azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Yes, it does exactly that, only you chose not to (or cannot) comprehend what was presented.I don't feel any need to convince you as that tends to take dozens of inane posts, I just wanted the information out there for any actually interested (and capable) reader.I can't comprehend it because you have already agreed that it is unusual punishment earlier.Of course that is patently false and anyone can review the discourse to prove as much.It only takes you agreeing with that statement once to show that you have said it. :)I contended that there was nothing wrong and that the government approves it - not because. You have a real knack for creating the argument you want to attack in your head since you cannot actually attack the substance.Maybe you shouldn't have said that it was ok because the government did it then. If you are saying that it is ok and the government did it, you just worded it wrong earlier. I still never got an explanation for why you think it is ok.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you go back and re-read this debate (and probably others) to see if you can determine how your perception diverges so far from reality.At no point have I said hate-crime laws are a good thing simply because the government says so. And, at no point did I say hate-crime laws are cruel and unusual punishment - in fact, I have specifically stated the contrary.So, why do you think your perception of the argument is so far afield and yet you feel comfortable posting your assertions on a site where anyone can see that they are blatant fabrications?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you go back and re-read this debate (and probably others) to see if you can determine how your perception diverges so far from reality.Why should I, you won't go back and read to find out how you are ruining reality.At no point have I said hate-crime laws are a good thing simply because the government says so. You said it wasn't a violation simply because the government went through the process of getting passed.And, at no point did I say hate-crime laws are cruel and unusual punishment - in fact, I have specifically stated the contrary.You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual.So, why do you think your perception of the argument is so far afield and yet you feel comfortable posting your assertions on a site where anyone can see that they are blatant fabrications?A) Most people on here won't see these posts.B) Most people on here don't understand these posts.C) Most people on here don't hold it against you for making bad posts.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

You said it wasn't a violation simply because the government went through the process of getting passed.No, you said it was unconstitutional and I showed how that was a false statement.You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual.Completely untrue. You should try to find the section where you think I am saying that and actually read it.Most people on here don't hold it against you for making bad postsLucky for you!
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

No, you said it was unconstitutional and I showed how that was a false statement.You claimed that the government can break the constitution by passing laws and it isn't considered violating the constitution.Completely untrue. You should try to find the section where you think I am saying that and actually read it.It is 100% true, maybe it is inaccurate, but you didn't recognize that. You couldn't give a reason why it wasn't unusual. You only dodged the question and changed the subject because you knew I was right.Lucky for you!You benefit as well. :)
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

You claimed that the government can break the constitution by passing laws and it isn't considered violating the constitution.What I actually said was:"If congress passes it, and the President signs it and the Supreme Court upholds it as Constitutional - then it is Constitutional.At least until any future date where the Court rules differently."Which you did not (and cannot) refute in any way - and, of course, is not the same as saying that hate-crime laws are good because the government says it's ok. Do you really not understand that??maybe it is inaccurateit is.you didn't recognize thatyes, I did. ref refYou couldn't give a reason why it wasn't unusual.yes, I very specifically did. refYou only dodged the question and changed the subjectDo you see that you have already changed your argument from: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"?Only a dozen more posts until you admit "Ok, fine."You benefit as well.I am perfectly willing to have any of my posts scrutinized, I just wish it was by someone who could read. I don't depend on people not seeing my posts and not holding me accountable for posts that don't make sense as you are apparently comfortable in doing.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

Which you did not (and cannot) refute in any wayThe federal government can, has, and will continue to violate the constitutional through this mechanism. Saying they do this mechanism doesn't mean they didn't violate the constitution. Your argument is saying that if the government does it it is constitutional. Do you really not understand that??yes, I very specifically did. refYour logic is flawed. You are saying it isn't unusual because the federal government makes a special arrangement for you to be tried again for the same crime which doesn't always happen. That's unusual.Do you see that you have already changed your argument from: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"?Only a dozen more posts until you admit "Ok, fine."To the newly changed subject. am perfectly willing to have any of my posts scrutinizedGee thanks dick. What else are you supposed to do dumbass, it is a public forum.I just wish it was by someone who could readWrong place for that man.I don't depend on people not seeing my posts and not holding me accountable for posts that don't make sense as you are apparently comfortable in doing.Yeah long winded and off topic posts make you so much better.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

The federal government can, has, and will continue to violate the constitutional through this mechanism.That pesky government keeps violating the Constitution by following exactly what the Constitution says...Saying they do this mechanism doesn't mean they didn't violate the constitutionYou can argue that it should not be Constitutional, but not that it is currently unconstitutional.Your argument is saying that if the government does it it is constitutionalYes – if all three branches of the government follow the Constitution, then a law is, at least currently, constitutional. That is still not saying that hate-crime laws are good because the government said so. Just change your argument again, it will make you feel better.Your logic is flawed.So now you have argued that: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."But, since you couldn't support that, you changed your argument to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"Then, when I show that I did address it, you change your argument again to: "Your logic is flawed."You’re making progress...Wrong place for that man.Which is worse – telling someone with obvious reading comprehension issues that I wish the arguments were addressed by someone who could read them, or Gee thanks dick. What else are you supposed to do dumbass?I just chose not to rely on your logic that most people on here are too oblivious or stupid to hold someone accountable for what they are saying.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

That pesky government keeps violating the Constitution by following exactly what the Constitution says...The constitution does not say that as long as every branch of the government misinterprets the constitution the same way then it is ok. Unfortunately, the constitution does have a way for this to happen. Doesn't mean the constitution was any less violated.You can argue that it should not be Constitutional, but not that it is currently unconstitutional.If I would be able to sue the government and win, could I argue that it is currently unconstitutional?Yes – if all three branches of the government follow the Constitution, then a law is, at least currently, constitutional. That is still not saying that hate-crime laws are good because the government said so. Just change your argument again, it will make you feel better.No, that was my argument the whole time.So now you have argued that: "You said that it is only usual if you commit a new crime, which is admitting that adding punishments to existing crimes is unusual."But, since you couldn't support that, you changed your argument to: "You only dodged the question and changed the subject"Then, when I show that I did address it, you change your argument again to: "Your logic is flawed."You’re making progress...Well, look at that, a change of subject.Which is worse – telling someone with obvious reading comprehension issues that I wish the arguments were addressed by someone who could read them, or Gee thanks dick. Neither is worse.I just chose not to rely on your logic that most people on here are too oblivious or stupid to hold someone accountable for what they are saying.Look dummy. You have no choice but to allow people to scrutinize your posts. Saying that you don't have a problem with it probably means you do have a problem with it and you are lying. Who really expects to get called out on that, right?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

The constitution does not say that as long as every branch of the government misinterprets the constitution the same way then it is ok.The Constitution says here is the constitutional process to enact/enforce a law and that process was followed.If I would be able to sue the government and win, could I argue that it is currently unconstitutional?You could argue that it would then be unconstitutional, but that would take actual legal knowledge which you are lacking.that was my argument the whole time.Ha. It's awesome to see your cognitive dissonance play out. So now you believe that if the government does it, then it is constitutional?? Also, you have never pointed to where I have said that since the government does it, that makes it good - because you can't. In fact, in my very first rebuttal to you on the topic I gave you 2 reasons why the laws have been helpful and then specially reiterated them later – we'll see if you can put all that mental power to work and find out what they were. If you need a remedial lesson, just let your teacher know...Well, look at that, a change of subject.Yes, you have indeed changed the argument several times now.Saying that you don't have a problem with it probably means you do have a problem with it and you are lying.Classic – when did you stop beating your wife... It was in response to you saying people here won't see your posts and won't understand them and won't call you out on them – so who is the one that is (or should be) embarrassed?
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

The Constitution says here is the constitutional process to enact/enforce a law and that process was followed.That process does not say that no matter what was done it followed the constitution.You could argue that it would then be unconstitutional, but that would take actual legal knowledge which you are lacking.It is hard for me to believe you when you can't even answer a question.Ha. It's awesome to see your cognitive dissonance play out. So now you believe that if the government does it, then it is constitutional??Talk about cognitive dissonance. I am talking about your argument, not mine.Also, you have never pointed to where I have said that since the government does it, that makes it good - because you can't.There is more than one definition of good. It is a summation of what you said, not a direct quote.In fact, in my very first rebuttal to you on the topic I gave you 2 reasons why the laws have been helpful and then specially reiterated them later – we'll see if you can put all that mental power to work and find out what they were.Your links showed that they were helpful in putting a greater percentage of black people in jail. That's really helping racial equality.Yes, you have indeed changed the argument several times now.Now you are deflecting.Classic – when did you stop beating your wife... It was in response to you saying people here won't see your posts and won't understand them and won't call you out on them – so who is the one that is (or should be) embarrassed?I am not sure how that has anything to do with my wife (hmm, a subject change) but it is interesting to know that you don't mind being scrutinized. Do you breathe air? Do you use your feet to walk? Any other obvious information you want to give out? You know how you can tell when someone doesn't mind being scrutinized? When you start scrutinizing their arguments, they don't go bananas and talk about wife beating. ;)
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

That process does not say that no matter what was done it followed the constitution.And that's not what I said either.It is hard for me to believe you when you can't even answer a question.question was answered.I am talking about your argument, not mine.You highlighted my argument and then said "that was my[your] argument the whole time."It is a summation of what you saidIt is a fallacious concoction. If it was based on what I said, you would be able to point to the constituent parts and the reason you can't is because it is not what I would have said since it is not what I believe.Your links showed that they were helpful in putting a greater percentage of black people in jail.Which disproved your contention that it is unfairly applied to whites.But, that is not what I am talking about - the reasons I gave here (my very first rebuttal to you on the topic) and again hereI am not sure how that has anything to do with my wifeI was pointing out your loaded words, but apparently you've never even heard of the loaded question fallacy. You never fail to dash expectations.Well, all of the relevant information is presented to any interested reader, and you can chose to inform yourself or remain ignorant. You do not have anything constructive to add to the debate so I am moving on.Ta.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

And that's not what I said either.Unfortunately, that is what you imply though.question was answered.Really? It was a yes or no question.You highlighted my argument and then said "that was my[your] argument the whole time."I was claiming you said that the whole time, sorry for the confusion.It is a fallacious concoction. If it was based on what I said, you would be able to point to the constituent parts and the reason you can't is because it is not what I would have said since it is not what I believe.I pointed it out. It sucks that you believe that. I am glad deep down that you want to deny it at least.Which disproved your contention that it is unfairly applied to whites.If I was right, you would be right about it fixing something. But, it makes us both wrong.But, that is not what I am talking about - the reasons I gave here (my very first rebuttal to you on the topic) and again hereGiving the federal government power is not a good thing.I was pointing out your loaded words, but apparently you've never even heard of the loaded question fallacy. You never fail to dash expectations.Oh, I am so sorry I didn't name the exact fallacy you used. That must mean I am terrible. Well, all of the relevant information is presented to any interested reader, and you can chose to inform yourself or remain ignorant. You do not have anything constructive to add to the debate so I am moving on.You haven't provided anything past it is good because it is good.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

everyone calls anti discrimination law hate crime lawIf everyone calls something hate crime, then that is the definition of hate crime. You not knowing the definition doesn't make the definition change. extra years in prison if you blow up a tractor while it is knocking down a tree as opposed to when it is not doing anything?If intent can be shown that you blew up the tractor knocking down the tree in order to intimidate others who might knock down other trees, yes.4 of those links were bullI linked to several cases where non-whites were the perpetrators. Since even after looking at the statistic from the FBI showing that they record Anti-White hate crimes you still did not think that it was possible, and yet did not or could not find the cases on your own. If you run someone over, regardless of what you say, it will be considered planned. That's what I am saying.Then what you are saying is again baseless. People accidentally run over people all the time and they are not charged with 1st degree murder.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

If everyone calls something hate crime, then that is the definition of hate crime. You not knowing the definition doesn't make the definition change.It is not your definition of hate crime from before. It is not only my fault.If intent can be shown that you blew up the tractor knocking down the tree in order to intimidate others who might knock down other trees, yes.I don't think that is true. But, believe what you want to believe.I linked to several cases where non-whites were the perpetrators. Since even after looking at the statistic from the FBI showing that they record Anti-White hate crimes you still did not think that it was possible, and yet did not or could not find the cases on your own.Blah blah blah. You said that you were quoting one of 5 links. We aren't discussing whether there was some good content in those links.Then what you are saying is again baseless. People accidentally run over people all the time and they are not charged with 1st degree murder.You don't seem to understand what I am saying. If you have the time to tell them you will run them over, then it was planned regardless of saying anything.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

It is not your definition of hate crime from before.I have used the same meaning for hate crime the entire time, because it's not my definition - it is the definition.It is not only my fault.yes - it is.I don't think that is true. But, believe what you want to believeor you can believe the truth:Here is the law that passed; it was later amended by this law and here is an example prosecution.We aren't discussing whether there was some good content in those links.Except for the part where you said: "4 of those links were bull. 80% of what you linked was not worthy of clicking"If you have the time to tell them you will run them over, then it was planned regardless of saying anything.And you are wrong. Time alone does not show intent.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

I have used the same meaning for hate crime the entire time, because it's not my definition - it is the definition.You have argued that everything should be a hate crime, sorry that violates your definition.yes - it is.No, everybody is at fault, they use the wrong definitions.or you can believe the truth:Here is the law that passed; it was later amended by this law and here is an example prosecution.They used the same logic to violate the constitution, great.Except for the part where you said: "4 of those links were bull. 80% of what you linked was not worthy of clicking"Still only referencing the fact that you were quoting something from 1 of them. My statement is still valid.And you are wrong. Time alone does not show intent.It has and it does, sorry. If you had enough time to avoid running someone over, you had enough time to plan it out.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

You have argued that everything should be a hate crime, sorry that violates your definition.I have given my definition several times and backed it up. Can you?everybody is at faultright, everyone in the world is wrong but you.Still only referencing the fact that you were quoting something from 1 of them. My statement is still valid.They were all relevant to the fact that non-whites are prosecuted - 1 had additional relevance to your assertion that enforcement was based on race.It has and it does, sorry.Notice that you cannot back up one assertion that you are making? Maybe there's a reason for that.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: One of the Worst

I have given my definition several times and backed it up. Can you?You pointed out that the DOJ does not agree with your definition and that if other people don't agree with your definition you are wrong.right, everyone in the world is wrong but you.You told me that if everybody decides to use the wrong definition it is the correct definition. Since I am confused by the definition, it is true that everybody is at fault because they set the definition.They were all relevant to the fact that non-whites are prosecuted - 1 had additional relevance to your assertion that enforcement was based on race.That does not sound like all 5 of them had the quote in it.Notice that you cannot back up one assertion that you are making? Maybe there's a reason for that.I don't feel the need to back up my assertions to people who butcher the constitution.
Debate: Will Obama recover from the absolute mess he has created as president of the US?
Side: Great President

You pointed out that the DOJ does not agree with your definitionof course that is just you not understanding English still.I am confused by the definitionThanks for admitting it. Read the definition anew and you will see that it is basic English. There is no trickery here.discrimination: acts based on biasanti-discrimination: against acts based on biasanti-discrimination laws: laws against acts based on biashate-crime: criminal acts based on biashate-crime laws: laws against criminal acts based on biasThat does not sound like all 5 of them had the quote in it.Right - because that's not what I said. I said all 5 were relevant to whether non-whites are prosecuted and the last one had a quote which made it also relevant to enforcement procedures.I don't feel the need to back up my assertionsI will take this to imply that you now know at this point that your position can not be substantiated.