azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

It's not a matter of personal experiences, it is a well-known fact that companies will overwork their labour and service employees to be competitive.If a company overworks their employees to the extent that the employees don't feel compensated, then they'll quit and instead work for whomever offers better working conditions. CEO's know this. That's why it's in their best interest to keep their employees at least happy enough that they voluntarily continue working. Strawman of what I said.Absolutely not. You're trying to say that under a free market, companies will overwork their employees and I've responded by showing you how cutting corners (or, more specifically, cutting salary) will result in less employees, thus less revenue. Keep in mind, an employee's desire to work is also a form of demand and a hiring employer is also a form of supply. Also, I've explained this multiple times to you already, which is why I've said this conversation feels as though it's going in circles. Correct sentence:Unless it negatively affects consumers, no one will care.You have already expressed your desire to see workers have "good" working conditions. You are proof that persons care enough about where a product comes from to want to see workers get benefits. Unless you are the only person who wants good working conditions, there's nothing to worry about. =/E-bay had administrators, and law enforcement... oops.Well, of course it had administrators. The website needs upkeep after all, but law enforcement? That's quite the stretch on your part seeing as less than 1% of all trade done on e-bay results in fraud... which means they don't actually use law enforcement... oops. ;)But lets say they did (they don't, but lets just see where this takes us). This would in no way prove that you need one group to have a monopoly on police protection in order for online trade to work as free enterprise could do the job at LEAST as well at a fraction of the price. You're so adorably naive and simple-minded. It isn't about two people trading on their own, it's about shady corporate deals and protection mechanisms to prevent counterfeit goods and bribery.No, the market IS two persons trading on their own. It looks much more complicated than that because there's billions of individuals trading at once, but understand it's simply billions of "two people" trading with each other. Also, without a government, whom is there to bribe? Other businesses? Are you of the mind set that a company can pay a like company to purposely botch their services to give the first company the competitive advantage? If it's enough of a concern to keep an eye on the large companies that emerge under a free market, then naturally companies designed specifically to keep an eye on these companies will emerge. You can't bribe these watch-dog companies because their reputation is at stake and if one says company-A is clean, but another watch-dog proves company-A is not clean, then the first watch-dog loses business and goes bankrupt. Problem solved. =)
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

If a manager suddenly makes the working conditions for his employees much worse, then the working conditions will be worse than which is offered by other like-companies, therefore making it less likely that workers will come and work for him instead of his competition.You assume that businesses are desperate to attract workers which are usually too many and replaceable.And what defines what is minimally acceptable? Oh, right, it's defined by what the demand finds acceptable. =/Which for this labour market is extremely low. See the present day sweatshops.Wait, China, with it's massive government has poor working conditions? How is this possible? I was under the impression that governments are put in place to stop thing like this. o.OTo simple minds apparently.perhaps person in North America are apathetic to the working conditions of China, so? Do you think they'd be so apathetic when it's their own working conditions being challenged?We have no say. All big businesses are moving work overseas to China. Market screwed us on that one.Alright, you don't need a government to stop such sales from happening. Actually, those things still get sold regardless of the governments existence, so what you've said once again is in no way an argument for the state. Government keeps them heavily monitored and prevents most trade.However this supports my point: E-bay has police.If E-bay doesn't want these things being sold on their website, they're free to ban such trade themselves.They do that too, but government steps in because it's also illegal.These things still happen under the governments watch so... you know where I'm going with this at this point, I'm sure.They are reduced.fraud would be penalized either from a free market court agreed upon ahead of time via a contract. even if no agreement was made ahead of time, the fraudster would pay for it with his reputation.So... you want government but don't want to call it government.Again, if these things are so feared by the population, then watch-dog companies will come into place to meet that demand.Except it won't work because neither company has authority over the other, while a government acts as an impartial authority.You can have law without a government. Don't assume you cannot. Note I said common law. You can have all sorts of rival laws like in present-day Somalia, but common law requires government.Multiple watch-dogs make this sort of thing almost impossible. A company would go bankrupt trying to make deals with every watch-dog and trying to cover it up. It's easy to make deals and cover up when there's only one watch-dog... like the government... =/Lack of creativity? You just bribe those who know about the deed. If someone leaks information you start a character assassination campaign to confuse the issue and draw attention off of yourself. If someone extorts you for money you just hire a free-market hitman (since this isn't a prohibited market in an anarchy) to neutralise your foe.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

You assume that businesses are desperate to attract workers which are usually too many and replaceable.Businesses are always looking for ways to expand. If they're okay with minimal to absolutely no growth, then so-so working conditions are fine, but in the mean time their competition has raised their working conditions and opened up another store.Which for this labour market is extremely low. See the present day sweatshops.Irrelevant. The point still stands, what defines acceptable working conditions is market demand. To simple minds apparently.Then you admit that large governments are bad for the market?We have no say. All big businesses are moving work overseas to China. Market screwed us on that one.Outsourcing jobs has become so prevalent because it's much cheaper than hiring persons here. When you outsource you don't have to worry about all the mandatory taxes and insurances that come with hiring locally. You'll do well to take notice that jobs are outsourced regardless of the governments existence, so even if the market couldn't solve this problem (it can) this is in no way an argument for the state. Government keeps them heavily monitored and prevents most trade.However this supports my point: E-bay has police.1. E-bay has police, but it doesn't need them since fraud happens less than 1% of the time anyway.2. You don't need a state to have police.3. You don't need the government to monitor trade on E-bay. Whatever E-bay doesn't want being sold on their site can be blocked by themselves.They do that too, but government steps in because it's also illegal.Then government is a mere redundancy. So... you want government but don't want to call it government.There's a difference between a massive-fiat-land-claiming-tax-sucking government and voluntary agreements. Except it won't work because neither company has authority over the other, while a government acts as an impartial authority.Why is authority needed? If a company wants to be trusted by the public, it will let however many watch-dog companies the market demands to investigate it. Government "officials" are only impartial until there's something in it for them.Note I said common law. You can have all sorts of rival laws like in present-day Somalia, but common law requires government.What's so great about common law? Why not let the results of ones actions define their behavior?Lack of creativity? You just bribe those who know about the deed. If someone leaks information you start a character assassination campaign to confuse the issue and draw attention off of yourself. If someone extorts you for money you just hire a free-market hitman (since this isn't a prohibited market in an anarchy) to neutralise your foe.Lol @ "you just bribe those who know about the deed". I mean, in the very post you're responding to with this I already said a company simply can't bribe everyone. Companies have a bottom line to meet. If they started redirecting revenue in order to bribe everyone, their stockholders would notice. Also, the public tends to notice when persons preaching about a companies corruption get knocked off.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

if holly wood is to believed, that would end badly, and Hollywood would never lie.but seriously, its probably a very bad idea.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

It's not really that gays should adopt, but it's just that I don't care.As long as the parents aren't messed up and the kid comes out of childhood OK, it's not my place to say whether they can or can't adopt.That's really the only thing that should matter to anyone.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

You should care. What if the kid thinks that everyone has two Daddies or two mommies. How are they going to adequately explain the "birds and the bees?"
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Why should I care? Explain one reason why I should care, as I said above, if the kid comes out okay, and is taken care of? People come out of single parent, and single-sex, relationships just fine. I say go ahead. I do not think I am so high and mighty that my own opinion justifies the rule of behavior for a whole section of society. I am just not that self-confident, I guess...But, I'm getting off subject. It's not my place to care. The "birds and the bees" get explained just fine to boys and girls that never had the opportunity to have mothers or fathers. And I think you know it, Bill.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

I have actually never been given the ' birds and the bees ' speech from my mother or father. Even if a couple is homosexual they still know what the speech is I mean I have never heard it from my parents but I have heard it from other people and on TV. So what difference does it make that a couple wants a kid even if it is a couple of 2 males or 2 females. Studies have already proven that a child from a homosexual couple turns out the same as a child from a heterosexual couple.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

If children should be amongst children that has a father(male) and mother(Female) the children is going to mock at them.They wont know how to act amongst children with normal parents.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

if children are among children they will be mocked...you have a single parent (mocked)you're too tall (mocked)you're too short (mocked)and on and on.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

generally, the kids that are going to mock them are going to find something to mock them about no matter who their parents are, and the people that accept them are going to accept them no matter who their parents are
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Uh... you just explain to them that most people don't have two mommies/daddies. And I think that homosexuals understand, as you put it, the birds and the bees just as well as heteros. Simple as that.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

What if the couple breaks up who'll get custody? How will they determine who is the better parent? How will the adoption agency approve the couple? Don't they say they should get married!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

That's waaaay outside the scope of the debate. I have no clue. It's a tough moral decision, and one that I don't have to make for a reason. I couldn't; and I'm not qualified to do so even if I could.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Who gets custody if a straight couple breaks up? The better parent. Who would get custody is a gay couple breaks up? The better parent.How do they determine the better parent? The same way they would with a straight couple. There are no differences, because father's have been fighting for their rights to their children.And yes, parents should get married before they adopt. That's a great reason to let gays get married. Thank you, Tugman.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

What if a heterosexual couple breaks up? Who will get custody? How will they determine who is the better parent?If people like you would shut up gay people could get married. Some day your gay grandchildren will look down at their adopted child and explain "That's okay baby, your grandparents were clinically insane and unable to form a coherent thought. Lucky for us those crazy liberals took over and fixed things."
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

the same way the court decides who gets custody today... is that hard to grasp??
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

I swear everything you've said makes you look dumb... If your mom and dad broke up how would they share custody of their kids being a gay couple with kids doesn't make them different from anyone else. So there's no determining who's the better parent or who gets custody or anything we're all normal and the same no matter who or what gender we chose to be with.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Man, when will people just understand that we are humans first. Sexual orientation doesn't matter. It... It really doesn't.Instead of asking yourself "Should gay couples adopt?" Ask yourself if ANY couples without any moral standards should adopt. Once again, sexual orientation does NOT bear on one's moral standing, those who think so are fools.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Good one but remember there are sometimes a two-side of views in matters regarding these.That adopted child will be affected by his parents and his peers no matter how you look at you.It's not too good to have too much fatherly love or too much motherly love.It has been scientifically proven by researchers somewhere =,=.One up-vote for you :D
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Show me the study because I've never had the chance to see it.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

researchers somewhere scientifically proved that you're a putz. here's hoping you get too much love...
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

I don't think any couples without good moral standards should adopt. That includes homosexuals. If it makes you feel any better that also includes a whole lot of straight people. I believe the sexual orientation does bare on one's moral standing. Why am I a fool for thinking that?
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Why am I a fool for thinking that?Because you are calling an entire group of people immoral for no other reason then that they are attracted to people of the same sex.Because you don't recognize that romantic love can exist outside of a heterosexual woman, and man.Because you believe, without any actual basis, that homosexual parents are incapable of raising a child correctly.Because when I ask you why these act are immoral, your only response is to quote a bible verse.And most importantly you allow these baseless views to interfere with other American's pursuit of happiness by denying them rights.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Because you are calling an entire group of people immoral for no other reason then that they are attracted to people of the same sex.People are not immoral, their actions may be, and those actions are immoral. Because you don't recognize that romantic love can exist outside of a heterosexual woman, and man.Attraction?, yes. Not romantic love. Because you believe, without any actual basis, that homosexual parents are incapable of raising a child correctly.That's not true, but a father and a mother is the only correct way to have a family. The Family, A Proclamation To The WorldBecause when I ask you why these act are immoral, your only response is to quote a bible verse.What's so bad about the Bible? And most importantly you allow these baseless views to interfere with other American's pursuit of happiness by denying them rights.What can I do that they can't do? Get married? Sure they can. Don't call me a fool because we have different beliefs. That could not be a more arrogant thing to do.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

So what you are saying is that two men can never love each other in a romantic way? That they can never want to spend the rest of their lives together, through good times and bad, in sickness and in health? Why? What in your 18 years of life allows you to be so certain of this claim? Are all homosexuals who claim to be in love lying? And now you are calling me arrogant? I am not the one stepping on people's liberty? I am not the one who is calling an entire group of humanity Would you marry a man? Then why should a lesbian be forced to marry a man? To claim that you are not denying people rights is as ludacris as the argument segregationists used to keep interracial marriage illegal: "we're not violating their rights, because no one can marry outside of their gender, not just blacks."I have a problem with the fact that your only reasons stem from a 2,000 year old book, and not from reason. Should we make shellfish illegal? The bible says we should. How about the part of the Bible that says, when a man sleeps with his daughter they both should be put to death. Allow me to repeat that for you: if a little girl is raped by her dad, she should be killed. By basing your ideas on religion, and not reason, you are essentially creating a theocracy. Are you familiar with the first amendment?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionA law based on religious reasons is an establishment of religion by definition. Your definition of family is equally bullshit. If I had a religion that said black people were evil, could I make laws that would discriminate against them? Well your own church thought so up until the 1970s.Until you give me an actual reason as to why gays should not adopt, you are still a fool for denying Americans rights. Your failure to recognize love in more then the narrow forms that your religion defines shows both narrow mindedness and bigotry. I can say this and know that in no way am I being arrogant, because if you were to ask me why I believe any action is either moral or immoral, I could give you reasons, and not mindlessly quote some book. Whether I am right or wrong is certainly debatable, but at least I can back up my beliefs.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

" at least I can back up my beliefs."revelation from God vs a television show. Hmmm. I chose not to watch that video because I have already seen it. Do you really think that I take everything from the bible literally and blindly? Because if you do then you are a fool. Do you know where those quotes are from Exactly? I would like to know what books they are from within the bible, and what the situation was. Looks like you blindly took those to garner support. Then why should a lesbian be forced to marry a man? Haha really!? I don't remember saying anything about forcing marriage on people. Do you?Your definition of family is equally bullshit. Oh really? How so exactly?Once again Arrogant.I want to tell me exactly what law my church made against black people? Or wanted to make. Once again I am not a fool and I am not denying people rights. Now lets take the religion out of this, why should we change the definition of marriage for a select few?Give me a reason why homosexuals should raise children. And I'm tired of hearing about that friend of yours, give me an actual reason. You are the one who wants change you should have to answer my question first. I doubt you will so just go watch the west wing and be a little follower of the media.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Jake you claim that you do not "take everything from the bible literally and blindly"? and yet you still fail to give me reasons why homosexuality is wrong that are not religious.Amen. A that's a good video! Thank you for posting it.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

"why homosexuality is wrong that are not religious."That is because God is involved with everything. You people keep talking about "the bible the bible", well if you don't believe in God which both of you don't than the it is irrelevant. This is about God.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

we will all take that as a no, and since the government isn't allowed to establish your religion as its own, then the government shouldn't say that something is illegal because your god doesn't like it.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Me saying that you're a chore was never an argument. It was a statement about how I feel.And yes, this is about God. This is about how people oppress others in the name of their God.What is relevant is the fact that we live in a country of religious freedom... where religion has the freedom to oppress.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

"Me saying that you're a chore was never an argument. It was a statement about how I feel."Well I don't care what you think of me. You can keep your childish feelings to yourself. :D"we live in a country of religious freedom... where religion has the freedom to oppress."FALSENow you are blaming America. Well I'm on Americas side. You should be more grateful to live in this country.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Yes Pineapple, listen to the 17 year old who lives with his parents about what is childish.""we live in a country of religious freedom... where religion has the freedom to oppress."FALSENow you are blaming America. Well I'm on Americas side. You should be more grateful to live in this country."Remember the pyramid that you so arrogantly showed Pineapple the other day?Well you just resorted to contradiction, responding to tone, and ad hominem.You said "FALSE" without providing evidence.You criticized Pineapple for "blaming America" without providing evidence for the actual argument.You then criticized Pineapple herself telling her to be more grateful, while once again failing to argue the actual point.Irony sure is a fickle mistress.Furthermore she is on America's side too, which is why when she sees a problem with the country she brings it up. Criticizing the country for it's wrongdoings is the most patriotic thing you can do.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Yea, you just called me arrogant also without an argument as to why.Yep, pretty fickle alright. (;That said, Falsely accusing the country for its wrong doings(just to prove appoint) is the most ungrateful and unpatriotic thing you can do. That like everything els I said is pretty obvious and I don't plan on adding a reason because it's so obvious.