azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Hi atypican , Hypocrite ? , i dont know. Thats not for me to say.I dont FEEL you are. Maybe im not hypocritical , maybe i just , am self-critical. I am only a little woman ,not very big , my strength is passion and will. Scared ,I use to put up with so much ,now i find violence offensive , which gives me more strength to deal with each individual situation if it arrises. Anyhow i wont ramble on , i wrote more up above. ps Thanks yourself. :)
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

You really can justify anything with anything if you can convince yourself it makes sense =/Justice is a laughable notion anyway.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I guess I sympathize with your cynical sentiment but...In what sense is the notion of justice laughable? It seems to me that matters of justice tend to be of a most serious nature. Those concerned with justice are about the business of defending rights are they not? Or is the notion of rights laughable too? Trust me if rights precious to you are violated you wont be laughing, you'll either go the cowardice route or you'll seek justice. To further refine my argument: The doing of justice never requires violence. much better than my initial debate title. :) Thanx for the prod.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Atypican, define justice - in your own words..................................................................
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

The defense of rights.....that's what comes to mind off the top of my head. I could probably better refine it with some thought. I think it [justice]is a useful concept with merit. please provoke.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

I think violence is only just if it's used in defense, I will defend myself and my home against violence with violence. However, it is quite a bit more complicated than that. Preemptive violence is never justified, as that would be a failure to communicate.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Ok how about if we think about it in terms of rights. We probably both agree that in general people have a right not to be attacked. Now if someone attacks you, do you think that they (during their attack) retain that "right not to be attacked"? I would bet that you agree with me that they don't. Now is it strange for me to think of violence in terms of what is violated? According to my proposed definition a right must exist for violence to violate.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

I see your point, but violation could be used subjectively. For example, a hobo might feel violated if someone stops him from stealing a loaf of bread that he needs to feed his children. In the eyes of the shop keeper, the hobo stealing the bread is a violation of his/her right to property and ability to make income. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Someone must violate someone else in order for order to be maintained. In a perfect system where there is no money, where there is no "incentive" to be productive or do the right thing, I don't think violence would be necessary or even fathomable. But since we have a monetary economy and everyone is brainwashed to think that they need money more than anything, people will be violated. It is the nature of the false scarcity that a monetary system creates. I maintain that in today's world, justice requires violence. I hope that isn't the case forever.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

violation could be used subjectively.It could, and is. But does that effect the validity of the proposed definition?Someone must violate someone else in order for order to be maintained.Will you please explain how you come to this conclusion?In a perfect system where there is no money, where there is no "incentive" to be productive or do the right thing, I don't think violence would be necessary or even fathomable.I am not sure what you are trying to convey here. I don't think we need a pefect system in order to recognize that violence is unnecessary. If you will notice, in my proposed definition I included intention. It is possible, even within this, our current imperfect system to have pure intent. We cannot avoid accidentally causing harm.But since we have a monetary economy and everyone is brainwashed to think that they need money more than anything, people will be violated.A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful.It is the nature of the false scarcity that a monetary system creates.A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful too.I maintain that in today's world, justice requires violence.I disagree with you here. Perhaps you could give an example of justice requiring violence we could debate this.I hope that isn't the case forever.What kind of hope? wishful hope or genuine discontent?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

You didn't answer my question, who is in the right and who is in the wrong when the shopkeeper stops the vagabond from stealing a loaf of bread? Who is being violated?Is this your proposed definition of violence?:Violence must violate something.That "something" that violence violates is rightscertain [violent]behavior forfeits certain rights.an attacker gives up their right to not be attacked whenever they initiate an attacktherefore a defensive attack is not necessarily violentI find this definition kind of vague and subject to opinion, such as: What constitutes a violation?In my example the homeless guy is violating the shopkeeper's right to property, and the shopkeeper in return in violating the bum by denying him the food he needs to survive. This is a simple concept portraying why justice and order requires violence. In a perfect system there would no reason not to give him the bread because it is in abundance and nobody would benefit from withholding it. This is a false scarcity created by the greed associated with a monetary economy.A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful.What is the cause of most crimes? I will contest that most if not all crimes and violations are the result (directly or indirectly) of monetary issues.For a little more info, and it helped me come to my ever incomplete conclusions, watch the online movie Zeitgeist. it's pretty long so dedicate some time to it, watch the full version on google video.What kind of hope? wishful hope or genuine discontent?I have genuine discontent that people are being violated for monetary reasons considering money is man made and not a requirement for life, or even happiness. We put false value on these bits of paper. Money does not solve problems, innovation does.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

You didn't answer my questionThanks for pointing that out.Who is in the right and who is in the wrong?The one (to paraphrase my definition) who intentionally breaches a rightful boundary. In this case it would be the vagabond, who instead of being forthright about his "need" (perhaps deluded by a notion of false scarcity) decided to obtain his bread through violence. even you typed that Preemptive violence is never justified, as that would be a failure to communicate. the shopkeeper in return in violating the bum by denying him the food he needs to survive.I submit that wee do not have a right to eat at someone else's expense. So in accordance with my definition, the shop keeper is not violating any rightful boundaries by refusing to give away food.This is a simple concept portraying why justice and order requires violence.I am not following your logic here. I hope you will patiently break it down for me.In a perfect system there would no reason not to give him the bread because it is in abundance and nobody would benefit from withholding it.Somehow I imagine that in this perfect system you imagine, there would be no selling of bread and we would all just eat manna falling from the sky. The truth is that the foods we are accustomed to eating require work to produce, and no one has a right to force someone else to toil and work so that they may eat without working. There needs be an equitable negotiative relationship. I support a critical look at the relationship between real value and legal currency, but I am not sure that a monetary economy deserves the root blame for greed and delusions of false scarcity. The vagabond could have scooped up some bugs and ate them if he weren't too spoiled. :)What is the cause of most crimes? I will contest that most if not all crimes and violations are the result (directly or indirectly) of monetary issues."tied to" I will concede but "result of" is a bit of a stretch if you ask me."everybody wants to live life of kings and queens, but nobody wants to stay and plow the fields" ~Michael FrantiThis dillema long predates robust monetary systems. Do you think I have made a respectful if not valid argument here?watch the full version on google video.I would love to have a conversation with the creators of that video. Since I don't expect that to happen any time soon, perhaps I can provoke you.... I assume you think that Zeitgeist is a well made movie, worthy of respect. In the interest of a healthy balance, I challenge you to offer some critical comments about the movie.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Is this your proposed definition of violence?No my definition is one of the first posts to this debate on the agree side. "Violence = The intentional breaching of rightful boundaries." What you pasted was an attempt I made to clarify. So much for that :)What constitutes a violation?A rightful boundary being intentionally breached.Just making effort to answer all your questions.
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I will defend myself and my home against violence with violence. Seems like you have your mind made up already. What if there were a non-violent option?If you have truly understood my point about how the initiator of an attack DOES NOT retain the right to not be attacked then you will be able to see that using forceful or even lethal methods in self defense does not necessarily make those actions violent.I am arguing for the philosophy of non-violence, which IMO could use to be better articulated.Just admit that the better a system works the closer it adheres to fundamental principles of non-violence and I won't be forced to relentlessly debate you. :)
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

Anyone who Agrees with this unfortunately lives in a fantasy land. Yes it would be awesome if violence didn't exist but wake up. Look thru thousands of pages of history and tell me what happens when you don't stand up to the bully. It must have been so improper of us to take down Hitler, get real people
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

Anyone who agrees with what?Clarify what you don't agree with specifically.You equate standing up for yourself with violence? violence of what?As to your statement "It must have been so improper of us to take down Hitler"Well if we had been more clever we could have done it without killing so many innocents don't you think? Is it unrealistic to have non-violence as a goal?
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: Disagree

this is a sad subject, it exists root cause are parents. Raise your kids right
Debate: Violence never serves the cause of justice
Side: agree

I won't disagree that the root cause is parents. Or that it's a sad subject. Care to comment on why you disgree with the statement that "Violence never serves the cause of justice"?
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

Personally I don't think anyone can be one or another (good or bad) because it is subject to a persons opinion. But seeing as there are a lot of ignorant people out there that think he was alround bad I'm gonna have to say that overal he was 'good'. Yes I agree that Adolf Hitler made a dick move by killing a heap of homosexuals, black people and Jewish people - there is nothing good I can see in that (however he is a bit unfairly branded as the one that did all the work...Himmler I'm looking at you...). Now that we can all agree that was a shitty thing to do, let me get into why he was 'good'. After WWI the UN (I believe it was, correct me if I'm wrong) made Germany sign an agreement that stated that Germany was solely responsible for WWI in its entirey and that they would not be allowed a propper armed force. Naturally the Geramans were quite pissed. So along comes this dude that says he can bring the country up from the ashes (Hitler), so naturally the Germans are like "SHIT YEAH!" and they all have a sexy party. SO Hitler does bring the country back from the Ashes and builds an entire army, funds schools and other organisations, and overall just fixes the country - so everyone loved him. Then after he died people realised that Hitler probably shoudn't have killed all those Jews, homos and blacks - so he was unfairly branded as 'allround bad'. So yes Hitler was a 'bad' person, but he was a bloody amazing leader and should get what credit he deservs.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

I wouldn't say he was a bloody amazing leader. He went back on his word with Russia, attempted to stab them in the back, and ultimately failed miserably against them. This would eventually turn into a two front war. You don't just walk away from a two front war unscathed (let alone war in general).He fought too far into Russia too fast, and his troops froze and starved to death from lack of supplies. A VERY dumb move on his part. That was the first mistake. The second was that while he was losing in Russia, he declared war on the United States. Now, at this time America had declared war on the Japanese... but not Germany. He sealed his fate when he decided to declare war on so many people at once.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

You make it look like Germany and The Soviet Union were best friends before Barbarossa. The Molotov Ribentraup pact only dived up eastern europe between two power hungry dictators. The war with Russia was inevitable both sides had already plans if the other attacked. The Sheer hatred between the comunists (Ussr) and the Fascists (Germany) was seen when Spain had a civil war in 1937 i believe, both countries funded oposite groups although the fascists eventually won over the comunists. The war was inevitable if Hitler Focused every last effort on Britain whos to say Stalin wouldnt turn his back on the treaty AFTER ALL STALIN WAS THE SAME DESPICABLE MAN HITLER WAS KILLING 15 MILLION PEOPLE DUE TO PARANOIA, AND BUTCHERD 90% OF THE SOVIET OFICER CORE
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

I do not remember making them look like best friends, but I assume they shared the random bottle of vodka in their down time ;). When I stated that he stabbed them in the back, I mean that he pulled a MUCH larger country into a war... the same country that they were at peace with at the time. I would dispute that last part, but I am still trying to make sense of it with the grammar errors and all. Not to mention the caps lock...
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

I agree. I find him no better or worse than America's government. He was insanely influential and it took skill to do what he did. I don't like the man, but I don't see people as being "good" or "bad" there's more to them then just a few actions they did.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

"So yes Hitler was a 'bad' person, but he was a bloody amazing leader and should get what credit he deservs."So why didn't you tag your argument as "bad"?
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

Ok, first of all, let me say that this was a Fking good argument. Seriously. This is genius, amazing, and awesome. However, i do disagree.The idea of good and bad, are not necessarily about your ability to do things, such as reviving a country 'from the ashes,' it's about how you USE your resources. If you are a good leader, and create good things, but then use your leadership to commit bad actions, you are not still being good. For example, say someone came along and removed all of our country's problems, but while doing it destroyed all of the people in our country who were not born here. I think we can agree that this would go against basic human values, and would be considered 'bad.' Or, if we killed about 11 million people to save our country, the actions would outweigh the result. So, even if Hitler was an amazing leader, that does not excuse the fact that he used his leadership skills to commit 'bad' actions, which is why Hitler was bad, not good.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

is this even a question? he murdered, MURDERED over 6 million jews, and countless homosexuals, disabled people, and gypsies. he TORTURED tons of people. because he made the country rich he was good? he created a world war! the only reason he got the money is because he STOLE it from the people who he sent to ghettos, concentration camps, and death camps. You think that is a good leader? your idea of good is fucked up.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

Okay yes he was a horrible person, but my real question is why did you say yes?
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

what do you mean? i said no... ...
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

My apologizes that was an accident!! I didn't know you were disputing
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

I believe Hitler was both good and bad. The way he lived, and the drugs he did, the decisions he made- horrible. He is no different from any political leader, in fact- many of America's wars and tactics are modeled from Hitler's ideas. Ex:Eugenics
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

is this even a question?Clearly it is he murdered, MURDERED over 6 million jews, and countless homosexuals, disabled people, and gypsies. he TORTURED tons of people.I acknowledged that.because he made the country rich he was good?Yes, without him, germany would be practically a third world countryhe created a world war!Incorrect; those that opposed him created it. On country cannot create a world war, many countries do. And he had good reasons for helping to start onethe only reason he got the money is because he STOLE it from the people who he sent to ghettos, concentration camps, and death campsthe only reason America got the money is because they STOLE it from the people who live in foreign countries by pretending to help them. See how I can easily change that? That just proves how ignorant you are.You think that is a good leader?One that practically saves their country by brining them back to the status of a major world power? Yup.your idea of good is fucked up.Clearly your idea of bad is fucked up. Stop being ignorant and learn to argue intelligently and look beyond the propaganda, you dumbass.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

Yes, without him, germany would be practically a third world country That's not true. He left Germany in ruins, chaos and destruction - which is all his fault. Germany was better before he seize the power then after.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

thank you for actually seeing the truth and agreeing with it!!!!!
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

How did he leave germany in ruins? Have you ever studied wwii in history? Clearly not. The allies, mainly soviets, british, and americans  left germany in ruins. Hitler was the man who restored order in germany after it was left in economic ruin after it signed the treaty of varsailles. Germany was better before he seize the power than afterNo it wasn't. Do some research. Everything you say is the opposite of what actually occured. The treaty of versailles required germany to pay €6,600 million. The war cost germany a lot of money. The money they had to pay impoverished germany. There was inflation so bad, that if you went to a bar, the cost of the drink would increase by the time you finished. There were very few jobs. After wwi ended, hitler couldn't find a job- no one could! Hitler created jobs and rebuilt the economy. Please, at least study how germany was after wwi. Hitler turned a third world country to a superpower. Nazi Germany was a center for technological advancements. Thanks to nazi aerodynamics, we have nasa. An ex-nazi, Wernher Von Braun, helped NASA develop rocket ships and win the space race. Under hitler, the Nazi army nearly conquered europe. If hitler hadn't been elected Führer, germany would've been a third world country. Communism would've spread throughout europe. The germans would've had no job, no money, no patriotism. many animals would've gone extinct since hitler enforced many laws protecting animals. I said this a lot, but please, research wwii, the condition germany was in, and how hitler benefited germany.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

Is this not what GWB did? Are we still at war killing Afghanis, Iraquis etc. That's what I mean. All people are good and bad. Some people are more bad than good. I didn't know Adolf, personally.
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Bad

it shouldnt be a questionif you acknowleged that you shouldnt think hes good dumbshit"those that opposed him created it" your so stupid you ever wonder why they oppose him? not because he was a murderer or anything!your so racist!and stop shitting about america we dont pretend to help we do helpyour so stubborn you HAVE to be right, hes good oh and yeah he killed millions of people, but he got money! he must be amazing right? oh and if your too stupid to see that was SARCASTIC!!! my idea of bad is NOT fucked up the library lady at my school is from the holocaust she was sent to death camp you see the tortured look in her eyes, how she tells us how wonderful it is to see children everyday and how lucky we are to have whaat we need. She cant walk right, she has frostibite, and shes just ONE person! thats one wittness, look around for more u asshole!!!
Debate: Was Hitler good or bad?
Side: Good

it shouldnt be a questionThat doesn't make sense. Something shouldn't be a question? WHY?!?!?! WHAT!?!?!?! Anything can be a bloody question.if you acknowleged that you shouldnt think hes good dumbshitDid you read what I even said? Did any of you? I said he was a terrible person but a great leader, fucktard."those that opposed him created it" your so stupid you ever wonder why they oppose him? not because he was a murderer or anything!What are you going on about?your so racist!What the fuck? I'm not and how is that relevant? and stop shitting about america we dont pretend to help we do helpOh really? Do Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, kosovo, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam, Mexico, or Cambodia ring any bells? Or do you just live in a hole?your so stubborn you HAVE to be right,Incorrect, you just refuse to accept the fact that he helped rebuild the country; in turn making you stubborn. the library lady at my school is from the holocaust she was sent to death camp you see the tortured look in her eyes, how she tells us how wonderful it is to see children everyday and how lucky we are to have whaat we need.Irrelevant, but whatever. I know people that were affected by the holocaust as well, does that mean that I can't acknowledge Hitler as a good leader (and for the billionth time, not good person, good LEADER. Got it yet? LEADER!)shes just ONE person!No shit. thats one wittness, look around for more u asshole!!!As stated before, I know some. I also know black people that were beaten, raped and abused because of how badly the US Government treated black people in the 40's. But America is a billion times better than Germany, isn't it? They are sooooooo different. You are a fucking ignorant douche bag, and I don't give a shit if you continue to think Hitler was all round bad - but learn to argue intelligently and not be so biased you stupid shit.