azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

If russia had kept Alaska and in time discovered and utilized the resources in america like america had, they would have made much more than the oringinal 7.2 million through the sale
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

Russia made a bad decision because they didn't think ahead. If they had thought about the far off future they may have chosen to keep Alaska. Russia didn't explore Alaska enough to make an educated decision about its "lack of resources." And furthermore, to my knowledge Russia didn't make to many strong attempts to fully take over Alaska and use its resources.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

At the time, it was a good decision for both sides, but the USA benefited way more in the long run than Russia did.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

The Russians did not even have the right to sell the land in the first place. Alaska belongs to the Alaska natives and it should be theirs to do what they want with it.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

I believe that it was a very wise choice for Russia to sell Alaska. However, there are some downsides to that argument. After the 1867 purchase, America discovered many valuable resources in Alaska (Oil, gold ect). They quickly made back the 7.2 million dollars that was charged for Alaska. Even though it was a good choice for America, Russia could have greatly benefited greatly in resources and made it out of their debt if they had explored deeper into the Alaskan wilderness. However, the economy would be greatly different today if there was a Russian-America. It is better off that America expanded their territory North into Alaska.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

Russia should have sold Alaska for more than whats worth because of it's economic resources such as Salmon, Gold, Zinc, and Timber.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

i feel like russia made a bad decision because they basically stole alaska then sold it, its like if i took your phone and sold it for my own good.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

Russia made a bad decision because Alaska still had plenty of valuable resources. After the fur trade slowed down due to lack of resources, they decided there wasn't much left of resources to use. However, Alaska is full of many resources and if Russia explored more then they would have found more resources. The fact that they sold a land that they knew very little about was a very dumb choice. They lost a source of income and gave land to a potential enemy. Also, they did not legally own the land, they took it from the native people who lived there. So technically they did not even own the land that they sold. They could have marked it as an indigenous persons land and told the other countries to back off so they could have secretly owned it. The position of the land would have been a great tactical position in the wars. Alaska was a great place to own but they did not know because they were too lazy to walk over a mountain.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

They made a terrible decision because they didn't use their full cable ability to exploit the land.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

I feel that Russia made a bad choice because they didn't fully look at the land,and all of the resource. if they just looked hard enough and stopped being lazy and looked,they would have figured out that there was gold. and gold is worth a lot of money so they would have gotten money and also would have more land. and Alaska also has oil and oil makes people money.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

If they would have waited and actually looked a little more closer into Alaska they would have found the gold, oil, etc. With those new resources they would have never needed to sell Alaska in the first place. The US had made 10x more money then what they spent Alaska only ten years after buying it. It was a great buy for the US but a horrible sell for Russia. Ya Yeet
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

If you look at this situation from Russia's point of view, selling Alaska was a huge loss. They were unable to harness Alaska's rich natural resources, which really is a giant loss. Alaska had gold, meats and furs, lots of herbal food sources, not to mention the marine life. Owning Alaska during the Cold War and the Space Race could have given Russia a huge advantage. For example, it would have been a lot easier to attack the U.S.A. by travelling through Canada, or there's even a possibility that Russia could have even compromised the alliance between Canada and the US, and made an alliance with Canada itself. This also may have given Russia an advantage. In my opinion, it was a mistake for Russia to sell Alaska, but hey, whateves.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

Russia made a bad decision. They sold Alaska which was a sensible choice but, they definitely could have got more money than 2 cents an acre. Also why did they sell to the U.S.A.? The U.S. had just got done with the civil war so odds were they didn't even have the money. Which kinda defeats the purpose of them selling Alaska because the reason they sold it was to get some quick money to fund their war against the British, French, and Ominan Empire. So it was really just a poor deal and they got ripped off. Then not to mention the fact that if they didn't sell then they would have been rich in resources like gold, lumber, and especially oil.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

I do not think Russia should've sold Alaska. I think this because even though Russia was in major debt because of the several wars they were in, there was plenty of undiscovered land that could've had very valuable resources. The Russians had only explored the coast line of Alaska so how do they know there is no resources left? Also, Alaska was not their land in the first place. The Russians had never bought the land from the natives so it was not thier right to sell it, even if it was a good idea.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

With the way that this question is worded it seems that Russia made a bad decision. Had they kept Alaska they would've been able to profit from what has been discovered since it was sold. This includes the gold rush, and current things such as tourism, oil, and other plentiful resources.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

They scammed themselves. They really shouldn't have sold such good land, especially not at such a low price.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

I would say Russia made a bad decision because the sale of Alaska meant that they lost power in the Americas. Although Russia was at the time desperate for money, the militaristic advantage and trading advantages that a more long term position in the Americas could possibly be more valuable than the selling price.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

Russia could have greatly benefited economically from Alaska's natural resources. For example the big Gold Rush, oil, fur, and much more.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

I feel like Russia made a bad decision because of how much land they lost
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

I think Russia shouldn't have sold Alaska because it has many reliable resources that could've been used if they just properly exploited the land.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

I think that Russia shouldn’t of sold Alaska because of all the natural resources that they could of benefited from.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

Russia made a bad decision because they could have had it for themselves. They also sold it for way less than it was really worth. They could have worked on expanding their settlements and trade closer to the US.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

Russia made a bad decision for several reasons. Obviously the resources that were eventually discovered were worth a lot more than what Alaska was sold for. But there is another argument to be made, Alaska was never Russia's to sell. Russia forcefully took control of Alaska and enslaved natives. These practices are now considered entirely immoral. Just as societies try to make up for previous wrong doing native peoples should be given more reparations.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a good decision

But there is another argument to be made, Alaska was never Russia's to sell. Russia forcefully took control of Alaska and enslaved natives. These practices are now considered entirely immoral.Not really. The same applies to Israel. The Brits forcefully obtained control of it and then gave it away even though it was never theirs to give. Calling Israel immoral usually ends with people screaming that you're an anti-Semite.
Debate: Should Russia have sold Alaska to America?
Side: Russia made a bad decision

Russia didn't fully "loot" all of Alaska, and they just wanted money. Russia could've made a little more going further inland and making a effort to actually look for resources instead of hunting for animals and getting their fur.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

It seems that LGBT is a fact of life and in this context there would be a strong argument that pupils should be made aware of the full extent of the world they live in and how best to deal with those of a deviant sexual orientation. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

... What? Armed against what? The existence of people with different tastes to yourself?Winkle I don't get you. You seem like you support the LGBTQ community byt phrase things like you hate them. Which is it?
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: No

If you don't care that you are on your way to Hell, and you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner, and you hate people like me who try to tell you that God loves you while He hates your sin.....hey, you might as well be as dirty as you wanna be as long as you can before you wake up in Hell.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

In this thread: SaintNow throws a tantrum, screams at everyone
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: No

There's no rational reason - homosexuality offers no benefit to society.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

Yes. Sex education helps people make good decisions and lowers teen pregnancy and the spread of STD's. There is no reason not to educate young adults on this topic.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

So is your position to provide a separate class for LGBTQ people or place it as an extension to the average health class?
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

Include it in the health class, which I'm gathering is what you guys call sex ed over there. It'd need to be included in sex ed, because it's education about sex. Not really much room for other interpretations there.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: No

You're another foul mouth pervert flattering yourself with your obnoxious pride feigning to be intelligent strength...just a fool with one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell. I'm not interested in the hot air you breathe against God bringing your own condemnation in Hell.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

O: Uh-oh guys, I'm calling down the Wrath of God. You heard it here first folks; by supporting the education of children on potential risks and dangers of sex, I've condemned myself to hell.  In other news, SaintNow continues to be a jackass, hurling nonsense and seeing what will stick. The jury is still out on whether they are a troll, mentally challenged, a legit bigoted asswipe, or a 2edgy4u teenager killing time. A different jury is also still discussing whether any of those are actually worse than the others, or if they're all just terrible.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

SaintNow confirmed for emotionally unstable jackass. SaintNow confirmed for emotionally unstable jackass.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

I don't really know what you mean by "over there," I call it health class. Regardless, that's reasonable, my position was more to the point that a new class shouldn't be made for it. But a section of health class I can support, although I don't really know what the curriculum would be past "gay relationships are legitimate too." I mean biologically speaking there isn't much to teach.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

Oh yeah sorry I should explain, I'm from Australia, most of this site seems to be American. There'd be a decent amount to add to the curriculum really; gay sex tends to have different risks, and trans topics just aren't covered at all (at least, not in our sex ed).
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

Schools teaching LGBT agenda points should also be teaching something like this, and if the schools won't do it, individual parents most certainly should. Animals are being animals, they were not made in the image of God. People are guilty of doing wrong, animals are excused as they are not people. When you are an animal, such as taught by evolutionists, there is nothing objectively wrong in anything you do. We are not animals, homosexuality is wrong. It is still against nature if animals do it or not. Animals being shown killing each other for dominance does not make it ok for people to do the same thing. Why don't you carry this animalistic argument to support somebody like Hitler who was only doing what his "inner great ape" told him to do?Presenting homosexuality in animals as something that is supposed to end all counter arguments against sexual perversions outside of one man and one woman being united as one flesh in marriage is hypocritical if you do not apply the same kind of reasoning to support all kinds of evils among humans as "natural". Animals steal from each other, kill and maim each other, eat their own babies.......so these things should also be accepted as normal in people, and whichever person comes out on top in any endeavor should be loved and accepted while the loser can be lamented but there should be no punishments for any crime?Homosexuality in people is criminal behavior if the law of the land enforces morals regarding the behavior or not....and don't go off saying you can't legislate morality. All laws are moral judgements of what is right and wrong behavior. Animals are not held under criminal law until they do something like an alligator eating granny and then the alligator get targeted and killed.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

Where in the bible does it say homosexuality is wrong? Quote the verse, go for it.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: No

Find it for yourself if you are not too mentally challenge to be able to find the passages yourself. There are many passages specifically saying homosexuality is wrong....that is, if you think doing abominable things is wrong. If you don't think it is wrong to do abominable things, then it won't matter to you what the Bible says, there is no point in your looking it up as if you had enough intelligence to do so, and there is no point in me giving you the scripture references.I take it that you defile your body with lustful physical indulgences and think it's good to be dirty. That is not my problem, as long as you don't get too close to my loved ones.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

I went looking but got distracted by this bit"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." -Deuteronomy 22:28-29I've got a silver necklace, if I go and give it to some girls dad do I get to rape and marry her? Or perhaps that's something that needs to be re-examined in our modern world, because we know now that rape is an appalling crime, and that paying 50 silver pieces and marrying the victim shouldn't be the "punishment" we give perpetrators. If it's okay to re-examine that, why isn't it okay to re-examine the LGBT lifestyle that your bible reportedly has strong opinions on? Saintnow, I really hope one day you learn to get over this hate-boner you have going. I mean that sincerely.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: No

That was old testament law given specifically by God for the Israelites after He brought them out of Egypt. I an not well studied in the matter, but it was God's law for a specific people and a specific purpose. It was justice, and if it was not followed exactly the penalty would be death....that much I know, Israelites who refused to obey the Law of God were to be put to death.LGBT is a terrible evil. If you can't see that it is evil, there is something terribly corrupt in your motivations. Your apparent support of them indicates that you are dirty minded and probably a dirty pervert who defiles their body in who knows what perversions of fornication. You are exposing yourself, and it's repulsive.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

SaintNow: Not well studied in the matters of biblical history, but more than willing to use vague gestures towards the bible to justify their disgusting hate-speech.  Perhaps SaintNow is talking about how I defile my body and expose myself because they've been repressing their really messed up kinky side for too long, and now it's manifesting itself in this sexually frustrated dribble they spew everywhere. Or maybe that's reading too much into it, and they're just an asshole. Either way, I'm gonna go right ahead and continue supporting the LGBT community until you give me a valid reason to believe what you're saying. Explain to me why you think the LGBT community is so morally corrupt.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: No

Well enough studied to understand that the Law given to the Israelites was the law for them. You are the one who needs to study the Bible you are trying to use as a discredit to the Bible.It is you who is the hater. You hate God for His word which is against sin and condemns it to the prison of Hell, because you are proud and think you can defy God and remain outside of Hell. You hate me for saying the truth about your sin, which is that your sin is evil, dirty, corrupt, and taking you to Hell.Your hatred is obvious when you curse me, it is obvious when you argue against God. You are a hater. If you were standing here in my house talking to me the way you talk, cursing from the dirt inside you, you would be quickly leaving willfully or you would be leaving with bruises and maybe swallowing your teeth. I do hate evil, and you are full of it. Until you are able to speak civilly and refrain your rude inclinations to curse me, all I have to say to you is that you are a punk who is not man enough to listen to and discuss the truth, and God loves you....and it's a good thing for you that He has more patience than me.I can honestly say I love you and show that love by telling you the truth. At the same time, I can see that you hate me and when it is in my rights, it would not bother me in the least to throw you out of my house ASAP by any means necessary.You go ahead and support perverts, and tell them it's good to mutilate their bodies if they feel like their "inner opposite gender" needs help to be revealed, and when you or anybody you love gets AIDS or any other debilitating disease, thank yourself for supporting LTGB
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

I could use that same argument ("the law given to the Israelites was the law for them") to refute any biblical passage that denounces homosexuality. You say you love me, but also say you'd leave me bruised and swallowing my own teeth. You don't love me; you don't even love your God. What you love is feeling emotionally superior, and jerking off to your sense of masculine entitlement. Awww, vague directionless threats against my family and friends! How adorable.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: No

I guess you have no morals so there is not such thing as corruption, and being a pervert to you means whatever you feel like doing is good. You're a pervert and you know it, you don't need me to tell you what is morally wrong with perversions.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

I guess you have no morals, so to you so there is no such thing as being a bleating asshole.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: Yes

Find it for yourself if you are not too mentally challenge to be able to find the passages yourself. There are many passages specifically saying homosexuality is wrong....that is, if you think doing abominable things is wrong. If you don't think it is wrong to do abominable things, then it won't matter to you what the Bible says, there is no point in your looking it up as if you had enough intelligence to do so, and there is no point in me giving you the scripture references.Haha Mr. high and mighty. "No I wont share the Bible with you. Of course people like me are not tempted by sin and you should all be like me and not have to look at the Bible to know whats right and wrong." The Bible is the word of God. You should share and NO ONE is above sin.
Debate: Should Schools Hold Optional Classes On LGBT Things (gay relationships etc.)?
Side: No

Defend lazy brains, then resort to insults....excellent discussion tactic there, good way to get people thinking.When people ask a stupid question such as "show me the Bible passage" when that passage is well known and easy to find if the questioner actually does not know exactly where to find it without looking it up, they do not care what the Bible says. They are asking the stupid question as part of their hypothetical argument in which they make themselves their own moral god in order to excuse their sin. Then a clown like you gets all up in the air about it with an big "HAHA!!! GOT YA!!!Mike, take a hike, and get some fresh air and maybe after your brain clears a little, you will have the clarity to carry on a conversation with me.