azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

man must work for his fruits of labor, not merely be entitled by breathingThat statement is outright incompatible with non-coercion. People will amass wealth with luck, even if you were to consider merit and hard work legitimate. Suppose someone inherits their fathers wealth and does not need to work a day in his life.He is entitled by his very breathing just like a welfare recipient. Nothing he worked for. The man did not choose his father, but everything was provided for him.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Those who become wealthy just based on previous accumulated wealth is just as bad for those who receive public assistance. The only difference is the wealthy brat gets money that is private, which were more than likely earned by voluntary exchange from previous heir.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

man must work for his fruits of labor, not merely be entitled by breathing1. What you consider just is a person deserving of his needs by merit being provided with them.Those who become wealthy just based on previous accumulated wealth is just as bad for those who receive public assistance. 2. What you consider unjust is a person undeserving of his needs by merit being provided with them.We have already established luck can cause the scenario of the undeserving getting his needs, but luck can also have the opposite effect:3. By extension you must consider unjust a person deserving of his needs by merit having his needs denied from him.My system causes the first scenario (good) and the second scenario (bad), but avoids the third one (good). Your system causes the first scenario (good), the second scenario (bad) and the third scenario (bad).You are not right in defending your system with merit. You therefore need to provide another justification for this factor of luck or otherwise your system lacks a justification as a whole.Also, you may prove that it is unjust to affect this factor of luck but in doing so you are not justifying the system itself. You are only make the system unjustifiable. I rest my case if you must consider luck a just basis for distribution to justify your system.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Actually, I clearly justified those born into a wealthy family can be justified despite great wealth but no merit. If the heir is entitled to the assets, it was voluntarily given to him compared to as someone on public assistance where it was forced by the threat of violence by the government. The use of force and violence to voluntarily is a clear justification for the luck of wealthy spoiled brats.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

I clearly justified those born into a wealthy family can be justified despite great wealth but no merit.How about the situation of the one who was denied of his basic needs by luck even though they belong to them by merit? I want to make sure we both understand that our justifications for distribution can't make use of merit. We do not propose or endorse a meritocracy.The use of force and violence to voluntarily is a clear justification for the luck of wealthy spoiled brats.We must define the parties that are using violence and force. Property which is not protected with violence is not property in any meaningful sense. Therefore the act of aggression has to be justified when a person claims special rights on an object. The same is equally true for the repossession of an object.Consensuality between traders only justifies repossession and does not encompass the justification of the original claim for the object. When you go back far enough the object is not ultimately claimed from another person. The original claim can't be consensual in nature.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Rich people have no legal obligation to help the poor. Morally speaking, the rich may be obligated to help the poor, but that is on their conscious. If we force them to help the poor, how are they truly free?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Rich people have no legal obligation to help the poor. Actually, rich people are legally obligated to the help the poor as is everyone else, this is forced through taxation called Welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and etc.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Rich people have no legal obligation to help the poor.Currently they do, its called redistribution of wealth, or as anyone who understand what it is would call it, theft.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Currently they do, its called redistribution of wealth, or as anyone who understand what it is would call it, theft.Do you have a source?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Do you have a source?A source for what? A source that say that all robbing a successful person of his earnings at gun point and giving it away to an un-successful person to win their vote is theft?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft. I need a source for your assertion that theft is currently being committed under the veil of "redistribution of wealth".
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

You love making debates really boring and dry don't you? Alright, here's the wikipedia definition:In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.The IRS taking money that someone else earned and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is theft. Especially with income tax, property tax and paying for permits, all of these are mafia style tribute.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

You love making debates really boring and dry don't you? Alright, here's the wikipedia definition:Perhaps if you actually read my response you would have seen that I said I do not need a definition for theft. Pay attention next time. The IRS taking money that someone else earned and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is theft. I see you didn't answer my question. Do you have a source?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Perhaps if you actually read my response you would have seen that I said I do not need a definition for theft. Pay attention next time.No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft. I provided you the definition and cited where I got it from, but since your unable to type theft into wikipedia I'll post a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheftI see you didn't answer my question. Do you have a source?I see you didn't read the definition, also see your not one for debating but just, just posting links to definitions.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft. I provided you the definition and cited where I got it from, but since your unable to type theft into wikipedia I'll post a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheftHoly shit are you an idiot? lol. Look at what I wrote. I will quote it: No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft.Maybe your reading skills need improvement. I see you didn't read the definition, also see your not one for debating but just, just posting links to definitions.I read the definition, even though I told you I did not need the definition if you go back to my original response and if you're suspicious that I changed it even look at what you quoted me as saying. I clearly wrote "I do NOT need a source for the definition of theft". I already know what theft means, the fact that you misread my statement 3 times is embarrassing on your part. Again, you didn't answer me. I asked if you had a source for the following statement: The IRS taking money that someone else earned and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is theft.Please take extra precaution in not embarrassing yourself a 4th time. Read carefully.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Holy shit are you an idiot? lol. Look at what I wrote. I will quote it: No, I do not need a source for the definition of theft.Maybe your reading skills need improvement.Seems as if your arguing skills need improvement.Again, you didn't answer me. I asked if you had a source for the following statement: The IRS taking money that someone else earned and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is theft.A source? Is that your idea of an argument, just posting links? Alright, let me give you a little lesson.The IRS is the federal governments tax service, almost all of the money that the federal government has comes from the IRS. Now, the IRS uses the threat of force to take away property from the rightful owner, after this point it doesn't matter if the IRS gives it to the Orphanage for the Blind or the New Age Nazi Society, you have already taken property away from its rightful owner, therefore, it is theft.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Seems as if your arguing skills need improvement.Seems as if you're embarrassed by your less than elementary level reading skills. Misreading what I wrote 3 times, come on...A source? Is that your idea of an argument, just posting links? Alright, let me give you a little lesson.I'm beginning to think you're not so bright. I want to know if you have a source that the IRS is in fact taking property from the rightful owner? Prove to me that the IRS is taking people's property by force. I don't need the definition of theft. Try remembering middle and high school, if you ever made it to those grade levels, perhaps it will help you read a little better.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

I'm beginning to think you're not so bright. I want to know if you have a source that the IRS is in fact taking property from the rightful owner? Prove to me that the IRS is taking people's property by force.I don't need the definition of theft. Try remembering middle and high school, if you ever made it to those grade levels, perhaps it will help you read a little better.I'm beginning to think that your mind thinks in a rather linear and unintelligent way. Your asking for a source that proves that the IRS collects taxes with the threat of force?here, read the first line. The IRS is responsible for collecting taxes and the interpretation and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code. Now for the question of force, here, it talks about prosecution. You can be forcefully brought to court over not paying your taxes. I doubt I'll have to explain what can go on in court when your fighting a powerful, government organization in a corrupt legal system, but I'll just say "you can't fight city hall"
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

I thought you would provide something more sinister than simply collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is required for the government to operate and protect its people. Perhaps some of the governments tax practices is a bit greedy. I was never disagreeing with you in the first place, I only asked for a source and you made a scene because you misunderstood me.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

I thought you would provide something more sinister than simply collecting taxes. Collecting taxes is required for the government to operate and protect its people.Doesn't matter if its required, it is still theft. People can protect their selves, the only time they need a state for defense is when the people have been disarmed by the government have to cling to the tyrants that rule them for protecting from external threats.Perhaps some of the governments tax practices is a bit greedy.Its all greedy, spending someone elses money is never generous or benevolent.I was never disagreeing with you in the first place, I only asked for a source and you made a scene because you misunderstood me.I made a big scene because you seem to have a problem with using logic and common sense, not to sound like a prick, but it seems as if your ability think freely, interpret information or come up with new ideas is rather sub-par.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

This implies that you belive all taxes to be theft, true?Would you consider some of your taxes been used to pay for the older generation also theft?Would you consider paying towards the next generation theft?Do you think those injured in the line of duty should be cared for?Should people who work for emergency services get any pay?Should people pay any tax and if so which of your taxes contribute to theft however if you think all of it is theft then why live there if you don't use any of the services provided.BTW rich and poor are simple caomparisons not absolutes
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Actually, by nature and definition, all taxes are theft. However, I consider redistribution of wealth to be the most immoral use of taxes because you are essentially buying someone's support with someone else money, then claiming that you are generous and anyone who does not want to give up what is theirs to be greedy.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

My Basic argument here is if you believe all tax is a form of theft then you imply that there of no services from which you benefit. If you don't benefit from any services supplied then why live there. You may as well move to a desert island.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Well, everyone benefits much more from the goods and services provided by the market than by government services provided by taxation.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

This is a myth, most of the costs associated with goods and services go towards advertisement and distribution. And I don't think it's quiet a straight forward comparison either. The two depend on each other. However neither am I suggesting that all government services are good or that all people benefit
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

To suggest that the most costs go to advertising and distribution is purely lacking of knowledge of business costs, the single biggest cost is labor, which is dictated by supply and demand.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

In the domestic manufacture and business this is the case, but most products are manufactured where labour is cheapest. You are probably correct that you get better value from purchases and services than you do from taxation. But I still believe that taxes are a necessary evil.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

I know the market provides better services than government services. It happens everyday.Labor is only a factor of production, not a sole condition. It only appears as the most contributing factor due to its diminishing marginal value product. Goods are cheapest provided at marginal units, not large scale.Why are taxes an necessary evil?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

First off I don't "believe" all taxes are theft, I know they are, its just a fact.Live on a deserted island? Oh you statists, always bringing up the same argument.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

If taxes are theft then why do you pay them?why would you hang about in the same area where you are been repeatedly robbed, waiting to be robbed again? that just sounds stupid.So I'm a statists I'm I?Thats the problem with you anarchists you believe your entilted to all the benefits of a modern society but should bear none of the costs.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

If taxes are theft then why do you pay them?You know what happens when people don't pay your taxes? The government comes to your house, kicks in your door and takes your property and drags you off to jail.why would you hang about in the same area where you are been repeatedly robbed, waiting to be robbed again? that just sounds stupid.I stay here in America because there are many others like me who share my views.So I'm a statists I'm I?Thats the problem with you anarchists you believe your entilted to all the benefits of a modern society but should bear none of the costs.Thats the problem with all you statists, you think all benefits of modern society are impossible without government and that people who don't pay taxes are greedy. You fail to understand that if the state is your caretaker that the state is also your master, all of the things the government does with your money (and ineffecient workers who waster the money) the people can do ten times better without the government.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Excellent description of legalized theft of taxation.---------------------------------
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

redistribution of wealthNot all redistribution of wealth implies rich people have a legal oblication to help the poor. You can still have redistribution by progressive tax that does not imply the poor get helped. The money could instead go toward the military for instance.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Not all redistribution of wealth implies rich people have a legal oblication to help the poor. You can still have redistribution by progressive tax that does not imply the poor get helped. The money could instead go toward the military for instance.1. All progressive ta rates are unfair2. I get what your saying about redistribution of wealth, but now a days it is usually referring to a mass welfare state.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

All progressive ta rates are unfairThen so are flat taxes. You are making rich people pay more for not going to jail than poor people.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Then so are flat taxes. You are making rich people pay more for not going to jail than poor people.Why should the rich be put in jail? Do you understand how a percentage tax works?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Why should the rich be put in jail?People, even rich ones go to jail if they do not pay their taxes. Why else would they pay their taxes?Do you understand how a percentage tax works?Yes, usually those with more income pay more for the same thing. If you want equal treatment you would propose a monthly payment for your citizenship that is the same for all.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Yes, usually those with more income pay more for the same thing. If you want equal treatment you would propose a monthly payment for your citizenship that is the same for all.I'm not proposing any tax system, I believe in no taxes and no government. However, if you are to have taxes I believe it needs to be a flat tax rate (on sale and consumption) and property and income tax should be done away with.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Yeah Mark, fuck it, Chaos!!!! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -P.S, as much as I agree with your statement, the last sentence bugs me. True freedom of a nation is next to impossible. I'm free sure, but with limitations; speed limit, loan limit, finance limit, car limitations, voting limitation, who I want as politicians limitations, see the drift? No man or woman are truly free, only within our hearts and souls (if you feel there is a soul that is). I say tax the upper percentages, especially that top 1 percent. Oh so they can't have 5 million cars and houses. As you say, we are in America the "freedom" and "opportunity" and we're one of the richest nations. So in these lands of freedom we've got homeless druggies and middle income to lower poverty scraping by while the rich people have yachts and strippers (at least the corrupted politicians and authorities). Fuck morals, it's not right period.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Fuck morals, it's not right Lol.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Glad you thought that was "el o el" material. - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Their not obligated, but still it's a good thing to do.Its unfair that someone has it all, and someone doesn't have anything.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

No..., Poor people should Thank God (not the rich) for what you have and, TRUST GOD (not the rich) for what you need ;)
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

No the rich are not obbliged to help the poor even though it would nice but they don't HAVE to but they can if they want, i mean hey put your self in their shoes they just risked their necks in stocks or raising a buisness, would you put your money on the line for some one who failed and dropped out of high school?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

They already give them jobs isn't that enough?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

I'm not sure where this argument is going really but everyone on earth is probably richer than someone else on earth, somewhere. I pity the guy right at the very end of this series, incidentally - the poorest guy on earth, who, I suppose, everyone on earth should be helping then. But if this happens he is not likely to be the poorest for long. In fact, he is likely to get quite a bit of attention and could end up wealthier than all of us. Maybe this is Donald Trump's story. As silly as all this sounds, it is probably happening to some extent right now - wealth trickles down following a gradient from rich to poor.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

The rich does not need to help the poor for it is the responsibility of the government. If one works hard and is given an opportunity to have a living, then one is on his way to wealth as we know it.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Its back to the personal problem, every people have their each right to Help anyone, its about "right" , its about voluntary service not about obligation !!im really proud to oppose
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Rich people do not have an obligation to help the poor as much as poor people do not have an obligation to revolution. There is no obligation to share wealth as much as there is no obligation to stay poor . The poor then have no obligation to support the wealthy by means of quiet compliance.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

They actually said on the news NOT to give change to the homeless in NYC because it perpetuates the problem. Think it's the same thing on a larger scale for the U.S. society?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

No, it is not their obligation. First of all, it is not their fault why these people are being poor. Maybe these rich people did something, to make themselves rich. They could help the poor, but that doesn't mean that they are obliged too. It is not anyone's obligation to help them, but it is their obligation to help themselves. I see people nowadays who keep on complaining that they are poor, even if they have not done anything to help themselves. Some people don't work and don't do something, that's why they stay poor. It is kind of silly, to always ask people to help you even if you, yourself, are not doing anything to help yourself. It is also right to share your blessings, but I believe that some people are also given a lot of opportunity to make their life more blissful. So, if you were given that chance, then use it, and stop asking other people to make your life better.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

But they would feel so good inside if they did help the poor.