azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

i agree with you in reducing military spending. When it comes to America I'm somewhat of an isolationist. We shouldn't be dealing in other countries affairs. Yes a job is a job I'm not saying Big government is all bad it's when they start to reach outside the boundaries and stick their hands even deeper in the private sector that. I have a minor in econ in college i thought for a while i would want to be an economist private sector is the most important thing to have in order to have a strong economy from private sector it makes all things possible especially government jobs. The people who work for federal and state would have incomes if it weren't for the private sector.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

what about the investment by the government in darpa or nasa?
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Unless the government agency charges a fee or service charge, it is taxation, which takes from the general population, and DARPA and NASA are not investments, but rather expenditures with limited budgets. Those could easily be privatized where investment is potentially unlimited.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Taxation can easily be conceived as a fee for services already rendered by the government, and their mandatory nature could be justified if these services are essential to the operation of society. You can't invest a infinite amount of money and you practically and realistically can not get a infinite profit from investment. further more money you invest is an expenditure, however it is an expenditure that could potentially pay for itself if you sell what you received at a later date. Darpa and Nasa has resulted in technological innovation that has dramatically altered the economy and our ways of life. This alteration has resulted in a increase in the middle class and in the quality of life, how were Darpa and Nasa not investments?
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Taxation can easily be conceived as a fee for services already rendered by the government, and their mandatory nature could be justified if these services are essential to the operation of society.Fee-for-service is a standard business model where services are unbundled and paid for separately, so basically, the last time I checked a fee for a service was voluntary, and taxation is by no means voluntary, it is threaten with jail time.You can't invest a infinite amount of money and you practically and realistically can not get a infinite profit from investment. further more money you invest is an expenditure, however it is an expenditure that could potentially pay for itself if you sell what you received at a later date. First, WTF? Second, investment is the commitment of money or capital to purchase financial instruments or other assets to gain profitable returns in the form of interest, income, or appreciation of the value of the instrument.Darpa and Nasa has resulted in technological innovation that has dramatically altered the economy and our ways of life. This alteration has resulted in a increase in the middle class and in the quality of life, how were Darpa and Nasa not investmentsThe technological innovation of DARPA and NASA could have easily been discovered in private companies probably even greater results. Private investment has always been more beneficial to society than government spending.Government is incapable of investment because it possess no assets without forced taxation.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

There is no way to live in a govern society without using the services of the government, if you don't pay then you are a "free-rider". we do need more freetowns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities.  There is no difference between "commitment of money or capital" and the sell of money or capital for another thing(ie the financial instrument), the profitable returns comes from selling the financial instrument after it has became relatively more valuable to what it was originally bought with. What private individual or entity would have enough motivation or capital/money to do what NASA did? Even with forced taxation, the government still has assets. I see no reason why a government can't invest. For example if I rob a bank at gun point, escape and launder the money; I am very capable of investing it.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

what about the investment by the government in darpa or nasa?They would never exist if there wasn't free market private sector money that they take by someone in taxes and give it to them. I'm not saying Government is bad for doing these things, obviously this is a good thing to have these and jobs being there. It's that the more private free money "Real Money" created on the free markets is the driving force the more we can sustain. when we get to a level where Government jobs is almost 50% of private sector we are at a turning point where it is unsustainable, and we end up like Greece eventually. That's why the deficit is a big issue right now, when those bonds come home to roost we are going to either cut spending or tax the shit out of people and business's more. Let's hope that they cut spending because if they decide to go after business more they will just move themselves to another more pro-business friendly country, which is already happening now. It's a scary scenario high taxes have never done nothing but create more poverty. Main reason is that rich people don't care where they live when a place becomes to much for them they get up and take themselves and employees to other states and countries.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

so much "free market private sector money" wouldn't exist without nasa or darpa.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

If you break it down to it's essence every job created comes from private sector. Yes our government gives money to some companies like NASA and DARPA but that's money the government takes from private sector in revenue they take it and spend it and it creates jobs but the jobs from theses companies are the direct trickle down effect that comes from companies that are not government related. Every job truly created comes from non-government jobs. That is a fact you can google economics and the overwhelming majority of econ scholars would agree.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

The private sector takes innovations not possible in the private sector at that time from the public sector and uses it to create jobs, thus many jobs may very well be the direct trickle down effect that comes from government related research. economists have a general image of being narrow minded to me, I don't care for their personal opinions I care about the validity, soundness and testability of their theories. Appeals to authority have little effect on me, and I will challenge a theory till I am content with it.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Well then how did the great depression end? Was it not because of programs under FDR such as the CCC? What you are arguing is that Hoover's decision to leave the economy alone would yield better results than FDR's New Deal. Well, historically, that is extremely incorrect, since Hoover himself admitted his mistake and though fiscally conservative, enacted changes that led to the U.S. government spending money to ease suffering in the Great Depression
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Well then how did the great depression end?The Great Depression ended because of government spending subsided and private investment ensued. Government spending is not economically necessary to end a downturn or depression; it is economic poison. In today’s economic context, the antidote is first and foremost a massive reduction in government spending preferably tax cuts are desirable, but only once our deficit is cut, which means fix the entitlement programs. What you are arguing is that Hoover's decision to leave the economy alone would yield better results than FDR's New Deal?Precisely, with the huge explosion of government spending, deficit spending protracted the Depression.Well, historically, that is extremely incorrect, since Hoover himself admitted his mistake and though fiscally conservative, enacted changes that led to the U.S. government spending money to ease suffering in the Great Depression.Where is the proof that Hoover recanted his guilt of faulty policies?
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

The Great Depression ended because of government spending subsided and private investment ensued. Private investment was what caused the great depression in the first place.Government spending is not economically necessary to end a downturn or depression; it is economic poison. In today’s economic context, the antidote is first and foremost a massive reduction in government spending preferably tax cuts are desirable, but only once our deficit is cut, which means fix the entitlement programs. So we instead let the private market fix the depression that it created... a bit like using the same needle which put a hole into the inflatable mattress - to inflate it back up and then you have a sore back from lying on that now deflated mattress all night waiting until the next morning to take it back to the store, but the receipt was in your other pants pocket and you have to argue with customer service about that mattress being the same model that is only sold at their stores. You get it exchanged eventually, but after the store manager comes in, and now you have a nice mattress again.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Private investment was what caused the great depression in the first place.Wrong, first, it was the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then, as many government entities, it believes that it can centrally plan an entire economy by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.Therefore, the Federal Reserve mismanaged the economy by manipulating the money supply.So we instead let the private market fix the depression that it createdThe economy rebounded after the massive government spending from 1933 to 1945.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Wrong, first, it was the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then, as many government entities, it believes that it can centrally plan an entire economy by manipulating interest rates and the money supply.The stock market was corrupted by insider trading and collusion. If it continued after the great depression, we frankly have no idea if we would have ever left that state because there would always be some group seeking wealth by taking advantage of everyone else.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

The stock market was corrupted by insider trading and collusion. If it continued after the great depression, we frankly have no idea if we would have ever left that state because there would always be some group seeking wealth by taking advantage of everyone else.That government school education and indoctrination is working perfectly.This also the reason the government blames for the current crisis. The government are masters of the universe in passing the buck.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

The government can't create jobs in the private sector because companies have to do the hiring. The government can't create wealth because it is not infinitely rich. To keep "creating wealth" it would have to generate revenue, most likely from taxes.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

If government only takes, how can it create? Look at Robin Hood!He never created wealth, he only took wealth from the wealthy.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

no of course,but sometimes......for e.g the indian govt,select a govt. job....after few days..u'll feel wht the thing i am?????am i a robot?????they will use u like a broom...if u work well.one of my uncle came 2 india ...got a govt. job...and now....he became bald....his bp rose higher....he started singing and dancing in his bathroom....at last he came 2 canada and now he is working in a private company,he is looking better than b4.that's why be careful......govt. job sucks!!!!!!
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Government can if they stand back and not mingle and choke business with too much regulation and taxes. Which is what Obama wants and is why he is going to get served Nov 2 he is such an ideologue that even then it won't sink in why he lost his majority.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

The problem right now is the lack of leadership in Washington and at the front of it starts with Obama. He is so unenthusiastic on his speeches. I remember the great president Ronald Reagan when he would speak the whole nation would watch him with optimism because he believed that each individual new best what was good for them and believed in the American dream. Ronald Reagan at the beginning of his presidency had over 10% unemployment ski high interest rates in the high teens and cold war with Russia. At the end was low interest rates unemployment to 5.3% and was the main reason for the end of the Cold war and the Berlin wall coming down. In his presidency over16 million new jobs and a huge expansion of personal wealth. He also did this with a Democratic majority both House and Senate. He also was the reason why people have the mortgage tax deduction on homes. If Obama wanted to learn how to be a good president he should take a hard look at him. I guess the point of all this is that Obama plays the blame game and he has no reason too he had both majority in both houses but because of his weak leadership and policies and his hardcore anti-colonialist ideology he has separated himself from the average American and his own party. It's not just republicans voting against him I know alot of Democrats who are voting against their own party come this midterm.I'm a part of that I voted for Obama and like many others we feel that we have been severely lied too about what he was going to do and that was focus on the economy with a laser like focus. Instead he wants to tax those who create jobs the small business anybody making 250k a year. Those people who make that much by the way are usually owners of a small business with 4 employees so it is absolutely ludicrous to think that this is good. It's so obvious to those out there and we will make our correction come Nov 2nd to stop all of his madness.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Well this one kills jobs and is proven by all the exemptions.... a job killer.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

if Americans leader can't stop shipping our good jobs overseas then we are doomed! Americans cant continue to make ends meet or put food on the table by: Jim cutting Sally's lawn, Bob washing Teddy's business suits, or Fred removing dog poop from Sally's lawn!As time goes by, slowly but surely The rich get richer and the poor get more poor!!We have to manufactore things here in America to maintain a strong middle class!
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Government can not create anything without first taking it from someone else. This is known as wealth transfer. But it is not creating any new wealth only redistributing wealth which someone else has created. Any job a gov't makes removes the potential jobs in the private sector to pay for that job! So the net jobs is a loss of 3 jobs to each one made by government. Plus the tax share of the jobs left now goes up! Government should never think about getting into the job or wealth business!
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: NO

Government spending is consumption, and spending doesn't create jobs or wealth, it consumes. Only savings and production creates jobs and wealth.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: NO

Government creates "jobs" and "wealth." They give unemployed men jobs hitting bricks with eating utensils and pay them for it so that they can say "Look, unemployment is down and GDP is up! See, government does work!"
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: NO

The general idea of creating jobs and wealth is about efficiency but importantly it is productivity. It is the premise that by this job existing it increases the standard of living for the individual and the economy. Government jobs are unproductive because these jobs destroy wealth by consumption due to the fact that money was transferred only from one hand to the other. Nothing was exchanged in the process where no money, labor or capital was previously engaged prior to the transfer.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: YES

Your conclusion is Yes and Theoretically, but your argument is posted under NO.?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

I think the two possible endpoints for humanity are singularity and self-destruction. I'm pretty sure the former is a lot more likely. I mean, humanity is stupid, but not that stupid. I'd put the odds at 90% singularity, 10% self-destruction.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Actually, you'd be amazed at humanity's level of stupidity. Read the Darwin Awards
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Yes, humans are that stupid.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

US and Russia made it through the Cold War. Doesn't that count for something?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

No, not really.Just cause the leaders of the nations involved in the so-called 'Cold War' didn't decide to kill each other, doesn't mean that the future 'World Leaders' won't.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

It provides us with a datapoint. There's no way to say for sure that people won't kill each other. But the more times a person walks away from a precipice instead of jumping, the more likely it is they are not suicidal.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

It counts for very little in the long run, to quote both Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking "Is any intelligent civilization doomed to destroy itself soon after it discovers that E = MC²?" Just because we have survived the first 60-odd years since the first A-Bomb was succesfuly detonated means very little in the larger scheme of thing.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

We will live long enough to colonize the moon, Mars and some asteroids. We have already taken steps to help our planet. Humans are incredibly adaptive and innovative. It's how we got from the stone age to where we are now.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

If we keep going on the suicidal path we are on, and keep using up natural resources, the odds are for societal collapse, however, if we change before we go past the point of inevitable decline, we will prosper, I'm rooting for the latter.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Deeper issue

I'll assume your intended question was "can humanity survive it's intellectual and moral infancy regarding technology?". Your "populating the stars (planets)" is already possible (Imagine a planet-hopping biodome equipped with mining resources [or cows ;] to procure fuel). The idea of an end-goal as populating the stars is a rediculous notion given that humans are retarded at peacekeeping (politics and military power-mongering will always take precedent) so a stellar humanity would look very similar to the one you see before you today. Along the line of maturation towards this end-goal, you picture a gradual increase in ethical living untill we one day live happily ever after colonizing planets. The fun part is that (as with all institutions) the scientific body has become more of a cost-cutting, efficiency expert having, paycheque idolizing, name-whoring, political institution concerned with operation costs (the only significant technological breakthroughs in the last half-century have been military [military application], and pharmaceutical [medical], [Anyone? Thought so.]). With the amount of resources afforded to the military industrial complex, you (I refuse to associate with the masses) have fucked yourselves and ensured that the technology you so intellectually account for, stays out of even your own hands, and inside classified documents ("It's ok though, cuz are troops are at risk").There is a solution, but it involves unearthing what your money is being spent on, taking back control of your scientists, and holding all parties involved accountable.Answer this, and you'll have your space parade. Interesting little tidbit.Cancer research has received millions and billions of dollars over the last 40 years (first one, then the other). All that science has shown for it thus far is chemotherapy. How many more billions of dollars (maybe close to a trillion now) need to be spent on it (considering this economy as well) before everyone realizes they're flogging a dead horse. I believe the cure exists already, but even if it doesn't, when does the income stop? All the rallies, all the parades, pins, foundations, races, teary commercials, stickers etc... This elusive cure for cancer is it's own institution and in 40 years it hasn't delivered a damn thing.The cure for cancer is health education, funny that this takes a backseat to medication. Right now if the "cure" was found, a million people around the world would be out of work, you don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand why powerful people wouldn't want a cure.-End of rant-:)
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

I believe the human race ought to go back to a pre-industrial society. It'd surely solve most of the problems afflicting humanity today. Obesity would be a rarity, seeing as how people would walk much more frequently; we'd have farm animals rather than polluting machinery. Weapons of Mass Destruction would disappear along with all the other monstrosities (er, conveniences) which science has brought us. Homicide and other crime rates would decrease as the urban population dispersed to rural areas; AIDS and other 'epidemics' would reduce along human interaction. Divorce rates would decline as spouses became dependent on each other, which one would argue is good for society, especially children.As obesity rates decreased, and healthier foods consumed, illnesses would become less common and, while lifespans may decrease slightly with the lack of medication, they would be healthier and more worthwhile.While war may still occur, it would do so on a much lower scale.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Obesity would be a rarityAnd disease commonplace.we'd have farm animals rather than polluting machineryMethane released from farm animals is 21 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.Weapons of Mass Destruction would disappearProlonging the misery.Homicide and other crime rates would decrease as the urban population dispersed to rural areas;And then rise again as they fight over dwindling food supplies.AIDS and other 'epidemics' would reduce along human interaction.As would our ability to cure them.Divorce rates would decline as spouses became dependent on each otherAnd we revert to a completely male-dominated society. which one would argue is good for society, especially children.Children who have no future anyway.As obesity rates decreased, and healthier foods consumed, illnesses would become less common Until the next major mutation of flu, which would kill millions.while lifespans may decrease slightly with the lack of medication, they would be healthier and more worthwhile.For the year or two that they continue before being cut short by famine, disease or war.While war may still occur, it would do so on a much lower scale.Smaller wars for smaller populations, effects exactly the same.