azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

I feel as though it shouldn't matter if you kill the ants because in today's news there are deaths and killings happening left and right and no one is doing anything about it.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

If our morality allows for the careless slaughtering of creatures we regard as "lower" and "nothing but an annoyance" we might do good to consider how that logic can play out.I like ants! But I will relate a story about how I found a novel way to kill a whole colony. Once a whole sack of sugar spliled and needed to be swept up and thrown out. I thought "Ants love sugar, I'll give my little buddies a treat like they've never had before". I poured it all onto their ant hill and checked every few days to see if they would be able to eat it all, and guess what happened? They died, all of them.So whats the moral of the story??
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

The moral of the story is that you just gave ant killers on the other side of the argument a neat way to kill them
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

This is an awesome story! Thanks, buddy. I am going to upvote you.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

Well ants might seem minor (and i contest that they aren't), but if ants today, cockroaches tomorrow, pigeons the next week, other large mammals the next month, humans the next year...hence, from predictive reasoning i conclude antslaughter (eventually) implies manslaughter.Ants are one the most hardworking creatures on this earth and deserve as much respect as any other.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

I disagree that just because I kill ants now means I will soon be killing people. My evidence for this is that I have been killing ants and small bugs for years now, and I haven't killed a human yet. If every bug killed by someone meant that a human would die, there would be no humans left. Has anyone else on this debate gone from slaughtering ants to people? Do ants really deserve so much respect? Ants have been known to destroy homes and large patches of areas where there have been infestations. I for one, will not support them for that reason. How can you be hardworking if you cannot comprehend what that means? Why should you be given respect if you spend your whole life destroying things?
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

It was just an overexaggeration of the situation. Ants know not the difference between the harm that they are causing people and the need to survive. Why is it that humans who have been given more intelligence stoop to the behaviour of animals? And tell me, humans destroy things all the time, does that mean we should kill them?And ants do plenty for the environment, why do you only look at the bad things that they do, and sure maybe killing a few is not going to cause a hole in the ozone layer, but it still requires a level of respect for things around us.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

Have you ever heard of the slippery slope fallacy. And btw, we are already killing people. It's called abortion.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

we are already killing people. It's called abortion.And war, mercy killing, the death penalty, etc.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

If they are not a pest, then you shouldn't be killing them. Though there are billions of them and you couldn't kill them all, they are still valuable to the ecosystem.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

yes, but, you aren't killing them all, and after 2 days, they are back where they started out as.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

Ants have more uses than problems. They are cleaners, diggers and police to name a few things they do. The amount of structural damage done by them is actually our fault for not taking them into consideration, kinda like those who build in flood zones because it has been fifty years since the last flood. If we took ants into account when building in ant filled areas we would put better prevention in place. If you need to kill some small inferior creature, kill the mosquitoes and flies instead. They may be food for things but there are plenty of other sources and they do bugger all for us.... Well flies help a little but not enough to be beneficial.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

The only problem is "have they done anythng to irritate us in any manner" We may pose this question and then comes the common steorotype that "ants are bad,they bug us, etc" The only problem is the fact that if they have not done anything to iritate us, we should just spare their lives
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

Excellent excellent!!!The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

Ant societies have division of labour, communication between individuals, and an ability to solve complex problems.These parallels with human societies have long been an inspiration and subject of study. Many human cultures make use of ants in cuisine, medication, and rituals. Some species are valued in their role as biological pest control agents
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

Excellent explanation!The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

I've thought about this a lot actually. I bet if ants were the size of a horse(though that would be terrifying) people would react differently. What if a Bald Eagle was the size of a fly?? I think we allow ourselves to have varying perceptions on animals just because they look different.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

NO >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-( >:-(they are life forms aswell
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: Yes, kill them all!

Spam much? .
Debate: Is Slaughtering Ants Justifiable?
Side: No, it is immoral

:OI LOVE EVERY KIND OF LITTLE BUG THERE IS ON THIS PLANET!!! I'm such a bug lover and if my brother sees an ant and does so much as say he's going to kill it, I freak out a tackle him before his foot hits the ground. :) Every time I accidentally step on an ant or worm or anything, I carry it to the closest shade and like scream "LIVEEEEE DON'T DIE ON ME BROTHA" Sooo... My answer is no...
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

Theft:a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of propertyTaxation:a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."Sources: Merriam Webster & WikiTaxation is legalized theft.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

The coercive nature of taxation is theft because it permeates the transfer of property from one entity to another without voluntary exchange.If an private citizen uses the use of force or the threatens violence, this is unlawful transfer of property as well as the if it is the state. Theft
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

If you use that definition then when a bank repossesses a house that also counts as theft, however it is not seen liked that because the homeowner sign a contract or an agreement with the bank.Likewise the fact that someone has citizenship is a contract that they will pay tax, ultimately so that they can then obtain the benefits of the services that state provides.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

Contracts are voluntary and conscious. No one voluntary signed the "social contract" which has no specific boundaries what so ever. It's not real. It's an excuse. It's terribly named.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

Right, all contracts are reserved in voluntary and conscious matter, the social contract is just some imaginary concept preserved by statists. Besides, this social contract doesn't even has any definitions, does it say what the APPROPRIATE rate is as to what TAXATION is not theft? It can't because it doesn't exist.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

Really? Because I never signed any such contract. I was just 'born into' it.That said, some minimal taxes are probably required by the government to keep it running... unless you're a politician and want to increase your salary. Again.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

Those definitions don't add to your point.You gain nothing from theft, you gain so many things you take for granted via taxation.Not only taxation not theft because it's legal, but because taxation is responsible for providing the populace of whatever society is taxed, with necessities and services taxation isn't thievery, even legalized.What next, paying a maid to clean your house is theft? Paying a McDonalds employee for doing their job is theft?If paying those people aren't theft, paying the government isn't theft.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

There is just much to gain from theft from private individuals as there is theft from taxation. It is unearned transfer of property.The services exchanged with a maid McDonald's employee are based on voluntary exchange both of which money was invested by private individuals from previous labor while government taxation is the use of force or the threat of force with no assets of its own.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

There is just much to gain from theft from private individuals as there is theft from taxation. It is unearned transfer of property.So private individuals will run the police force? And only people they respect will be protected and arrested?Private individuals will run the fire department, and only the people they accept or like will have their fires put out?How about the fact that if private individuals own things, they will make you pay to use it. You want to pay to use everything? There are people just barely making it day to day, on meager minimum wage paychecks, while the minimum wage is alleged to be just enough to support a basic lifestyle. When all these new things are made to paid for, minimum wage won't pay for the basic necessities, when the basic necessities now include driving on a private road, paying for police to protect you if you get mugged, paying for a lawyer if you get into some court trouble, etc.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

Anything the market provides is always more efficient and cheaper than government. Why do you think that public roads, police and lawyers are cheaper if supplied by government monopolistic agencies compared to private agencies?The only reason people can just barely make it day to day or paycheck to paycheck is because of bad government monetary policy through the manipulation of the currency by inflation, which debases the purchasing power value of money.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

Anything the market provides is always more efficient and cheaper than government.Really? Because independent suppliers always have the consumer's best interest at heart with little or no thoughts of getting rich.Why do you think that public roads, police and lawyers are cheaper if supplied by government monopolistic agencies compared to private agencies?This is saying that government offered things are cheaper than privately owned things. Which is contradictory to your last statement.The only reason people can just barely make it day to day or paycheck to paycheck is because of bad government monetary policyWhatever the cause, you agree that people can barely live on minimum wage. That is while son many public services are government owned and free. If they were privately owned and not free living on minimum wage would be impossible.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

Independent suppliers are not government, are they? They are still privately owned and engage in the marketplace. Not sure how they are even relevant to to this lining of debate.Actually, my last statement is not contradictory, it is very accurate. It was a question, not a statement, and you didn't answer it. Any service or good supplied by force from a monopolist is always less efficient. Even mainstream economists agree monopolies can't supply services or goods cheaper. The excessive demand fomented by free and other under priced services is just one of the many reasons that makes government cheaper, it is one of the reasons why it misallocates resources by failing to supply the service where it is most needed, which makes providing the service inefficient. Government InefficientThe cause is fundamental to the problem because minimum wage is still bad bad policy coupled with the inflationary monetary policy. In free market capitalism, minimum wage wouldn't exist, and markets wouldn't be distorted by either fiscal or monetary policy. Purchasing power would drastically increase. Question: What makes goods and services cheaper and allows all incomes the ability to increase living standards? I want to know what you think otherwise this conversation is over.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

Independent suppliers are not government, are they? This was your statement."Anything the market provides is always more efficient and cheaper than government. Why do you think that public roads, police and lawyers are cheaper if supplied by government monopolistic agencies compared to private agencies?" So the market provides would be privately owned. The publically owned would be the government owned. If the publically owned is cheaper than the privately owned that means it's easier on the wallets of everyone if the government taxes us to give us things, rather than paying private companies for these things.What makes goods and services cheaper and allows all incomes the ability to increase living standards?When these goods and services are offered for the greater good.Question: Who (out of the two) is more concerned with the greater good: The government, or privately owned businesses?
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

"Anything the market provides is always more efficient and cheaper than government." --Statement"Why do you think that public roads, police and lawyers are cheaper if supplied by government monopolistic agencies compared to private agencies?" " --Question This statement nor question suggests that publicly owned is cheaper than privately owned.When these goods and services are offered for the greater good.WOW, you are an idiot. This is over.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

The statement is wrong. People who don't care for the greater good or about anything other than profit, won't be selling their goods cheaper than the government who just wants to see the country grow.The question was saying that government appointed goods and services are cheaper than privately owned ones, therefore contradicting that statement.If you want to point the 'idiot' finger look how many point back at yourself.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

There is no such thing as greater good, how do you define as the greater good? Who defines it? The stupidest thing about your greater good, which you don't even realize it, that so many different definitions of greater good exist that nobody really even knows what it is, so achieving this imaginary concept crumples every time because nobody can agree on what it is much less implementing this fantasy. Government isn't about wanting to see the country grow, it's only propose is power and control, and so any involvement of government is only that.Government appointed goods and services are not cheaper than privately owned. Every single economist even mainstream economists don't agree with that absurd comment. It is idiotic even to suggest.There was no finger pointing, not sure if you know this, but we are typing, so only typed words.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

how do you define as the greater good? Out of the two "Personal gain" or "countrywide gain" I'd have to say countrywide gain. That's what the government wants.Government isn't about wanting to see the country growDid you even read that before typed it? What is the purpose of a government if it's not to keep the country it's in control of from being destroyed, and to make it prosper?Government appointed goods and services are not cheaper than privately owned.False. Government is the reason Canada has free healthcare, as opposed to hear where it's sold, and it is certainly not cheaper than free.Government picks up your garbage, for free.Government hires police officers and firemen that come to your service for free.Private roads cost more than public roads.When people are involved, more often than not, they want personal gain, and that involves money.When government is involved, they want to get their services to those who need it, and that means cheaper.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

How do you know what the government wants? Nobody has ever been able to define what the greater good is, and neither did you, it was just some retarded generic statement with no reasoning or logic. There are millions of unproductive government employees all with different personalities and beliefs that not two would even be able to agree on what the greater good is.If the government truly wanted a country prosper, it would stay out of the way completely because it only wants power and control.When someone says that healthcare, garbage pickup, police officers, roads are free, this is someone who has no idea what they are talking about. These are not free, the real cost comes at high taxation due to no market signals as to what these people are willing to pay, so these prices are arbitrary created out of nowhere by government and always overcharges due to its monopoly status.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

How do you know what the government wants?I see it in the policies it makes. It does not try to hinder the people, it tries to help the people grow.Nobody has ever been able to define what the greater good is, and neither did youThe greater good isn't literally what I was going for. When trying to explain something one should know through common sense it's hard to formulate the words to express it. The government's goal is obviously to aid it's people, that would be the greater good in this case.There are millions of unproductive government employees all with different personalities and beliefs that not two would even be able to agree on what the greater good is.Yet, when a vote is made, the decision they come up with as a single entity is what was best for the people or what they believed to be best for the people.If the government truly wanted a country prosper, it would stay out of the way completely because it only wants power and control.This was tried before with laissez faire, the government kept out of business' way, and the result was people losing their jobs over terrible uncalled for reasons, and overall very little prospering except for the private business owners.When someone says that healthcare, garbage pickup, police officers, roads are free, this is someone who has no idea what they are talking about. These are not free, the real cost comes at high taxation due to no market signals as to what these people are willing to pay, so these prices are arbitrary created out of nowhere by government and always overcharges due to its monopoly status.Obviously nothing is free. Yet if taxation didn't exist these things that seem relatively free, would be paid for right out of pocket, which not every person can afford.How do you know the government over taxes us if you've never lived in a place where it doesn't?
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

Government policy is never total agreement among officials, that is what politics is, and it is called compromise. Every single policy government creates is severely flawed either economic or social.If the greater good isn't what you were going for, then why did you type it before. How does the government aid it's people since there is no way of defining what the aid is or what the greater good is. Aiding people is impossible without knowing what it is first, and if no one agrees on what that is, government will always fail and so does collectivism.That is laughable to even suggest that laissez faire was tried before, America has never been laissez faire.Really, nothing is free, wow, you figured that out, congratulations, your previous post argued that healthcare, garbage and police force is free until I pointed it out that it isn't. Taxation is the reason why these services seem unattainable because of how it has completely distorted those services if provided by the market due to its huge shift in allocation of resources with no economic calculation.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

Government policy is never total agreement among officialsObviously not, but things do get decided on eventually, and when they do the decision is what most of the politicians assumed would be best for the people. Every single policy government creates is severely flawed either economic or social.If they're so severely flawed how are we even still alive. They are managing, and we've been slowly getting better.How does the government aid it's people since there is no way of defining what the aid is or what the greater good is.So you're saying people don't need progressive policies like welfare? Those government programs don't help people?That is laughable to even suggest that laissez faire was tried before, America has never been laissez faire.Now you're just disputing facts.Really, nothing is free, wow, you figured that out, congratulations, your previous post argued that healthcare, garbage and police force is free until I pointed it out that it isn't.I never said it was free in the literal sense, I said we don't have to pay for it out of pocket. We pay for it, via taxation. Taxation is not theft because we get something for the taxes we pay, does that argument look familiar?
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: Yes

How do politicians know what is the best for the people? To even suggest that, this would imply elitism.Never suggested that government policy was mortally endangering, nice strawman. Government is one of all reasons for all recessions and depressions.Progressive policies like welfare don't help these people, it just creates generations of dependency.Not disputing facts, you are denying facts. Laissez faire is free of government intervention apart from protection of property rights, and government has always intervened in markets in America even since the founding.Saying that we get something for the taxes we pay is like saying slaves got free shelter and food for working hard labor without pay.
Debate: Is Taxation theft?
Side: No

How do politicians know what is the best for the people?People vote.Government is one of all reasons for all recessions and depressions.People are also one of all reasons recessions and depressions happen.Progressive policies like welfare don't help these people, it just creates generations of dependency.Wow.