it in no way makes me a hypocrite, as it does not counter my original claim that "you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs." LibProlifer's original argument was "She is a liberal, so I support her. ." The quote you pulled from me counters her argument as I identified that there is variation among liberals. This in no way invalidates the other points I have made about the other factors that go into picking a president.I agree that you only became hypocritical later.Something that I disagree with, as I just explained why. But to get back to the point, do you still disagree with my original claim that you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs? Remember, the key word here is should, as that is the original question posed by the debate (Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president).
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

doesn't mean that it must be a good thingHey Mr. Word Twister. You can stop calling the standard a good thing just because it is standard.   but it in no way makes me a hypocriteSaying that making a decision about president based solely on their beliefs is bad then making a decision about someone based on their beliefs is hypocritical. If you don't rephrase what you meant by the statement and just sick to you not being wrong doesn't make you less hypocritical. But to get back to the point, do you still disagree with my original claim that you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs?Is it hyphenated? Are you Mr. Word-Twister? I didn't actually say that being above standard was a bad thing. I thought my NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! would have helped clear that up earlier.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Hey Mr. Word Twister. You can stop calling the standard a good thing just because it is standard.How am I twisting your words? You're the one whose cherry picking specific sentences from long arguments, and claiming that because I made one example that was poor I am wrong. I never called the standard a good thing because it's standard. The question of this debate is what is good, not what is standard. I argued what I think is good, and you countered me by saying that it's wrong because it's not what everyone else does. Saying that making a decision about president based solely on their beliefs is bad then making a decision about someone based on their beliefs is hypocritical. If you don't rephrase what you meant by the statement and just sick to you not being wrong doesn't make you less hypocritical.The example I made was poor, and I am very aware of that and apologize. The example I made ware more of a counter to the idea that "because I am liberal I should vote for a liberal," as there is variation among liberals. However, stating that there is variation among liberals does not go against my original argument. What I meant by that statement was that just because someone is a liberal and you are a liberal it doesn't mean you should vote for them. It was a poor response to the question you posed, so I will give a better response below. But it was not hypocritical. If you want a more effective argument: Person A and I share the same beliefs, but Person A does not have the ability to stand up against adversity. As such, I will not vote for Person A to be president because I think the ability to stand up against adversity is important for a president.Is it hyphenated? Are you Mr. Word-Twister? I didn't actually say that being above standard was a bad thing. I thought my NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! would have helped clear that up earlier.Well, then why did you counter my original argument? The question of the debate was should Hillary Clinton be elected. I gave my response to LibProlifer saying that what she suggested was not what I believed should happen. You now agree with me that that is what should happen. You clearly have some problem with my argument, as you said "you are the one with the flaw." You have since moved away from the original counter to my argument, instead trying to catch me on technicalities such as one flawed argument or by quoting the middle of one of my sentences in a paragraph. This is no way invalidates any of the arguments I originally made, nor does it weaken my stance or make my arguments incorrect.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

How am I twisting your words?By saying that I claimed the standard is good. Try reading what you quote.You're the one whose cherry picking specific sentences from long argumentsThe length of the argument is worthless if the premise it is based on is faulty.and claiming that because I made one example that was poor I am wrong.I explained how you were wrong.I never called the standard a good thing because it's standard.You are claiming that I think that as long as everyone does it I am claiming it is good.The question of this debate is what is good, not what is standard.False, the word poor is about what is standard.I argued what I think is good, and you countered me by saying that it's wrong because it's not what everyone else does.False, you argued what you think is substandard.The example I made was poor, and I am very aware of that and apologize. Thanks.The example I made ware more of a counter to the idea that "because I am liberal I should vote for a liberal," as there is variation among liberals. However, stating that there is variation among liberals does not go against my original argument.Just move on dude. You apologized, move on.What I meant by that statement was that just because someone is a liberal and you are a liberal it doesn't mean you should vote for them. It was a poor response to the question you posed, so I will give a better response below. But it was not hypocritical.The way you said it was hypocritical. Deal with it and move on. Reword your hypocritical statement, stop calling it not hypocritical.Well, then why did you counter my original argument?If you can't tell why I countered your argument then you can't read and telling you again won't help.I gave my response to LibProlifer saying that what she suggested was not what I believed should happen.No, you said that what she suggested was not how it works.You have since moved away from the original counter to my argument,False. You think I have because you twisted my words.instead trying to catch me on technicalities such as one flawed argument or by quoting the middle of one of my sentences in a paragraph.You made one argument and I said it was flawed. What do you want from me? Create fake arguments that you didn't make and point out how they are flawed? Oh, you do like that approach. I was referring to a full sentence by the way.This is no way invalidates any of the arguments I originally made, nor does it weaken my stance or make my arguments incorrect.Your word choice is incorrect.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

I have the right to vote for someone who shares my beliefs. It is not a poor reason. My vote, my right.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

Nobody denied it was your right. That said, something being your right does not make it a good decision. It is my right to smoke; this doesn't mean it's a logical thing to do.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

I am going to vote however I want. You don't get to decide what is and is not good when it comes to my vote. I will be voting liberal.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

Considering how "good" is subjective, that means that he does indeed get to decide what he believes to be good or bad when it comes to your vote. As previous posters have mentioned, your only stated reason for voting Hillary is not, as many of us have said, "good". You might think it is a good reason, but, we have a "right to our opinion", as you have said.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

I want to vote for a liberal, not a conservative. .
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

How is that relevant to my previous post? Again, this is why people often feel like you are ignoring what they say.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

Fact: I read your entire post. .
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

Then explain how your response was relevant. Your responses are entirely disconnected from what you are responding to, so I see no proof that you are reading my posts.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

No he doesn't. I have the right to vote for whoever I want. No one has the right to tell someone else how to vote. My vote is my right.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

1. Nobody said you don't have the right to vote for whoever you want.2. He didn't tell you who to vote for, he stated his opinions on your reasons for voting the way you were going to.3. Everyone has the right to their opinions, as you say over and over on this website. Why is it that when someone says an opinion that you disagree with, suddenly they don't have a right to their opinion?It seems, yet again, like you didn't actually read what he said.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

3. People have the right to their opinions, but they do not have the right to force them on others. How to vote is a personal choice thas that everyone has the right to make on their own.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

First off, you completely ignored the majority of my previous post.Second, he in no way, shape, or form even attempted to force his opinion on you, nor is there any hypothetical way he could have.Why do you not respond to the entirety of the posts made to you?
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

1. You did not read my comment, so why should I read yours? 2. He was telling me how to vote when he said that me voting for a liberal is not a good idea.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

What basis do you have for saying that I did not read your comment, particularly when I replied to it directly and in its entirety?Edit: Additionally, he was saying your justification was not a good idea, which 1. Wasn't telling you how to vote, and 2. Wasn't forcing you to do anything.
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: yes

You are refusing to address ,y claims. .
Debate: Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
Side: no

Please list any claims of yours that I have not addressed.