azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

I don't agree with you!!I think that first of all, no matter how critical the situation is necessary to consider the pros and cons.In the story known first and second world wars. But who will ultimately suffer? People.Spilled so much blood of innocent people. Many wives and children were left alone First of all we must try to come to an agreement or reconciliation of the parties and find a common language.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Yes we can. Human nature is based on conflict anyway. In almost all organisms on Earth, a display of strength is needed to show who is in charge and at the top. As long as someone who is in charge maintains order peace can be achieved easily. It is only when opposing sides come together when conflict results.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

War can provide what we need for a better future. And can fade into distant past in the present futureWorld peace..... when people say that i think of one banner ruleing the entire world under one gloryous planet united and free to prosper and further advance there understanding of the world. This is what all men should stride for. However politics is ever changing from the cavemen time till now there are pointless wars.Nations have come close to being able to seize world peace. Despite having to kill alot of people to do it. But when i think back more than 100 years i feel nothing when it says how many die. My life is here and now. And my world is not at peace ..... AND I KNOW ONE THING. i would die for world peace. and i would kill as much as needed. And i would hate myself. But i know that if we did . and 1000 years later men looked back and felt nothing for us i would be happy in the knowledge that No one else must achive this and live can advance so quickly and life can finaly be free and beautiful. How ever this is not here yet and i would die and kill Millions more. so that billions will not have to If this happened alot of bad shit would go down but it would be far more positive Nothing is impossible stride to peace the present will be the past the past is what defines the future. And in the future we forget the past and look to the present and will it be one or still ravaged with pointless wars
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Yes we can because if we fight, then we are going to prove that in order for war to stop there needs to be peace.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

I really think in the future the bad guys would finally listen to us and achieve peace because war I know we win but people die doing it until 4/450,000,000 only survive or at least figure something out to not die in the war.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

Nuclear bombs on hiroshima? Ww2 is over ISorry but its possible
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

For peace first their has to be war, everybody who does not want peace and human rights first need to be rid of for the world to live in harmony
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

i say that peace is what happens when trust and chance is shared among countrys!this has never happened.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: Yes

Peace being achieved through war implies that there isn't initial peace. If there is initial peace, then a war ends that peace. If one is in a state of war, then there is no way to achieve peace but through the given war. Can one achieve peace through war? Not where peace exists.Can one achieve peace in a war but without going through it? No of course not.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt The price of war is too much.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

The notion of perpetual war brings perpetual peace is absurd. War never brings peace, it only creates more war.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

thar is no way to bring more war if thar is no one to mack war. the simpol truth is that if you have no more oponets then you have no woryes and if the grates thret you have to face is some one in your kingdom rather then somone els in thare kingdom the thret becoms much ezyer to deyol with
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

So peace, to you, is killing anyone who would disagree with the ruling party?I wouldn't even want peace, if that were the case.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

That’s not the message I was trying to convey. I’m saying that if our world were section into tow sides and both were night and day versions of the other one then the only way to have complete pees is to have a war in witch one side lost and another wan. But in a world like ours, with its divers neater the best we can hope fore at envy time is compromise and exceptions because all the world letters have to think about themselves or there country and we all do it. But to push the point further I was not saying I wont the world to have a war in witch only one country survives I was simply stating that if there was no avoiding it the war cooed create pees instead of more fighting.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

We still have wars today. This proves that peace is not achieved.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

We still have wars today. This proves that peace is not achieved.No. Peace is a temporary state. It is not something that, once "achieved," is permanent. Peace comes and goes. Wars are merely times between peace.The fact that we still have wars today only proves we can't SUSTAIN peace.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Perpetual peace is achievable because of free trade and markets, but when it is constricted, war breaks out due to the scarcity of resources. All wars are fought over the scarcity of resources. War is taking what they have instead of producing then trading for what they produce.So, instead of being productive through free markets and trade, war is destructive because natural resources are destroyed, which are the factors of original production, and people are killed. The two fundamental resources to production is nature and people, perpetual wars are the reason why there is no sustained peace.HOW DO WARS ACTUALLY CREATE PEACE?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Perpetual peace is achievable because of free trade and markets, but when it is constricted, war breaks out due to the scarcity of resources.Well, since we have never achieved perpetual peace, that is just speculation.All wars are fought over the scarcity of resources.Not true. Imperialism is likely the cause of most wars in human history and has nothing to do with scarcity of resources, but rather greed. Religious wars are another example (like Charlemagne's and the Crusades).HOW DO WARS ACTUALLY CREATE PEACEWell, technically, they don't. It's like saying you achieve waking consciousness through sleep. You don't exactly, but sleep always ends (death aside) in waking consciousness. Sleep is merely the time in between.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Well, since we have never achieved perpetual peace, that is just speculation.No perpetual peace because we are in perpetual war at least since the WWII. Peace can't be achieved with perpetual war.Well, technically, they don't. It's like saying you achieve waking consciousness through sleep. You don't exactly, but sleep always ends (death aside) in waking consciousness. Sleep is merely the time in between.Weak analogy.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

You are right. Peace is a temporary state. I was about to dispute you that it can be a permanent state, but the fact is, we can't prove that. Permanent last forever and forever can never go away whether earth exists or not.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Peace is not a temporary state. Peace is a state in which humans are totaly responsible for it's continuosity. Wars never solved any issues between countries, except the liberation of opression in such countries that had it, and the destruction of dictatorships, such as hitler's (yes, without capital H, for I disagree that such a being deserves that).All wars except those I aforementioned as exceptions have left all involved coutries with the same views as they were before, only with the added general opinion that the offending ones are a bunch of assholes. Only over time their issues were slowly softened (if you will) or even solved through other means than war, leading to the world we have today where Japan and russia and the US aren't necessarily enemies.It all comes from political or religious interests (being economic interests in the political category in my point of view), and those are only solved by having the relevant polititions of each country discussing the matter, not by killing millions of unrelated innocents (soldiers included there) because they are losing power over petroleum interests like the US was getting into under Bush's time.We can't sustain peace because we're too greedy and selfish and stupid to elect people that share these same adjectives. And we're too stupid to solve problems in a way that no one gets harmed. Wars don't come and go, we bring them.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Peace is not a temporary state.Name one example of this.Wars never solved any issues between countriesActually every war in history (stalemates aside) "solved" something. Whether it was successful territorial expansion or successful defense from territorial expansion, usually, one side always wins.All wars except those I aforementioned as exceptions have left all involved coutries with the same views as they were beforeWWII and post-war Germany. I rest my case.We can't sustain peace because we're too greedy and selfishThis directly contradicts your first statement that peace is a permanent state.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

i would have to disagree with you. Peace is a temporary state. Everything is a temporary state except the life of a soul but i don't want to get into that. If something is really permanent, then it lasts forever. But "forever" can't be proven. Forever is till now till the end of time and time nevers dies. Thus, all is temporary.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

In that sense, it is a temporary state. But you're thinking impractically, come back to reality.Nobody is suggesting that the state of peace would be indefinite, even after the existence of sentient beings which perceive the concept; just that peace is not peace when war is a continuing occurrence.Peace is not a temporary state in the practical sense. But peace is not the period of time in between wars either, that period of time is labeled as “peace time” by the ruling class to give its people the false sense of safety or peacefulness, it is an example of rhetoric which ruling classes are all too familiar with.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Are you saying that we had never acheived peace at all? And who says that the ruling class fooled the public into thinking that they had peace?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

Yes, we have yet to achieve peace, especially through war. We are not a peaceful species, from the beginning of recorded history to now.And who says that the ruling class fooled the public into thinking that they had peace?I did. And I realize that that pretty much amounts to nothing considering the idea of credentialism that the institution is so hell bent on.My personal reasoning is that the ruling class labels a period of time in between wars “peace time,” when oppression and intolerance persists. That, to me, shows that they want us to feel at peace when simply looking around would reveal otherwise.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

No. Peace is a temporary state. It is not something that, once "achieved," is permanent.According to whom? Feel free to give me any definition you can find, cite the source, and then proceed to explain how peace (by said definition) can be acheived through wars specifically. Not ending of wars, but the creation of them. How can the creation of war lead to peace?The fact that we still have wars today only proves we can't SUSTAIN peace.Okay, you've made your point, peace can refer to the period of time in between wars, I get it. You can stop playing the fool now and add something constructive to the debate.If peace in this debate means "a period of time with no war," (or any other definition you can find for that matter) my question is whether or not we can achieve that by creating more wars.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

According to whom?According to 7000 years of human history...Not ending of wars, but the creation of them. How can the creation of war lead to peace?It can't. But that's not what the question asks (you really should word them better or explain what you mean). The question simply says war, not the "creation of" war. War both ends and starts peace. When war begins, peace is ended. When war ends (as it always does), peace is restored, or "achieved." The question acts if peace is achieved. Yes, technically, it is. You can stop playing the fool now and add something constructive to the debate.I am simply answering a question that YOU told be to answer. Please don't persecute me for it.my question is whether or not we can achieve that by creating more wars.That's actually completely different from the question, but whatever. Yes and No. Just the creation of war does not create peace. However, the consequence of creating war (and the only constant consequence that has remained true for every war in the history of world is THE ENDING OF SAID WAR) does create peace. This all semantics because I don;t think "peace" is the word you are looking for.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

It can't. But that's not what the question asks (you really should word them better or explain what you mean). The question simply says war, not the "creation of" war.Okay, you’re right, it doesn’t say ‘creation of war,’ but it doesn’t say just ‘war’ either, it says ‘through war’ as in ‘in the course of.’Given my analogy in the description it should be easy to see what I mean by war and peace for this debate. Here’s the debate question again using my analogical terms:‘Can we achieve virginity through fucking?’Virginity being the pure sexless state, and fucking being the act of sex.Now, go ahead and proceed to dodge the issue and explain how you’ve warped this to fit your argument… War both ends and starts peace.No, the end of war starts peace. The question [asks] if peace is achieved. Yes, technically, it is.Ending of war is not ‘achieving peace through war,’ that is ending war to achieve peace, it is the opposite of achieving peace through war. My position is that we need to end war to achieve peace, not a war, but “war.” The other position is that we must achieve peace through war, which is an asinine concept in my opinion and you seem to be defending it. I am simply answering a question that YOU told be to answer. Please don't persecute me for it.No, Apollo, you are dodging the issue because you know what I mean, I’ve explained what I mean many times now, and by dodging this and playing this annoying semantics game you’re only making yourself look like a fool. It’s not me that is ‘persecuting,’ you’re doing that well enough on your own by childishly playing the fool card out of pride. Just the creation of war does not create peace. So then we would agree? That we need to end war to achieve peace? Would you say that we have achieved peace if war (not “a” war, but war in general) was to end completely? Or do we need wars to achieve periodic states of peace? Is that even really peace if we are constantly enacting and then ending wars between different nations?  This all semantics because I don;t think "peace" is the word you are looking for.What word is it then that I am looking for then? Based on the fact that I created this particular debate, and that my meaning of the word should therefore be the one used, and that I gave a pretty simple and easy to understand analogy in the description followed by various indicating responses to your comments explaining what I mean by the word, why then is semantics even an issue? Could it be that you are unwilling to address the topic out of pride because you don’t want to admit that you are wrong?In the post that provoked me to even create this debate, you said “What is the end goal of any military campaign? Peace.” And now you seem to be shifting your stance to mean that peace is not the goal of war, but the default posture that nations assume when a war is ended. Which is it?How can it be that we declare war on a nation with the end goal of peace? How can we achieve peace through war when war in itself ends peace?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

it says ‘through war’ as in ‘in the course of.’The course of war is everything from its beginning to its end. Sigh. Since you can't seem to understand by simple logic, pick the set you disagree with:Question: "Can we achieve peace through war?"1. Peace is a time of no war.2. The course of war is everything from its beginning to its end.3. The beginning of war destroys peace.4. The ending of war creates peace. 5. Therefore, peace can indeed be created through the course of war.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

1. Peace is a time of no war.True, in the very basic sense of the word. 2. The course of war is everything from its beginning to its end.Indeed, the course of war is "everything from" it’s beginning to its end, not before or after, but during. “Everything from” is the content within the duration of that period of time… actions, causal factors, etc.  3. The beginning of war destroys peace.Well, I would prefer the term ‘ends,’ or ‘marks the end to’ but okay. 4. The ending of war creates peace.‘Begins,’ or ‘marks the beginning to’ is preferable, in my opinion. But I will humor you and say that everything up until this point is pretty sound, however; I don't see what this point would have to do with what happens in the course of war. Remember that you said that "the course of war is everything from [war’s] beginning to [war’s] end," which denotes something in between. 5. Therefore, peace can indeed be created through the course of war.Your conclusion assumes something that happens within the “course of war” that ‘created’ peace. An example of this was not shown within your points of reasoning. What is the causal factor that happens “through the course of war?”Simply ending the war starts peace by default, but that doesn’t imply that anything happened “in the course of” war for said peace to be created. My debate question again is: Can we achieve peace through (in the course of) war? And if I might add another question if the answer is still yes: What is it that happens through the course of war, which creates peace?If your argument is that peace happens by default when war is ended, then that is not related to my debate question. My debate question is asking if peace can be achieved through (in the course) war.Of course ending war will lead to peace. That is blatantly obvious. My debate was not to point out such a clear, understandable fact, for what would there be to debate on? The debate was created to provoke responses on how the act of war can be justified in regard to achieving peace. I have yet to see a sound argument for that side of the debate. Would you care to try your hand at it? Or are you going to continue this pathetic attempt at dodging my question?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Of course ending war will lead to peace. That is blatantly obvious.Hence my "technically, yes" response. It is also why I think "peace" isn't the word you are looking for.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

What word is it that I’m looking for?Hence my "technically, yes" response. It is also why I think "peace" isn't the word you are looking for.Which would have ended right there had it answered my debate question. But your ‘technically, yes’ response answered a semantically warped version of my debate question.You seem like a smart person, have you figured out what my debate question was originally asking now, and do you have a response to it?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

We will never gain any sort of peace through war.War only brings war. Defeating your enemy usually brings along a grudge and a need for revenge, bring war back into the picture.All we gain is more war, and more broken families.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

peace cannot be achieved thru war but thru consenses agreement,so i entreat all manner of people to enbrass dialogue in solving a situation.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

It kind of depends on where you have the war and such. But I strongly believe that you can't achieve through war for EVERYONE. But you can't achieve it through different war tactics and plans for yourself I suppose.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

I totally disagree! People, TOTALLY! We CANNOT achieve peace through war.How you can say that we can achieve peace through war? I even cannot say these words together!Definetely, people cannot do something bad (war, murderers, bomb attacks, and so on) in order to get good results, especially peace.Do you know consequences of wars? Undoubtedly, it is incredible bad!People died, buildings ruined, environment destroyed!Hence, what kind of peace can be if there is too much viloence in the world?
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

But we have had many advancements as a result of war. Medicine, safety, tolerance, technology. All of it is increased after a war. War is, ironically, a time when people come together for a common cause, regardless of their differences. And saying that something bad cannot bring good things afterward is a false statement. Let's say if someone murdered another person. That would cause negative effects to the murderer, the victim's family/friends, and community. But the murderer could feel remorse and as a result, look for a counselor to become a better person. The community could help out the victim's family financially and emotionally and begin a program to help prevent crime from happening in that area. The murderer could also "turn a new leaf" and even apologize sincerely to the victim's family/friends, maybe filling the gap caused by the murder. You cannot have something bad without something good following it. In a school where bullying is an extreme problem, students and staff could come together to prevent it, building new relationships in the process.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: No

So, how can you say that apologise of murderer can fill the gap caused by him?!Yes, probably you know that there are some financial/emotional help from the government, although do you believe that it can help to injured side?I do not think that it will help to victim's family, they will not just care about whether the murderer become better person or not, due to their relative died! /Nothing can replace died person, even billions of dollars/Consequently, why don't you consider about achieving something new and necessary without war or killing people?As example, many great inventions were invented in peaceful time, therefore, humanity easily can achieve anything (I mean good things) without war.
Debate: Can we achieve peace through war?
Side: yes

Because maybe the family needed to know that he is sorry, that he knows what he did is wrong and he knows how he affected them (there are people like that) And Im not saying that help from the government would make everything better, I'm just saying that it could be a stepping stone; I'm completely aware that money cannot replace everything. And yes, great inventions can be created during peace, but war speeds the process. There would be no reason to proceed in the advancement of our weapons if there was hardly any reason to fight.