azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

The kulaks and the counter-revolutionIn the case of the counter-revolutionaries, it is also necessary to consider the crimes of which they were accused. Let us give two examples to show the importance of this question: the first is the kulaks sentenced at the beginning of the 1930s, and the second is the conspirators and counter-revolutionaries convicted in 1936-38.According to the research reports insofar as they deal with the kulaks, the rich peasants, there were 381,000 families, i.e., about 1.8 million people sent into exile. A small number of these people were sentenced to serve terms in labour camps or colonies. But what gave rise to these punishments?The rich Russian peasant, the kulak, had subjected poor peasants for hundreds of years to boundless oppression and unbridled exploitation. Of the 120 million peasants in 1927, the 10 million kulaks lived in luxury while the remaining 110 million lived in poverty. Before the revolution they had lived in the most abject poverty. The wealth of the kulaks was based on the badly-paid labour of the poor peasants. When the poor peasants began to join together in collective farms, the main source of kulak wealth disappeared. But the kulaks did not give up. They tried to restore exploitation by use of famine. Groups of armed kulaks attacked collective farms, killed poor peasants and party workers, set fire to the fields and killed working animals. By provoking starvation among poor peasants, the kulaks were trying to secure the perpetuation of poverty and their own positions of power. The events which ensued were not those expected by these murderers. This time the poor peasants had the support of the revolution and proved to be stronger than the kulaks, who were defeated, imprisoned and sent into exile or sentenced to terms in labour camps.Of the 10 million kulaks, 1.8 million were exiled or convicted. There may have been injustices perpetrated in the course of this massive class struggle in the Soviet countryside, a struggle involving 120 million people. But can we blame the poor and the oppressed, in their struggle for a life worth living, in their struggle to ensure their children would not be starving illiterates, for not being sufficiently `civilised' or showing enough `mercy' in their courts? Can one point the finger at people who for hundreds of years had no access to the advances made by civilisation for not being civilised? And tell us, when was the kulak exploiter civilised or merciful in his dealings with poor peasants during the years and years of endless exploitation.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Turned a backwater feudal third world into a superpower that made the West crap its pants. Stalin might be bad, but people living under the Tsar weren't much better.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Stalin was a success in terms of development and his ambition was to match up with the capitalist countries in terms of infrastructure and production. He inherited a country which was politically and economically unstable and he made it into a country which had nuclear weapons. Granted his method was cruel but it was necessary. He didn't sigh away from his ambition and that was reflected in WW2 as well when he decided not to accept his son as a mean of negotiation. There is a saying by fidel castro " Cruel leaders are replaced by leaders who become cruel". And let us not rule out the fact that He himself was a very hard worker. And it was because of him the Nazi military machine could be stopped.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

If the people disobeyed Stalin, they would have been killed. This caused many people to panic and when people panic they make mistakes and when people make mistakes they get hurt or killed. Although Stalin's rule caused many deaths, huge progress was made during this era. His five-year plans had improved Russia's economy, especially the production of substances such as oil, coal, iron and electricity. The production in agriculture such as grain increased a lot because of Stalin's rule although people didn’t like it. If Stalin didn’t kill people, his plans wouldn’t have worked. Russia was facing a crisis since Lenin had died, and it would also be likely that Russians would have died without Stalin's rule. Overall Stalin’s rule was good and it was successful but not that many people should have died.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

If the people were to disobey, they would most probably be killed. This caused many people to die. Even if Stalin were to be 'successful' with his methods and show good results, which main point should be to benefit the country and the people, it would not be considered 'successful' because instead of benefiting the people, he killed many of them.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

People and the country did benefit from Stalin's leadership. People in collectivised farms learned new farming methods, like learning how to use a tractor. People in industralised towns learned how to mine, and work in a factory. The country benefited by being economically better.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

But in order to help the country be economically better, many lives were taken, which makes the human cost way too high- Im on the 'Stalin's dictatorship was a failure' side -
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Even though he did improve the production rate of goods and helped in the economy of the country, he cost many citizens to suffer, which is a failure of a leader. Moreover, he governed the country using fear. He was not a leader with the support of his citizens. Moreover, with the exponential rate of decrease in the number of citizens due to his reforms. The reforms couldn't have lasted long.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Excellent point on the fact that Stalin had to resort on terror and fear (purges, NKVD) to rule his people. A leader should never rely on mass extermination to achieve their aims.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Stalin was not able to improve the lives of workers who lived in cramped conditions and worked in whenever factory needed worker. There were no proper sanitary for people and they have no things for leisure. The products produced during Stalin's time were of low quality even though he was able to produce more and move into industrialization.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Most of the people in russia suffered.There were about a million deaths due to industrialisation alone.People were forced to work in labour camps that had poor living conditions.Batman disapproves.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

But my policies also did have many benefits that helped Russia become a better nation, it would have taken a longer time to acheove its economic status
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Even though Russia gained economic success through the different economic policies Stalin implemented, many lives were sacrificed in order to achieve this success. The economic policies that were originally supposed to speed up economical growth of Russia which will increase the standard of living of the people but it ended up sacrificing the lives of many and caused suffering to the people.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Stalin's dictatorship was a failure as even though his policies had improved Russia's economy as a whole, it came at the cost of millions of human lives. If during times of peace, civilian mortality rates are already this high, then during times of war, his policies would ultimately cause even more deaths. Thus, resulting in Russia killing it's own self.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Even though Stalin improved the economy and production rates of various goods and items, a lot of human lives were lost in the process. Sacrificing so many people (est. 40 million deaths) is definitely not worth it. He was also not satisfied with the results, consistently trying to push people to increase production rates and threatening and killing people who oppose or didn't meet his target. Hence, human-wise, he failed to provide a comfortable life for his citizens, which was contrary to what a leader should be providing.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

In no where in Stalin's industrial and agricultural policy, did Stalin mention the great human cost that such a rapid industrial and agricultural development over a short time. Stalin's industrial and agricultural policies achieved their sole purpose on increasing the productivity of the country.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

(This is ABU)Stalin's dictatorship was a failure socially. Due to his policies on collectivization, famines were caused and many lives were lost as a result. A few millions of people were killed or treated horribly in labour camps. He thus governed the country using terror, people were abiding to his rules mainly because of their fear towards him or what he could possibly do to them. :D- Abu
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

In my opinion, for Stalin's dictatorship to be successful, it has to make a positive lasting impact on the people in the country he was leading.In this case, an extremely large number of people died during his rule, for his cause. This would have scarred the people in Russia into fear and submission, which is a negative impact.Therefore, although Stalin might have been successful in his political endeavour when he was alive, and saved the Russian economy by industrialisation, he failed on the social front, in the sense that while creating an environment of forced political peace and reduction in famines by introducing technology to farming, the people were only cared for on a basic level such that they are only surviving, and not living.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Stalin restored the pride of the people in the Soviet Union through his leadership, and giving them a goal to which they could work towards. He was introducing a bigger goal to the people which was much more than their own lives. In communism, the social context has also changed, meaning that we have to look at the entire society now and not just at individuals, and Stalin certainly succeeded on this point.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

I HAD TO SNEAK HIM BACK INTO RUSSIA DAMNIT. SO MUCH TROUBLE
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Not only did his policies result in the death of millions from starvation, his purges also killed many others and resulted in the population living in fear, with no freedom of expression. His idea of communism also resulted in almost no innovation or technological advancement as there was no competition in the market. This resulted in the Soviet Union being extremely backward for its time despite its industrialization policy technically being "successful".
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Many people died during Stalin's dictatorship. There was widespread famine and the Russian people were unhappy. Though there was a significant increase in production of materials such as coal and grain, it came at the price of a great human cost.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

The famine was a result of the people not cooperating with the government policies. Should they have cooperated, there would be no famine, and people would actually have enough food to eat
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

The question is: should they be expected to give up their land, properties and entire livelihood for the sake of the country? These were probably the only properties in their name!
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Stalin's policies was a failure; although he managed to achieve some of his goals (i.e collectivisation is able to get the industries and factories going), it came at the expense of a huge human cost. For instance, in order for Stalin to achieve rapid industrialisation, many people are forced to relocate and crowded in towns, where they are forced to live and work in appalling conditions. As Stalin lowered the people's quality of life greatly, he was more of a failure than a success, despite his success on the economic front after implementing the Five Year Plans.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Another instance would be that Stalin implemented collectivization, whether the peasants were willing or not. Even though collectivization did manage to let Stalin control the workers and increase productivity rates, many of the people living in the collectivized farms were allocated strict working hours and had a relatively low wage. They were unable to have much freedom, and low productivity or absence from work was met with punishment. The peasants who lived in collectives had access to shelter, food and basic needs, but they were under the control of the state and everything was state-owned. They were also pushed to the limit to work for the state.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

I believe, that if stalin is as good as he claimed he was, he would have found a win win situation for the situations. I think he was to urgent, pushing farmers to workers without proper training, producing poor quality products.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Stalin had failed in increasing the production rates of Russia to be more than it was during the Tsar's reign so after all the social sacrifices that was used to industrialize Russia, the production rates were still not significantly different from when it was before.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

However, Stalin had pulled the population out of the crisis such as the famine. The rate at which they had recovered, and the high production rates while comparing to that, he had actually increased the production in such a short time.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

While he did increase the production rates in such a short time, the increment could not be sustained in long term, and the increased production was of basic necessities and defenses. There was hardly any production of consumer goods.Basically, the people are alive, but have nothing to do but work
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Whilst Stalin had managed to improve the amount of resources,the amount of people having jobs and a roof over their head(despite sharing it with 8 other families),he had failed in making himself liked by many,by using force to confiscate lands, forcing people to work in the city and killing the kulaks, as well as going back on lenin's promises such as giving everyone land and allowing slight amounts of capitalism.This caused a lot of problems for the communist party members succeeding him, thus causing himself to be denounced by his successor.Edit: hurp a durp editing and stuff
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

One might argue that Stalin's dictatorship was also responsible for huge economic progress, which allowed Russia' economy to catch up to that of the world's superpowers of that time, such as the US within the short span of a few years. Russia was changed from a country that was mainly dependent upon agricultural means to one whose economy was boosted quickly. However, one must also remember that even during industrialization, the prosperity was rarely felt by any of the Russian people at all. Shops often had nothing for the people to buy. Things such as railway stations and collectivized farms also resulted in the deaths of millions of people which no amount economic progress can compensate for. In view of this, Stalin's dictatorship was a failure.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

(Lionel)When Stalin introduced collectivization, many people(peasants/farmers) resisted by killing their animals and burning their crops. This lead to a shortage of food production. Some of those who resisted were gulags(concentration camps) to be killed. After that, there was a natural disaster which was a famine. The lack of food led to many people turning to cannibalism to survive. When Stalin introduced collectivization, he killed those who resisted, which was in millions, but the cannibalism in the famine killed a lot more. So, in other words, by introducing collectivization, he killed millions, which lead to the cannibalization of even more people. The death count of collectivization has a greater impact than the promised (at that point of time) rewards of collectivization that Stalin described
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

If the murder of millions of people is a success, then Stalin was the greatest ever.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Stalin created a totalitarian state which he ruled with complete atheistic savergy and then eventually died. He was a complete failure for one reason he denied God and without Christ thier is no enternal life he built up a kingdom that eventually faded away. 2nd reason is the Soviet Union eventually collasped in 1991 and still proves to today that socialism/communism does not work. Stallin died and lost everything and went to hell, being unsaved in that case his was at most a failure.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Stalin took many lives when he tried to improve the industry and agriculture of Russia. As a result, he lost much of the manpower in Russia and progress was slower than if he had been less demanding and more willing to meet the needs of the people. While the industrial output and agricultural output did increase substantially, he plunged the society into a state of fear, distrust and misery. Russia became a strong but soulless production machine.He had failed to achieve communism as there was still a clear barrier between the wealthier and the poorer. The peasants never actually escaped the poverty cycle that they had been trapped in for so long. In short, Stalin was a failure.
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

I think it is great to believe in them, besides that's where half of our childhood memories are- dressing up in spider man costumes, concentrating on objects trying to make them fly. As well as harry potter movies - he's a hero too. Taking away our superheros is taking away half of our childhood!
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: Misleading Idols.

excuse me, though i also say that they are super heroes but what you say does not help with anything at all the topic is about are they super heroes or miss leading idols and we have to give our reasons not just say that!!
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

Well Superman and Spiderman are definitely superheroes, but Batman doesn't have any powers. He is just a glorified detective.
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

love the batman point " but Batman doesn't have any powers. He is just a glorified detective. "
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: Misleading Idols.

but that is the best part. he turns his tragic past in to an opportunity to help others. Plus, you got to love the batmobile.
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

The batmobile is cool and so is his lair, but Batman himself is over glorified. he is not the only person to turn his life around.
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

But he is the only one who dressed up as a bat and started punching crazy clowns
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

But he is the only one who dressed up as a bat and started punching crazy clowns.So he is a hero, but not a superhero because he doesn't have powers. If I was him, I would kill the clowns because they keep messing up my city.
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

kids look up to superheroes and think, i want to be just like them
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

superheroes do all different do all kinds of things to help people of the public.
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

In my view,all superheroes are created as perfect gentlemen who are helping,good and supporters of truth. So when such a guy wins all the time, it leaves a positive impact on young minds that being good is always fruitful and good always win.
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

I believe they are. Super heros are constant reminders of right doing and justice.....great human traits that few have! In a more realistic point of view.....a good role model is someone that leads by exapmle. Don't just tell them the right way.....show them the right way. Someone that will see them as people, too.....with real concerns.....and not "just kids." Remember just because it isn't important to you does not mean it isn't important to them. The entire family's concerns should matter. (And remember, "family" includes true friends. Only relatives are bound by blood.....so don't be afraid to just be a friend.) Someone willing to step down to their level and just have a conversation with them. Or try out one of their video games just to show that they are important. Or to just play pretend with them.....even if it doesn't make sense to the adult mind. A good role model isn't too strict.....which will come accross as lack of trust. Nor too permissive.....which will come accross as not caring. A good role model shows they can "fit in" without following the sometimes dangerous fads of their peers. It is really just a matter of opinion. But personally I think a more realistic role model is more important. Don't forget to make time just for the kid's and you! Don't just keep them as a side dish!
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

I think people make superheroes to make kids brave!!!!But Is it real that there is super heroes??????
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

I stick on to the point that superheroes are just superheroes and no misleading idols. It can increase the logical thinking of the children if properly assisted by the parents rather than he just blindly believing that they really posses superpowers. They are just a sort of entertainment like any other movies. They are created just for entertaining the children and not misleading them.
Debate: Superman, Spiderman, Batman - superheros or misleading idols?
Side: SUPERHEROES!!

Superheroes are a lot better because they have powers that are an advantage than those "pop stars"