azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should state lotteries be abolished?
Side: NO

State lotteries give the State much needed revenue. It is legalized gambling but produces good results for all residents of that State.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Press manipulates everything

This is one of those questions to which there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. I'll take the position of people not necessarily believing what they hear but are more apt to believe what they see. While I see nothing wrong with manipulating a photograph for clarity I see much wrong with the manipulation going so far as to "recreate" events and/or the faces that may be involved in them. I also believe that all photography should be marked as being enhanced or manipulated (we're not talking air-brushing here) and in what way or for what reasons. While the press takes free rein in their spin on events and people I don't think it would serve the best interests of anyone if imagery were to be a part of that spin!
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

Whilst it probably makes sense to allow certain manipulations to be made, I think in the majority of cases manipulation of photographs by the press should be illegal. To manipulate a photograph and pass it off as an accurate portrayal of the moment is not a practise that the press should be allowed to indulge in.When a photograph is printed, unless otherwise stated, the vieweris led to believe that the photograph is an accurate depiction. Judgements and opinions can be built based on these manipulated photographs.A great recent example is the Iranian missile pictures, which were shown to be manipulated to include an extra missile. The photo leaves the viewer believeing that the missile tests were a complete success, and that a certain number of missiles were included. What is closer to the truth is that a number of missiles failed. Giving Iran this "show of strength," with the depiction of a completely successful missiles test, is the kind of silly small manipulations that can flair up problems easily.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

It's fraud and not unlike the slant forced down our throats from most media today.What is amazing is that the press will print pictures and most Americans believe this stuff. Even from nations know to lie and be untruthful.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

As long as they have like some sort of insignia that lets people know that the photo has been edited to an extent. depending on what extent should depend on what type of insignia is imprinted on the photo.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

There are many aspects of 'news' the 'media' manipulates. Overall the public doesn't question the information presented ; which shows the true 'sphere of influence'. People should create laws to limit the extent many media organizations are going to , for profit .....as the majority of the masses are unaware; first impressions are a b.tch.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

To a degree, it should. If the press is manipulating someone's photograph without the consent of a person and harm is being caused, then the press should be reprimanded.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

The ethical manipulation of photographs by the press is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. While it is difficult to make a blanket statement about whether it should be illegal, there are valid arguments on both sides. Check this link!
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

manipulating photographs can raise ethical concerns, particularly when it involves altering images to distort or misrepresent the truth. Inaccurate or misleading photographs can misinform the public, damage reputations, and undermine the credibility of the press. Such manipulation could be seen as a breach of journalistic integrity, as the press has a responsibility to report the truth accurately. Click here for more.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

Kind of depends on the level of manipulation. Most photo manipulation for newspapers and the like are simple contrast, color and brightness correction, sometimes necessary for the photo to be publishable. Other manipulations can be innocent ones that are more about composition of then anything.Of course, it goes without saying that any photo editing that would deliberately mislead the public should be punishable, but in my view this is no different than an article that is deliberately misleading, they should both be handled in a similar way.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

I think it does a diservice in that people wont trust the media any more. Here's an example of subtle manipulation.http://tinyurl.com/6btzqo
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Its called the FREE press for a reason

Honestly, I don't have a problem with it. The press should be free to carry whatever types of photographs that it chooses because when a media outlet is exposed for publishing an adulterated image, its embarrassing and their reputation will suffer as a result.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about laws concerning media outlets reporting events, but if it became legal (assuming it's not), then it would become part and parcel of the job and the element of "embarrassment" would essentially be removed from consideration because "everybody does it" and it's legal. There would be nothing to be embarrassed about.But it would also invariably lead to media outlets not simply skewing what they report, but entirely misrepresenting ostensive reporting and thereby no longer "reporting" national, international or local events. The very idea of journalism would lose all of its credibility.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

Whilst I agree mostly, I feel that there is a certain amount of moderation (with regards to press manipulation) by the public regardless of what the law may say. In the UK at least, a media outlet found to consistently manipulate photos and embelish stories (read: The Daily Mail) is held with absolutely no public regard. Whenever I read a story from The Daily Mail, I simply won't believe it unless a more authorative and impartial news source (such as the BBC) also runs the story.Whilst it probably doesn't affect their sales, there is definately an air of "Oh well, it's only the Daily Mail so I'll take all I read with a very big pinch of salt" amongst the majority of the public.Also, regardless of whether it would be law or not, I don't think everybody would do it. Certain media outlets would remain impartial and unbiased due to their current standing. I certainly can't see news sources like the BBC or editorials such as The Times manipulating photographs just because The Daily Mail and The Sun do it. At least, like I said, not in the UK; things might be very different in the US.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

Maybe if your country were burdened with Fox News, you'd understand. It's been found to consistently manipulate its reporting-- enough that I guarantee you it will be seen in history books as our government's propaganda network. But the sad fact is that something like 87% of people do not-- cannot-- think for themselves... so I've read. No, the hypocrisy of my statement isn't lost on me. But I digress; I forget the figures, but some large portion of the American public still believes that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, and this is largely due to irresponsible or downright dishonest reporting."Visual proof" has a sort of... trump status. Even though they've been proven terribly unreliable, eyewitness accounts are often enough to sway juries despite DNA evidence. At least, in America. :-\ To conclude: There is no legitimate reason to manipulate photographs. I'd rather every one of them be grainy and confusing to the point of inscrutability than have to wonder if they've been edited for someone's ulterior motives. Not all of us have seen quite a few Photoshops in their time, nor can we all tell from the pixels. :-B
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

The prospect of embarrassment and loss of reputation are meant as natural consequences for misleading their readers/viewers.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Press manipulates everything

The news already is known to skew ideas and facts, so changing photos is not much of a jump. Reader beware.Additionally, it would be difficult to determine which manipulations were legal. Some photo manipulations are to enhance specific items in a photo. Determining what's actual observation vs intentional distortion is as difficult as figuring out what part of a news story is actually true.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

I say NO GO! NOOOOOOooooooooooooooo...I feel that the press controls to much of what the public sees and reads. What it boils down to is what the major press mongers want you to believe...Politics is a prime example of that. If you can't tell by reading which side the wind blows from...you can by their pictures...they will always be unfavorable on the opponents side and great pictures on the oppositions side. Subliminal messages...NOT FAIR! They don't care if they get busted because any advertising is good advertising.What is a slap on the wrist...I do not want to see what is not true. Give me reality.Southern smiles and world peace,Sharon~The Baby Boomer Queen~Author of BabyBoomerAdvisorClub.com
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

Aren't there enough laws? American photogs who do this usually get fired. How would you enforce the law in places like Iraq and Iran? Besides, its a great form of entertainment for sharp-eyed bloggers.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

however, i do believe that it must be stated somewhere near the picture that it has been enhanced, edited, or otherwise changed from the original.although what is considered "original" these days?
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

Media has been given to much power as is
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

I don't think it should be illegal because most of the time it is simple changes.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: No

Fame comes with a price.
Debate: Should it be illegal for the press to manipulate photographs?
Side: Yes

The right dust cloth can make a significant difference in your cleaning routine, ensuring that your home remains dust-free and inviting. Consider your cleaning preferences, surface types, and environmental concerns when choosing the best dust cloth for your needs. https://cleanhomeview.com/
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

Making more and more money does not necessarily enhance society and spur progress. For instance, the education system cannot be run for profit because not everyone could afford it, and education is an absolute necessity for a progressive society.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

I'm coming over to take your private property because it is a threat to progress. ;)
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

If someone is greedy, privatization is not going to be a beneficial resource to society.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: No...

"It means you take a public institution and give it to an unaccountable tyranny. "Businesses are not ran by monsters - people do have consciences to the same extent public workers do. Even if they don't the businesses are regulated by law." So, for example if a public steel industry runs at a loss it's providing cheap steel to other industries. Maybe that's a good thing."If the government want to allow a business to run at a loss it can over subsidies to that business.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

Some businesses are not run by monsters, and some are. The main point Noam was trying to make was that Corporations operate for profit. This profit is usually accumulated through exploitation.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: No...

I guess my issue is that with the correct laws I don't believe corporations habitual exploit people for profit.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

True, but the problem is there are not enough correct laws. People generally get into business to make money.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: No...

Can you give an example of a company thats worse off because they've been privatise? Or at least some ways that private companies exploit workers that aren't covered by laws?
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/article/top-10-why-water-privatization-fails Essentially, any company gets some sort of resource, then they usually fire some of the staff. They cut corners etc. Some things cannot be run for profit.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: No...

Proper laws ensure that mutual trade is mutual, it's the opposite of exploitation. I have never used a product and thought "man, I was so exploited into buying this".
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: No...

Public institutions are run by the state, so if they run at a loss (like Noam Chomsky is claiming) they will ring up a debt. And who must pay that debt you may ask? The state must pay that debt and where will they get that money from? The tax payer!Seriously, this quote is laughable.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

Damn right the state has to pay! But is that so bad? Nothing is really free, so what's wrong with paying a bit for education? The really laughable part is the fact that the state is being a nanny to massive corporations paying for their losses and spending our money for the corporations to execute their will. This is where quite a bit of our money goes.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: No...

Damn right the state has to pay! But is that so bad? Nothing is really free, so what's wrong with paying a bit for education?Because the state has nothing, everything they get is taken from someone else. So when the state runs an institution at a loss the tax payers have to pick up the slack. But hey, whats so bad about being forced to pay for a poorly run institution?As for education, I still strongly believe in totally privatized education, however, I would be willing to compromise and go with the voucher system instead.The really laughable part is the fact that the state is being a nanny to massive corporations paying for their losses and spending our money for the corporations to execute their will. This is where quite a bit of our money goes.Actually, that model is exactly the one that Noam Chomsky describes. These institutions run at a loss and its so nice... until you have to cover their losses. I am against government bailouts but let me ask you this, what is the difference between the government bailing out a private steel company for running at a loss and bailing out a state-run steel company for running at a loss?
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

Of course tat these institutions are in loss. They are not meant to be profitable, they provide key services necessary for surviving of your country. Police rarely makes any profit and costs every year more and more...
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

I don't know about you, but I wish to stick with my education and health care, which is provided by the state. These institutions directly benefit the people.Furthermore, the corporations which I was referring to do not directly benefit society; more often than not they harm society.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: No...

I don't know about you, but I wish to stick with my education and health care, which is provided by the state.And where does the state get its money? That's right, they tax it out of your wallet. So you are currently either:a. paying for it and could afford it anywayb. forcing someone else to pay for itThese institutions directly benefit the people.Ooo, you italicized the directly, let us all stand back. Allowing me to choose where I get my education and health care and allowing the organizations to compete directly benefits people. Furthermore, the corporations which I was referring to do not directly benefit society; more often than not they harm society.So when a corporation like Apple or Microsoft provides tons of jobs, desirable products for consumers, increase the quality of life and make people's jobs easier they are doing "harm" but when the government monopolizes (with force) the role of a company and forces you to pay for their product whether you like it or not it benefits me? I have no time for childish nonsense.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

This is kinda a wild tangent, but it still deals with choice and capitalism. Advocates of capitalism are always going on about "ohh look at the choice" but is that a reality? I would argue that it isn't and here's why. If you go to a restaurant and order a drink, do you have a choice? In a sense yes, but it is an illusion of choice. You can choose water, cola, or whatever you want, but all of those products are from one company. What if you want something else? It's just too bad... The same thing is true with telecommunications, there are only two companies in Canada, and their prices are the same. You can have devil one, or devil two. These same companies do everything in their power to stomp out competition and raise prices. So in reality, what's wrong with the state owning one company that doesn't operate for profit? I can't see anything wrong with it. Public oversight could ensure the people weren't getting totally gypped, like they are now. And as for choice, it doesn't matter because it's not like we had any choice to begin with. Any who, that was my tangent. Now to the actual argument...The socialized enterprises in question do not force you to buy anything. You don't have to have a telecommunications service. It's really the same deal as we have now, just with lower prices.On a concluding not, I would like to suggest something to you. Try reading "The Communist Manifesto" You may not agree with it, but it gives a different perspective on things. I will give you a heads up though. The work is essentially in two main part: Marx's critique of modern capitalism (which is excellent and insightful), and his solution (which leaves much to be desired).PS. It's not childish to want a better future free of corporate exploitation :) As we evolve further, we'll get away from the petty profiteering.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: No...

Advocates of capitalism are always going on about "ohh look at the choice" but is that a reality? I would argue that it isn't and here's why. If you go to a restaurant and order a drink, do you have a choice? In a sense yes, but it is an illusion of choice. You can choose water, cola, or whatever you want, but all of those products are from one company. What if you want something else? It's just too bad... Well first off I would like to point out that you could choose which restaurant you go to. Now, yes, it is true you can only buy a limited number of drinks in a restaurant, usually either from Coca Cola or Pepsi Cola, however, that is only at the restaurant. You act as if you can't go to WaWa, 7/11, QuickCheck ect and buy from other soda brands. You can then feel free to buy from PepsiCo, CocaCo, DrPepper/7UpCo, BargsCo, A&WCo, Stewarts, ect along with store brands and other companies. You're also only looking at the soda section of the beverage industry, what about water, ice tea, energy drinks, health drinks and other kinds of beverages? The same thing is true with telecommunications, there are only two companies in CanadaHold up, that argument is based off of telecommunications in Canada right? Canada isn't capitalist. Besides health care and a few other policies, its not all that different from America. The socialized enterprises in question do not force you to buy anything. You don't have to have a telecommunications service. It's really the same deal as we have now, just with lower prices.Wrong. I generally don't like to use bold letters in my argument, but I will in this section to make it simple.The state runs a service, thus, it is funded by the state. The state gets its funds through taxation and taxation is force. You are being forced to fund the state run service.On a concluding not, I would like to suggest something to you. Try reading "The Communist Manifesto" You may not agree with it, but it gives a different perspective on things. I will give you a heads up though. The work is essentially in two main part: Marx's critique of modern capitalism (which is excellent and insightful), and his solution (which leaves much to be desired).I'd rather not. I started reading Capital by Karl Marx and he is a terrible writer. Its not bias either, I think Adam Smith is a terrible writer to.
Debate: Privitization Poses a Major Threat to Progress?
Side: Yes, of course!

"You act as if you can't go to WaWa, 7/11, QuickCheck ect and buy from other soda brands. You can then feel free to buy from PepsiCo, CocaCo, DrPepper/7UpCo, BargsCo, A&WCo, Stewarts,"Well, that's because I can't. Canada eh?"Hold up, that argument is based off of telecommunications in Canada right? Canada isn't capitalist. Besides health care and a few other policies, its not all that different from America" Capitalism- is an economic and social system in which the means of production are privately controlled.Canada seems quite capitalist to me. The almost everything is privately owned. And yes, Canada isn't that different from America thanks to our Dear Leader."The state runs a service, thus, it is funded by the state. The state gets its funds through taxation and taxation is force. You are being forced to fund the state run service."Here's the thing, and I have researched the facts extensively. A state-owned telecommunications company would need no public finds to succeed whatsoever. It would be funded by charging those whom use the service.And on the Communist Manifesto, I think you should re-consider. I also read Das Capital, and found it dry, though I found the Manifesto much more interesting.