azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

Then perhaps regulations should be put in place to curb unfair increases if this is the case.The fact is though, more people are educated. More people being educated has lead to more growth, more jobs, a better lifestyle for more people. So government spending in this case has done more good than harm. And government spending in many areas does more good than harm.It is odd how happy you seem to be about a bad situation though. I'd ask why you hate your country so much, why you would plainly and gleefully root against it, but your name and avatar answer that. The traitorous slave-drivers lost, boohoo no more slaves for a few really rich white people who had all the poor people tricked into thinking it wasn't about slavery. Get over it.As for debt, our debt does not matter that much, because our debt to GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the world. It's a red herring. Simply saying "you said this so you're dumb" isn't an argument. It shows you're dismissive of a subject and so cannot be trusted to argue fairly or knowledgeably about it.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Well yeah, if you're not going to cut spending (the correct way) of course tax cuts aren't going to help. They'll even hurt. It's not science exploration and all those other things that are going to create jobs and prosperity- don't get me wrong those are good things and they help. But that shouldn't be the focus.The government just shouldn't be the focus. Of course we need roads and schools but what good will they do if everyone is too broke for cars or tuition??It's production and creativity that should be our focus. That's what America used to be known for. And lately the government has destroyed that. What? You don't think we're capable of preventing corporate slavery with a free market? Cut taxes AND spending(not necessarily in that order) and let the free market take care of it's self. It's simple.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

Most "hard working business owners" don't have multi million dollar companies which are massively financially successful. He's almost certainly referring to the people who are high in the administration of the massive companies like Walmart, for example.Small business owners don't have that sort of success, but he obviously phrased it very, very poorly
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

I do agree with your points, and he did phrase it very poorly, but remember even Walmart started out as one store.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

Though, the people who are making their millions today are not the people who did that work, which is his point. Or at least, few of them are, and those people are extremely rare anomalies.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

I agree with your point, but every small business owner who,is losing money, breaking even or making money still feels invested in "building" that business. I think Obama and his speech writers didn't think clearly about how the comment would be taken.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

taken out of context it does appear inartful, but he also said in that same speech:"we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together"
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

I was not challenging the fact that he really didn't mean what he said, even though I do believe he meant what he said. But, I did not take his remarks out of centext. I quoted him verbatim...
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

any thought on why you didn't include the very next line of the speech?The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Because I cut and pasted it from an article. That is why.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

Out of curiosity, do you ever question the party you general defend's tendency and seeming excitement at misrepresenting even to the absurd? Misrepresenting so far as to make a clip of a speech sound as if it means nearly the opposite of its intent, then make the misrepresentation the theme of a their convention?Does that side think that people are just dumb, and the only way to get them to agree with a particular philosophy is to lie to them about what is said on the other side?I mean, Romney has been taken somewhat out of context, but never has something he said been made to seem to be the opposite of his intent. Birth certificates, religion, socialism, etc.Why is one side so willing to believe the absurd? Why don't you see the equivalent on the other side of the political spectrum?
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

The people who shorten it to just"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."are taking the statement out of context.The relevant context being "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."the "that" was referring to roads and bridges.The idea that there are many things the government does which help business is all he was saying and is non-controversial to all sane observers.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

hmm - apparently not uncontroversial enough to warrant not being down-voted with no post.classy - message received.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help."The way he said it is way too broad. In the end it IS up to that one person. How many people have had the exact same help and opportunities as other, yet haven't ended up the same place? Hell, my mother and father had me, threw me away and I neer saw or heard from them again. But without them having sex i wouldn't be where i am.It's called a straw man argument, and this man has dressed the straw man up in a suit.I am say a quick thanks everyday that i don't live in the US anymore and it's because of this sort of sonsensical pageantry.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Yes he did say that, but he is not an idiot - good government has an enabling role in any economy and it is tough to set up a successful business in a state of anarchy. How many Congolese multinationals are there?
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Are you joking? Do you really think that you have earned every single penny of your wealth through your own hard work without luck at all? Because if you do, I suggest you read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. It shows how even the richest people in the world did not get there themselves, they got the right opportunities at the right time, and successful people tend to be people who are good at spotting and taking opportunities that come along.There is no such thing as a self made man.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

It shows how even the richest people in the world did not get there themselvesAbsolutely, they got there because of government interfering with the market and passing legislation that benefits some business while harming all the others.However, I don't believe that Obama was referring to that. There is no such thing as a self made man.Well, yeah, parents make people.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

President Obama is a good example of an intellectual moron. When he makes critiques of free-market philosophy by noting that successful people "didn't get there on their own" and thus need to "give something [more] back," he demonstrates that he literally does not understand what his opponents believe. It's not that he's making a poor critique; it's that he's responding to something nobody says. Nobody thinks that anyone got to where they are without any human assistance. That's ridiculous. The actual contention is that, because successful businesses become so through voluntary exchanges—exchanges that both parties feel they benefited from, by definition—then there's nothing to give back because nothing's been taken. Something that exists because of free, voluntary cooperation is fine as it is; leave it alone. That's what we're contending.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

No fuckin' doubt.It almost seems like a typical speech that he'll give to try and convey a message to his mindless followers who heard about free market ideals and asked "hey God, what's that?" and he responds "just some evil greedy people who think that you're all slaves."It's like the 1984 propaganda of Capitalists with top-hats and monocles whom plot to keep the poor from ever becoming anything more than proletariat servants.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

"It almost seems like a typical speech that he'll give to try and convey a message to his mindless followers who heard about free market ideals and asked "hey God, what's that?" and he responds "just some evil greedy people who think that you're all slaves.""Wow, I'm genuinely amazed at how limited your mindset can be at times, granted, you have an interesting perspective, but it seems to be derived solely from your ideological associations which definitely reside on the very extreme end of the very limited political spectrum that exists within your culture, anything that isn't congruent with your ideological standpoint is discarded, usually by employing ridiculous rhetorical device that only further serves to highlight your limited mindset.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Are you going to actually point out what I got wrong or are you just using another excuse to insult me?
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Probably just use another excuse to insult you. ;) All they have left is excuses.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

"The actual contention is that, because successful businesses become so through voluntary exchanges—exchanges that both parties feel they benefited from, by definition—then there's nothing to give back because nothing's been taken. "Actually, he's merely stating that the overwhelming majority of highly successful businessmen got to be successful by being granted opportunities, chances, favors, a big break, etc., that were of very little benefit/help to the person who granted them, and were instead (in many cases) borne out of genuine human altruism. His point is that those people should recognise the help they've been given and try to pass it on or 'pay it forward.'
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Actually, he's merely stating that the overwhelming majority of highly successful businessmen got to be successful by being granted opportunities, chances, favors, a big break, etcAs I read it, the passage to which you refer is merely a pretext for the defence of government spending. While the necessity of a public sector is obvious to anybody who is impartial to the strangely undemocratic republican model (how either thing can exist without the other is frankly mysterious to me), I do not see why we should defend the speech itself, purely because we may subscribe to some of the principles expressed within it. that were of very little benefit/help to the person who granted themSurely it is the duty of those who have the capacity to create such opportunities, that are so vital to the prosperous operation of the American economy, to create them? And surely one in such a position has already benefited enough? A matter of great contention in the present American political arena, is the duty of the wealthy to create employment ("trickle down, I believe they call it), by means of investment. Well I argue "Ut pecunia, sic potestas", "As for money, so for power". If it is the responsibility of the rich to breed prosperity by investment of money, so is it the responsibility of the establishment to accomplish the same ends by investment of power. A government cannot operate on the maxim of "Quid pro quo", when considering its investment in the people that elected it.and were instead (in many cases) borne out of genuine human altruism.As the concept of an altruistic government is ludicrous to me, I suppose you to be speaking in reference to some other source of opportunity. To which source, sir, do you presently refer?His point is that those people should recognise the help they've been given and try to pass it on or 'pay it forward.'Once more, I shall doubtless have more to say on the matter, when the source of the help received has been identified.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

opportunities, chances, favors, a big break, etc.,Which should be repaid with money! Glorious, glorious money!
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Government created the internet in the hopes that they'll be able to tax it some day ;)
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

What does that have to do with any part of the quote?And do you have proof of this conspiracy?
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Yes:1. The are trying to tax online purchases. Including those of Amazon.com and games from Xbox Live. In fact, the government is already taxing purchases from Xbox live; and you are supposed to declare all Amazon.com purchases on your taxes. The only reason there isn't a tax on the Playstation Network is that Obama doesn't want to "offend" Japan (sounds a little unfair if you ask me).2. It's already happening in other countries like in France, but then again; I hear you don't read Time so of course you wouldn't realize this.If Obama gets reelected, that is probably the first thing he will tax.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

Successful people didn't do it on their own? Obama, you kinda look like this link bellow.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

No prison who is successful today did so without someone giving them a job, someone teaching them, someone building a road to get to that job, someone buying the product they made. So yes, no one did it alone. To think otherwise is delusional.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

If I open a store and I hire an someone to work for me I owe them their paycheck (and other benefits depending on what the job is) and then I customer walks in and buys my product I owe them whatever product they bought. I would be successful because I opened the store and sold my products, yes people worked for me and bought my goods, but I gave them what I owed them, there paychecks, benefits and products, I don't owe them my success.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

You could not have opened that business, had you not the education, the knowledge, a road to get their, your life. You owe someone something no matter who you are or what you have done. We are not insects, born alone to eat our parents, find a corner and catch other bugs to eat till we die.We are a social animal. We depend on one another for survival. No one is successful all by themselves.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

If having an education and a road made you successful, we would all be. Just because someone is successful doesn't meant that they had a ton of help and owe it all to the world.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

1. You fail logic 101. That everyone is not super successful does not mean that roads and education were not necessary to make most who are successful so.2. No one said a ton of help. But after receiving that help, whatever amount it is, it is unfair for those who are successful do to that help to turn around and give nothing back. Which is what is happening more and more, and which is what libertarians support happening.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

You sound like one of those "pay your fare share" people... alright, heres a lesson, if there is a flat tax rate and someone is MAKING more they are PAYING more, that is fair. But having them pay a hire percentage just because they are successful and you are not is unfair. Let me remind you, when they payed their employees and gave you your product they payed you back, so they are not in debt to you, actually with all the social programs they are being forced to pay for your in debt to them.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

Bullshit. First of all the richest people pay a lower percent even with a progressive tax system. If you think a flat tax will get them to pay the amount they are supposed to you are mistaken.Second, the reason a flat tax is inherently unfair is because money decreases in value as you accumulate it. That is, it is more important when it's only enough to feed yourself. Less important whent it's only enough to feed yourself and pay for retirement. Less important whent it's enough to feed yourself, retire, and go on vacation every few months, etc.So a 10, 15, 20 percent real tax rate (after write offs etc) is something people on one end of the spectrum would literally not notice. It's dipping into vacation time for maybe their grandkids if the next generations doesn't work. Or it means they have to save an extra month for that new yacht they want.On the other end it is the difference between eating and going to bed hungry. Or having a bed for that matter.A flat tax is inherently unfair in any system, especially in a system with such a gaping and embarassing difference between the haves and the have nots.So you tax the upper end a little more, and with that you pay for all the stuff society needs and you give those children on the lower end opportunity to one day make it to the upper end... and in turn create opportunity for the future by paying a little more, and on it goes.What you're suggesting and what the right wing wants openly and what libertarians have witlessly bought into, is a system of stagnation.If you don't already have, well guess what, too bad because we're getting rid of every opportunity you might have had if we taxed fairly.If you're on the upper end already, you know what, we know most of your money's in foreign tax shelters and you and the next ten generations don't actually have to work a day in your life if you don't want, but let us give you even more.
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: No, he had a different point

If your suppliers don't uphold their end of a contract or if you don't uphold yours - do you owe America anything for your right to pursue legal action in the public court system?If you or one of your employees is having a heart attack, do you owe anything to the paramedics that come to the door of your office (on public roads)?If the building your business is in catches on fire, do you owe anything to the firefighters who risk their life making sure people are safe and putting the fire out?If your business fails, do you owe anything for the bankruptcy protection that keeps you out of debtors prison?for an educated labor-force from which to employ?for patent and trademark enforcement?for universal mail delivery within the United States?for one of the most stable monetary systems in history?for banking and securities regulation?for protection against a bank robber stealing your business' money from the bank?for limitations of personal liability for corporate debts (corporate shield)?for anti-trust/monopoly regulation?for defense against foreign invasion?for reliable weights and measures?for weather forecasting?for FEMA response to natural disasters that may affect your business, customers and employees?for the use of the country's infrastructure (roads, bridges, railways, waterways, air space, spectrum)?for use of the countries natural resources (water, oil, coal, timber, natural gas, copper, silicon, salt, etc., etc.)?for government research that that led to the development of computers, transistors, integrated circuits, atomic clocks, audio cassettes, jet engines, the internet, touch-screens, LCD screens, GPS, nuclear power, microwave ovens, cell-phones, etc."Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive." - Obama
Debate: Did Obama really say successful people didn't do it on their own?
Side: Yes, he is an idiot

No prison who is successful today did so without someone giving them a jobEmployment is an exchange, not a charity. It is necessary for the employer to benefit more from the affair than the employee, else the exchange should be considered unviable. No capitalistic economy can operate upon the principle that one should be grateful to one's employers. It is precisely such a notion that breeds adherence to those social classes, which persons who most commonly support President Obama, most commonly despise. someone teaching themThe classical maxim applies here: Aristotle said, "Education is the surest provision for old age". When every person benefits from such a provision, no single person bears the weight of gratitude.someone building a road to get to that jobThe person who built that road subsists upon the construction of roads, and therefore benefits in the provision of the service.So yes, no one did it alone. To think otherwise is delusional.The point of contention is not whether any person can achieve success on their own, but whether a successful person is, and of a right ought to be, indebted for life to all those who ever provided him with the aforementioned services. I submit that as society as a whole benefits in the most material and tangible ways from these provisions, no person who has flourished, when most about them would flourish also, bears any extraordinary debt.