azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Good link! I'll have to read that. The reading list... it just wont stop...I've never lost a debate on politics, it just hasn't happened.Understanding that your debating is adversarial by default and that mine is collaborative by default, and understanding that you probably don't mean that in quite the way I'm about to interpret it:If I never 'lost' a debate then I'd be really worried. An astrologer once assured me that his predictions were 100% accurate, 100% of the time. Watching him then make a few 'perfect' predictions made it clear to me and everyone else in the room that he had simply crippled his ability to honestly appraise his success rate.What made it hard, and actually impossible, for him to realise this was that so many clients were pleased with his services. I demonstrated to him and everyone else how meaningless this is by giving them a little instruction on what to look out for as I talk to a random girl and then proceeded to do a 90 minute 'consultation' with the random girl from the crowd. People couldn't stop laughing when I eventually told her that it was a trick and she responded with "No. I don't think you're confident enough about your gift."The astrologer said that that was just a trick but his gig was the real deal. Unfortunately, some people did fall for that but others realised that he was doing the same thing as me but just not as mindfully.The fact that it's possible to fool so many others either deliberately or unintentionally, and also to fool ourselves unintentionally is the reason why I'm cringing at that statement.But fine. It's yours to make.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Perhaps it's something to be worried about, but it is so.I don't base my arguments on theories displaced in the future. Everything I talk about is based on current facts that are immediately verifiable/falsifiable. Besides, my method isn't based on imposing a political ideology. I'm not a communist or a democrat or anything of that sort. My method is one of debunking the ideologies of others and I've yet to come across an ideology that works just as well (let alone better) than the free market.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

If I understand what you mean then I think you're describing your M.O. incorrectly. I can illustrate this most easily by comparing myself with yourself as an example because we're using the same strategy in different battles.I try to be a good Scientific Skeptic and I think you try to do the same thing. I wouldn't say either of us manages it at all times because I don't think anyone does. We all have our lapses and we need to count on those who love us enough to embarrass us with "Honey, you're wrong and the evidence is right there so whether you accept it or not, everyone else will know." :DNone of the religions satisfy the burden of proof placed on them by Scientific Skepticism which is why I don't believe any religious claims. The word for that is an Atheist. No religious ideology.You're arguing that none of the political ideologies satisfy the burden of proof placed on them by Scientific Skepticism which is why you don't believe any political ideological claims. I'm not sure if their's a suitable word to describe the position "No political ideology" (maybe A-statist or Astatist?).And yes, that's a good characterisation of political ideologies you make with the phrase "theories displaced in the future". Political ideologies do take the flavour of "We can and we should have a future world like such and such which in order to reach we'll need to compromise on this or that."But the thing with religious ideologies is that they provide ready made answers to real world questions so, as an Atheist, what are my answers to these questions? ... Humanism!I'd describe Humanism as "morality without mythology" and Secular Humanism as "morality without mythology goes para-political". By 'para-political' I mean that Secularism (the separation of church and state) isn't a political ideology as such but a concept which you attach to other political ideologies.You're analogue of Secularism is "the separation of market and state" but you're also an Anarchist meaning that you claim that all the actually important functions that a state provides can be provided by the market without a need for anything external to the market.So to sum up:Base epistemological philosophy?You: Scientific SkepticismMe: Scientific SkepticismIdeological grievance?You: political ideologyMe: religious ideologySkeptical of what?You: StatismMe: TheismScientifc alternative to this?You: Nothing. No alternative needed.Me: HumanismPara-political proposal?You: abolishen of state.Me: separation of church and state.Final philosophical/ideological tags?You: Scientific Skeptic, Astatist, Anarchist, Capitalist.Me: Scientific Skeptic, Atheist, Secularist, Humanist.I think we're going to disagree on a lot of things but, none-the-less, we're going to get on great. :)
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: Yes

Agreed. I'm not big on organized religion myself.-------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Hm. I've just had a day to think about my comparison of your ideological grievances and my own and have a little more to add.For all of the liabilities that religions bring, they do have some benefits which an Atheist must acknowledge and at least attempt to provide rational alternatives for. The main advantages of religions that I can see are these:God: an entity which decides and hands down the law and occasionally makes changes or provides new laws.Theologians: a community of experts who interpret the law in the most difficult of cases.Priests: a community of overseers who ensure the law is obeyed.Temples: community centres providing a range of needed goods and services not being provided elsewhere.So now we have something like:God --> The StateTheologians --> EthicistsPriests --> JudgesTemples --> Various charitable organisationsI think a democratic state is an imperfect but rational and morally superior alternative to God. I'm curious, in a stateless society, where would the laws come from? (assuming there would be any laws at all) If you abolished the state, who would enforce the ban and prevent any future state organisation gaining control?
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: Controlled Market

I've yet to come across an ideology that works just as well (let alone better) than the free market.Depends on what you mean by 'works'. To borrow some cell biology, dollars are basically the stem cells in the economy. You can convert dollars into any commodity and you can also convert some commodities back into dollars. Whereas, all other resources are specific resources, the dollar is the universal resource. Everyone needs to use up some of the universal resource in order to maintain their literal survival and ensure their personal safety. Any resources left over is their actual economic power, their free ability to dollar vote and influence the market.People use their economic power:1. to 'work': to provide goods/services which others need for survival/security;2. to 'entertain': to provide goods/services which others do not need but do desire;3. to 'play': to purchase goods/services to satisfy desires;4. to 'invest': to purchase instruments which over time generate more dollar votes than used to purchase them.The problem with this set-up is the long-term shifts in economic power:1. At the very bottom you have the 'dying': those who are not able to meet their survival/security needs;2. Next come the 'survivors': those who are able to survive but cannot afford to then provide any goods/service to others;3. The 'providers' are those who can afford to provide goods/services from which they can generate more dollar votes;4. The 'players' are those who are able to meet their needs and then do not work, do not entertain, but do play. Their many purchase is of investment instruments which generate dollar votes for themselves but do not provide any goods/services either needed or simply desired.5. At the very top are the 'Scrooges': those who do not provide any goods/services, do not play but plough all of their dollar votes into dollar vote generating instruments.Ultimately, you end up with a society where the least useful members of it (players and Scrooges) are also the most influential. Of the two groups, the least interesting (Scrooges) are the more influential.A society ruled by useless people is pretty bad but one ruled by the dullest useless people is even worse.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Besides, my method isn't based on imposing a political ideology.I'm afraid you're views do constitute a stance equivalent to a political ideology in the same way that my Humanism, though not a religion, is recognised by the UN as a non-religious life stance equivalent to a religion and is to be afforded all of the same rights and privileges extended to religions.Political ideologies as I understand them consist of:1. a theory of human nature (i.e. individual psychology and behaviour);2. a theory which extrapolates from this the general character of humanity;3. and in light of this, a prescriptive theory of ethics which tells us what humanity should be like;4. and finally, a plan for getting us there.You have a theory of human nature, you extrapolate to humanity's general characteristics, you prescribe ethics and you have a plan you think will get us there. I don't see how this isn't a political ideology.Moreover, your theory of human nature isn't supported by the known psychological evidence which invalidates your extrapolation to humanity. Your ethics may or may not survive a collision with the psychological evidence but, given these points, your plan is not justified. I would have to say the same of all political ideologies.What we need is a scientifically valid and ethically considered political stance. A number of ideologies have started off in that vein but they all fail because scientific knowledge expands and influences our ethical considerations whereas ideologies are... ideological. What we real need is a scientifically valid and ethically considered political stance which also has the ability to expand with science and be influenced by ethics.We just need to be... sane.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

My way is of NO politics. The only theory of human nature I have is that typically people base their actions on their own rational self interest, but I don't make it a rule because I know there are exceptions. This is an observation, NOT an ethos.I also prescribe no "should" on anybody. I see what works in most cases, for some it doesn't so I won't say everyone needs to conform to me, I don't say anyone needs to conform to me for that matter.I also don't subscribe to any ethics. Morals are simply your personal prefferences super imposed as rules.The only ideology you can define me by is I believe in non-belive.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

If there's a problem, naturally whomever takes issue with my stance will question me into realizes any flaw, assuming they're competent.Well, it's pretty important that you get competent criticism in debate just as it's important to get competent proof readers in writing. There's nothing worse than having a mistake overlooked by everyone and then to proceed to make substantial decisions you wouldn't have made if the mistake hadn't been overlooked.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Government is based on taxation.Well, historically that's really where taxes originated. Campaigns were typically fought by able men from within a tribe who received no pay but were entitled to a share of plunder. If the number of men were not enough then the tribal leader would need to hire paid mercenaries. If the leader could not fork the bill himself then he would have to take contributions from traders. Over millennia, this informal arrangement morphed into the formal tax arrangement between governments and citizens where funds are required to maintain a professionalised military, even through peacetime, as well as provide for a variety of other administrative and public policy making activities.But it's not the levying of taxes which characterises a government. It's being responsible for the defence and administration of a nation. If a government decided that it was not going to tax anyone but was going to raise all of it's funds from profits made by companies it owns then it would still be a government because it would still be responsible for the defence and administration of a nation.A governments power doesn't flow from it's ability to raise taxes but rather it's power is in being able to make policy and enforce them. It's from already having power that a government is then able to consider levying taxes as a way of funding it's activities.Ok. How about this: I can't agree that every possible form of government conceivable would have to raise taxes in order to be a recognisable government. However, I'll agree that most (if not all) governments today raise some of their funds through taxes. It's an historically contingent observation. It isn't intrinsic to the concept.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Even if you don't want to use it and you want to use a non-state service, you'll have to pay both.You know what. I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to allow people to opt-out of paying for public services they don't want to use. Take the fire department for example. If someone chooses to opt-out and instead wants to use a non-state service they should be able to do this and not pay the part of tax budgeted for the fire department. They should be able to opt-back in just by starting payments of that tax again. Hm. Waiting for your next pay cheque while your home is on fire would be a real bummer.But it's easy to do that with the fire department but what about things like city traffic calming measures designed to improve air quality in residential areas? I don't see how you're going to opt-out of that... unless you were prepared to carry your own privately supplied O2 and understood that you would be immediately arrested for theft if you ever took your mask off.Oh dear. I can think of a number of grizzly scenarios around air quality. If someone's O2 container failed then would police have to protect every one else's property (the clean air) from being stolen by preventing them from breathing?I think opt-outs should be allowed just so that people can see for themselves the ensuing disasters and death tolls for people who are as imprudent as to actually opt-out. But who knows, some things may be worth opting out of in the end. I guess only by allowing it and then doing a statistical review of the practical consequences for a large number of people can answer whether you should opt-out or stay in even if you purchase a similar non-state service.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Non-state services just work better. Could you imagine how shitty televisions would be if the state monopolized the production of them?If the government allowed opt-outs it would only be a matter of time before people realized the whole state needs to be abolished.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I disagree that non-state services just work better. I think some things like the development of entertainment are better as commercial services but other things like public libraries are better as a free state services rather than a commercial service seeking a profit.I disagree with the second part too but it's also a very testable claim. My favourite kind. We just need to find a case somewhere in the world of a state service with an opt-out and then see if that's looking like it's causing the collapse of not just that government but the collapse of the concept of government in that country.I'm sure there is such a case and I'm also pretty sure that it's not causing the collapse off anything. We'd probably find something very mundane like the department providing that service becoming a little better organised rather than riots on the streets. That's my expectation.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

By definition state services cannot work better. Look at it like this, there are only 2 reason for government services.1. To direct money towards things people otherwise wouldn't pay for.2. To gain control over the money flow towards what people DO want to pay for.With "1." the problem is obvious. If there is little to no demand from the public for whatever it is the government is now making them pay for, then it is an economic burden. With "2." the problem is also obvious. If people are naturally paying for the service willingly, then there is no reason for the government to step in, unless the goal is to simply get a slice of the pie, so to speak. But the situation gets even worse. When the government starts taxing for things that have low demand, or redirecting the cash flow for things with high demand they begin forcing people whom otherwise wouldn't pay for this hypothetical service to pay for it. A split in society is created. Now the public fights amongst itself, each side trying to get the most votes so that the government will redirect the cash into the things THEY want. they blame each other for their problems, instead of the ones pulling the strings.How stupid is this! This whole problem would vanish if people were simply allowed to pay for the things they want on an individual level, but for a state program to exist, they must tax everybody. If they only taxed the people who already wanted to pay people would realize they don't need the state.They'd realize more gets done without the government keeping a portion of the money.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

1. To direct money towards things people otherwise wouldn't pay for.Yes. And that's a good thing. Everyone wants functioning infrastructure but no one wants to be be the one to pay for it. With taxes everyone has to pay.(An idea follows. I'm sure it's been thought of and studied before.)Perhaps what irks people the most is that they know they're paying for something they were hoping to get for free. There's this guy I know who takes a similar stance on taxes as you do. He insists he shouldn't have to pay any taxes for anything and yet his usage of the public library vastly outstrips the number of books he could purchase if he didn't have to pay taxes. I get the feeling that if the library was run as a charity open to all, he'd be one of the big users who never makes a donation i.e. a free-loader.But rather than waste too much time condemning obviously parasitic behaviour, let's try for a solution. What if the library didn't actually take any donations from the public? There would be no difference between him and everyone else. But where are the donations coming from? Well, how about a ladies shoe store whose sole shareholder is the public library? All profits get used to maintain and expand both the shoe store and the public library. In this way, people are paying for something they want to pay for (the shoes) and they're getting something they need but don't want to pay for (free access to books).But now you'll complain that he's the biggest user of the library and yet he's not buying any ladies shoes so the ladies are paying for his free-loading. Okay, so what if there are now several stores each selling a different type of good/service that he's sure to be buying at some of the stores and indeed everyone would be buying at some of the stores in order to obtain goods/services they do want to pay for.How about expanding the charitable arm. Instead of just providing a library, what if it also provided a school, public baths, a park, a museum, garbage collection, etc.? So now you have this huge charitable corporation where the corporate arm provides goods/services people actually want to pay for and the charitable arm provides goods/services which people don't want to pay for but still do need. It could operate on a national scale and compete fairly with other corporations for the profits to maintain and expand.Such a charitable corporation could take over much of the work currently done by a state. It could even provide for enforcing the rule of law provided the laws are drawn up by way of a reasonable democratic process. This charitable corporation would, for all intents and purposes, be a state funded not by taxes but by commercial profits.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

You're very quick to say wrong on these points. I'm beginning to think you're reading my comment with the mind-set it's wrong and just making up reasons that fit your belief.I take your point. I would probably suspect the same thing if someone found fault with every sentence of an argument I had made. The mindset I've started from, if you want to call it a mindset, is that claims of fact need to be actually true.It is true that traditional economics postulates that economic agents are rational agents who will converge on the optimal product. But the empirical studies done by behavioural economists to find out how true this really is show that, not only is this false, but that it is absurdly false.I'm afraid it's not my fault if you didn't know this. However, I would encourage you to read around this topic just because some of the studies are hilarious. They make you think "ZOMG! But that's really stupid. Why do people do that? Even really clever people."
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

It is true that traditional economics postulates that economic agents are rational agents who will converge on the optimal product. But the empirical studies done by behavioural economists to find out how true this really is show that, not only is this false, but that it is absurdly false.I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Please clarify.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Just two of the books immediately at hand:"Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely"How We Decide" by Jonah Lehreror slightly more comical would be:"Quirkology: The Curious Science of Everyday Lives" by Richard Wiseman.I'm not saying you have to read these but if you do read any of these then the most germaine to this discussion is Dan Ariely.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

It hasn't happened in the U.S. as far as I know, but all that proves is that no one pushed the state that far, not that the state wouldn't do it.Ok. Reading your explanation, I think it's a reasonable possibility in the US that someone convicted of tax fraud would actually be imprisoned and if they tried to escape prison that they would be killed. But that just speaks badly of the US rather than every government in existence and every government which could possibly exist. The US probably does need to muster up the political will for prison reform.However, I don't agree that individuals who break the law of a nation with impunity should go unpunished. If the fraud is of such a grand scale and so egregious that a court of law decides a bit of prison time is necessary, then so be it. Even though I think that prison should be a punishment of last resort where all other approaches have failed.I'm beginning to understand that your grievance is not with government in general but the US government in particular. US law appears to have a number of barbaric provisions.