azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

@DermotIt is a bit complicated, as there are both Federal & State programs with different guidelines for each program and state. The Federal Programs typically have a 5 year limit, though there are ways around it through 'exemption policies'. Also, each State has their own rules, and differing levels of money received. Here is a brief excerpt of a report concerning 'time limits' for Welfare programs:"Nationally, a large proportion of TANF households are not subject to time limits, but time limits play a key role in some states. About 44 percent of TANF households are not subject to federal or state time limits because they are “child-only cases” — typically, children living with a relative or families in which the parent is not eligible for benefits. In addition, about half of TANF families live in states that rarely or never close families’ cases because of time limits. On the other hand, a quarter of TANF families live in states that usually terminate benefits after 60 months, and nearly as many are in states with shorter limits."This is a good link if you would like to get more information on US Welfare rates and requirements by State (Note: it is rather long, so skimming may be beneficial, if desired): https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the workversuswelfaretrade-off2013wp.pdf
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Note: it is rather long, so skimming may be beneficial, if desiredGreat advice. I try to apply it whenever I see your name on top of a post. My bullshit detector goes into red alert and I skim right over that fallacious wall of junk.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

@WaylifeI thought you were a new member here?Ooh, wait--yes. That's right, you're a pretender; Nomenclature puppet account
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Yes indeed Nom and his 41 accounts and all because he still cannot debate so trolling and downvoting are his only options , so as to avoid debating
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Yes indeed Nom and his 41 accountsAccording to multiple entries in your own waterfall, Nom only has "31 accounts", so you are another fine example of unfathomable stupidity. You are literally so much of an idiot that you can't even stick to your own false narrative.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Nomenclature,Clean up your act or get off this site .
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Clean up your act or get off this siteMathFan. Go away and learn how to be a better liar/bully than you currently are.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

@NomenclatureDo you feel ashamed at all, for the way you have been carrying on?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

He’s lashing out X , his wife wisely walked / ran and his family disowned him , now when he looks in the mirror he sees a sad , bitter 63 year troll who’s merely looking for someone to blame for the way he is
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

He’s lashing out X , his wife wisely walked / ran and his family disowned him , now when he looks in the mirror he sees a sad , bitter 63 year trollDermot, is this supposed to be a parody? You are accusing other members of "projection", yet here you are clearly trolling another member, at the end of which you conclude by calling him a troll.You are one seriously nasty piece of work, pal.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

As I thinks I understands it, you cheated on your wife & be very pissed that she ran off with the black guy. No?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Parody 😂😂😂 You’re priceless Q , I’m not trolling , I’m merely showing sympathy for a fellow human as in you who still refuses to debate but prefers to constantly attack and harass others why’s that ?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

I’m not trollingYou are saying the most hurtful things that your small mind can possibly think of. I'm fairly sure that is the actual definition of trolling. Small-minded people saying nasty things for no other reason than to be hurtful.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

So "Quantomhead", did your NumberOne account get shut down, or are you just simply cycling through puppet accounts?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

I'd say not. He has happily run 80% of the members off the site.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

I'd say not. He has happily run 80% of the members off the site.Bronto, someone opened a thread last week and exposed the fact that you have nearly two hundred puppet accounts. There is absolutely no truth to anything you ever say. Just like the two above you, you are a liar and a thoroughly nasty piece of work.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

1) I have no other accounts.2) So give us the link to the thread so we can all check it out.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Do you feel ashamed at all, for the way you have been carrying on?MathFan, I just conclusively proved that you are a liar. You are done. It's a shame that you lack the intelligence to even understand when you are done.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

You've created an environment that has run off about 80% of the site's members.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

There’s that projection again Nom , still no defence for your ridiculous Leninism v Stalinism debate ?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

There’s that projection again NomIt's called "Freudian projection" and it appears to be the only thing you actually know how to do.And stop calling me Nom, you retard.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

It's called "Freudian projection" and it appears to be the only thing you actually know how to do.That’s if like you one is obsessed with appealing to “ authority “ figures as in Nietzsche, Marx , and Stalin ; it’s just called projection you supercilious twat But you are Nom and his 41 accounts , so why are you still crying over my destruction of your Leninism v Stalinism debate ?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

That’s if like you one is obsessed with appealing to “ authority “ figures as in Nietzsche, Marx , and StalinDermot, how is it even possible that, after spending literally 30 minutes researching Freudian projection, you still do not know what it is? An appeal to authority is not the same thing as Freudian projection.it’s just called projection you supercilious twatFreud was the person who invented the concept, you impossibly stupid retard.Freud considered that, in projection, thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings that cannot be accepted as one's own are dealt with by being placed in the outside world and attributed to someone else.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological projectionRead my lips you offensive and obnoxious failure of humanity: THESAURUS.COM IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A BASIC EDUCATION.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

There's that projection again Nom , so you're admitting you didn't know about the term " projection " until you googled it Your appeal to authority is pretty pathetic and all because I crushed you and your 41 Alts yet againSo Freud the bloated egotist has copyright on the term "projection " 😂😂 You are one spectacularly dense English Twat , so why did your wife and family disown you again ? 😂😂😂
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Aren't the Irish a bunch of short, nasty, goblin like midget leprechauns????
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Says a 63 year old English twat who probably fantasizes about fucking the horse faced Camilla Parker “ Bowels “ while playing an L P by his “ hero “ James Taylor 😂😂😂😂😂😂 🖕🖕🖕
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

I thought you were a new member here?That's because you are literally so stupid you lack the intelligence to check my profile and see that my account is 49 days old.You are just UNFATHOMABLY stupid.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Says the guy who writes eye wateringly boring posts at least 10,000 words long on 9/11 and Marxism which are utter horseshit
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

The point is that poverty isn’t simply a money problem, it’s a mindset problem.Yes , I agreeThat's because you're a moron. Poverty is a problem which exists in physical reality. The mind does not influence physical reality. Do you believe in telekinesis and psychic powers too, you obnoxious dimwit?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Nom and his 41 alt accounts are terribly upset again because no one with his ridiculous assertions
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Do you believe in telekinesis and psychic powers too, you obnoxious dimwit?LOL.If it helps him justify being a nasty little twit, he believes in it. Otherwise, nah.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Are you still upset you’ve no defence for your ridiculous Leninism / Stalinism “ debate “ ?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Let’s be clear about what poor people we are referring to. There are a large number of people who are temporarily poor. I mentioned studentsThat isn't even slightly accurate, Amarel. First you tried to conflate poverty with being poor, and then you tried to use students as an excuse to imply poverty statistics are over-inflated. Without, I might add, even having the diligence to check that they are included in national poverty statistics first.there are also all kinds of ways people end up poor for the short run but stabilize in the long run. We aren’t talking about them.It definitely happens, but once again you are scrambling to manufacture excuses to justify quite an astounding ideological bias. What you describe is relatively rare. Affluence and poverty both tend to work exponentially. That is, when someone has a little success, becoming more successful gets considerably easier than it was previously. I take it you are unfamiliar with the adage that: "It takes money to make money"? Well, the inverse rule applies to poverty. In sum, from reading a little of your writing, it is difficult to fail to recognise the extraordinary bias within it, since you are doing everything short of outright denial in order to play down both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of poverty. Not only is it apparent that you assume poverty to generally be the fault of the individual, but it is also apparent that you assume poverty to be a transitional phase in life which people are simply able to "grow out" of.Basically, the things you are writing are erroneous, demonstrably contrary to the available literature, and seem to be an exercise in how to illustrate a patent pro-capitalist bias during a conversation.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

@QuantumNot only is it apparent that you assume poverty to generally be the fault of the individual, but it is also apparent that you assume poverty to be a transitional phase in life which people are simply able to "grow out" of.When you are young, you are still learning more about the 'game' and how to best approach it based on your knowledge. Your youth (should be) figuring this out, and credentialing yourself accordingly. Then, being poor is a temporary phase in life healthy, driven, responsible, savvy people should be able to get themselves out of and into a more secure, stable situation
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

You're so ignorant it is baffling. First, Webster's Dictionary agrees with me on "poor" vs "poverty". Second, it is well established that the majority of people on welfare do not stay there. Similarly, almost no one in the top 1% is the same from year to year. An individuals financial status is most often not stagnant over the course of ones life. This topic is about poor people more than people who are temporarily poor.Third, do you believe that the solitary point of having an ecological system in the first place is so that it benefits all the organisms in the forest?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Without, I might add, even having the diligence to check that they are included in national poverty statistics first.Which is proof...that poverty stats are over-inflated....
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Let’s be clear about what poor people we are referring to.The ones with hooves & cleft lips.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Leave your family out of it ............................................
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

I want to make a baby with you. I'll be the man in the relationship. You'll be the woman.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Most poor people are too old or sick to work. They have no point at which to start of getting a job or being able to reliably save money. Hundreds if not thousands of dollars are needed to just get a job at mcdonalds. Seems crazy? You have good clothes, a home, a car and no other worries that matter here besides getting that job. They don’t. Most places try to hire young people too, most homeless are older. Negative views towards homeless also serve to hinder employment as well as transportation. Getting back to the discussion, when homeless are able to save any real money (which is rare) they usually have lost hope and use it on the pleasures of life. Who can blame them?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

I am poor. I pinch pennies....................................................................................................................
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

I don't agree with your point, however, with the fact that poor people don't even try to save money when they are able to afford the money.First of all we all know that poor people need money or a shelter to live in so if they afford it for themselves if they are clever they would save money for the future. But put in your mind that they need money so hard and if they afford it they will try all there best to use it only for the essential things they need. They will not waste it on such ridicules stuff. Second thing you are not in there mind to know what their thinking about, every person have their own persecutive. I respect yours but why do you bother about poor people? I wonder.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Shut up bronto. The solitary point of having an economic system in the first place is so that it benefits everybody or almost everybody. If it isn't working for people then blaming them for it is regressive and stupid.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

@QuantumShut up bronto. You have no evidence this is BrontoThe solitary point of having an economic system in the first place is so that it benefits everybody or almost everybody. This is utterly wrong
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

This is right. The point of an economic system is to sevre whoever controls it
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

The solitary point of having an economic system in the first place is so that it benefits everybody or almost everybodyI be Quantumhead puppet.You are wanker. Everybody doesn't mean every bodies from other countries you lizard brains.& if the bloody wanks won't save money like adult it is no Godzilla fault.Economic system can no make Libby wankers save the money. They be go & buy $1,000 phone & the $5 Red bull. Not Godzilla fault. Quantumhead fault. Pay 4 you own food. This Godzilla food. You need the lizard food.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

Disconnected and spiteful argument rather than an intelligent one. Make more sense and don’t depend on petty personal attacks.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

The solitary point of having an economic system in the first placeWhat do you suppose would happen if everyone decided to not have an economic system?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

What do you suppose would happen if everyone decided to not have an economic system?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

What do you suppose would happen if a whole forest decided not to have an ecological system?
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: true

Poor analogy. You're referring to a forest as a sentient individual/organization capable of dismantling their ecological system if they so chose. Humans are sentient beings that are able to communicate and reason; if we all, for some reason, wanted to dismantle our economic systems, we could. A forest couldn't.
Debate: Most poor people dont even try to save money even when they are able
Side: no

if we all, for some reason, wanted to dismantle our economic systems, we could. A forest couldn't.No we couldn't. We could alter it. We could replace it with a different economic system. But an economic system will always exist in a society. Try to describe a society with no economic system. It is much the same as trying to describe a habitat with no ecological system.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

The question is popping up in every magazine, ESPN, and even the news, is the name, "Washington RedSkins" racist towards the Native Americans, or should the owner, Daniel Snyder, change the name to something a little less offensive? It's obvious to me that the name RedSkins is offensive towards the Native Americans. Wikipedia quotes, "The RedSkins is usually offensive, disparaging, insulting, and taboo." Even though Daniel Snyder says this team was founded by a Native American, study shows that this founder was actually german. Even if the initial owner was Native American, that was in 1932. Cultures change, and society is evolving.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

I do see how the name Redskins could be determined to be offensive. Many Native Americans might feel as though it represent a shameful time in history.The other side of the argument could be made that Redskins represents strength, courage, and team unity and you wouldn't name your team after something you hated or disliked, you would name it after something that is powerful and strong.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Redskins Honor or Insult Preston Leptich per. 1 The war of the Washington Redskins name is raging on. Activists think that the name is offensive and is a racial slur, hurting African Americans feelings. The owner of the team is not Native American and does not realize how offensive it is. It is obvious that the name "Redskins" is offensive to Native Americans.  One reason why the team name "Redskins" is offensive to the Native Americans is that is is a racial slur. If another team in the NFL had a name like this but it was not red, it would be banned. So why is the "Redskins" aloud? Is it because in the past it brought honor? Even if it did bring honor in the past in todays world it is a harsh saying. For this reason I think that the Washington Redskins should change their name. One reason why the Washington Redskins should change their mascot is because it portrays the Native Americans as savages. They sing hail to the Redskins in the crowd but in the song they chant savagely "Rahh, Rahh, Rahh" which insults the Native American language. As you can see, the Washington Redskins should change their name to something , or go back to the old team name "Braves".
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

I believe that the Redskins should change their name. For a few reasons, its an obviously racist name on a team with racist history. Think about it "Red Skin" if people named their team "yellow skins" it would obviously be illegal and people everywhere would be angry, so how is Redskins any different.The old boss even admitted that he was racist. 80% of Native Americas according to "change the mascot" say they find the name very offensive to them and that they would like it to be changed. Also Redskins will not lose anything from changing their name. Profits will be the same if they change their shame to RedStorm or so,something similar , as long as their is no racial slur within. Even president Obama said last October that the Redskins should change the name.In June, the US Patent and Trademark office canceled the Redskins’ trademark registration, saying the team’s name and logo were disparaging. As you can see even the government is against the name. Continuing having the name Redskins will not only offend native Americans but also lead to less profit for the Red skins because they don't have a copyright on any of their products which will lead to fake copies by other companies that are totally legal because of the lack of copyright. I believe that the Redskins should change their name because it will release stress from non-racist groups and the media about the name, and it will help their profits
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: Yes, change it.

Should the red skins change their name? To many people the redskins should, but to others they shouldn't. Personally i think it would be great if they changed it. I think the reason people want it to be changed is it could be offensive. There are many reasons ut could be offensive but the main reason would be the mascot, the team name, and the team itself. Is the mascot really that offensive or is the world we are living in to Sensitive? Well the before the mascot was changed it was truly offensive because of the way its skin color looks. The skin is red as a tomato. If i was an Indian i would be pretty offended because indians skin isn't super red like it is in the old mascot. Another reason it is offencive is because the mascot had a huge nose, most indians have a regular nose. I think of it as a racial slur but, people dont really think of how it will come to mind to another person.
Debate: Native American Mascots
Side: No, leave it alone.

To stick to the facts, Native Americans long ago referred to themselves as the "Red Men" or "Red-skins". I truly do not think it is offensive in a skin color way. Some Indians aren't offended because it's who they are. They called themselves the Red-skins.