azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

Fox news is simply saying the 'conservative' side of the argument, as opposed to all these 'liberal' news stations.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Neither

Fox news does deliver biased facts, but they are nowhere near as biased to the right as most other programs are biased to the left.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: The Editors not the staff are biased

I think something that all the people in this debate need to acknowledge is that It is not FOX News as a whole that can be considered ULTRA RIGHT WING, but merely the Editors, at the most. They are the ones who select what is broadcast on the station. In my personal opinion, the people who weigh the debates between the crazy people they air are indeed rather neutral and do a good enough job. Also, the propoganda part of it is something that can be attributed to all News Stations as they require some form of agitational hook in order to make money, Right? However, it is EASILY Argued that some of the company they keep is extremely right wing and rather crazy COUGH GLENN BECK COUGH, but again it is the opinion of the people who say those things that are ULTRA RIGHT WING, not Necessarily FOX News itself. The final point to remember here is: if you re willing to effectively gain anything applicable to your life by watching the News on any channel, you should either be prepared for a noticable bias toward one side or another OR be able to easily pierce the biases presented by the Editors and Teleprompters. Im jus' Sayin'...
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

It's fact, the only reason someone started this debate is because it isn't leaning to the left. It's un-biased for the most part and covers all the news not just the news that makes the Democrats look good and make the Republicans look bad.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

Fox new is just like any other news station, its just politics. ITs good to watch Fox news and then to watch CNN, because you get both sides of the argument and you can make your decision. Its true Fox is for Rebublicans, and CNN is for Democrats. I believe that all opinions are welcome and should be exepted. There isn't anything wrong. But the facts are facts and you can run away from them. If we start telling people they shouldn't do what they want to do then you might as well go to Iran and work for their government. The point is that this is normal, there will be republicans and ther're will be democrats. And we shoudln't be selfish here and tell people that Fox news is bad, or CNN is bad. FOX news is for Republican party. And CNN is for the Democratic party. -Omid Iron Mehrage
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

Fox News is fair and balanced. The commentary is biased, but MSNBC's commentary is biased as well. At least, Fox News will have both sides of the argument on the show whereas MSNBC never participates in this activity.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Fox News is fair and balanced. The commentary is biased, but MSNBC's commentary is biased as well. At least, Fox News will have both sides of the argument on the show whereas MSNBC never participates in this activity.Sometimes an issue has only one legitimate side. Also, having two sides doesn't equate to balance, it is representation that matters.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

Sometimes an issue has only one legitimate side. Also, having two sides doesn't equate to balance, it is representation that matters.Whatever, so only liberal representative of media matters because they are the only one who can provide a legitimate side to the story.How doesn't having two sides equate to balance?
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Whatever, so only liberal representative of media matters because they are the only one who can provide a legitimate side to the story.On the whole, because conservatives have tied themselves with Christianity which is a sinking ship, they tend to use more polemics and misinformation in their arguments to cause political divides.However I only care about bias. You won't provoke me by referring to the needless conservative versus liberal dichotomy.How doesn't having two sides equate to balance?Some issues have only one side. For a modern example, we have global warming (there is no argument that it is happening in the scientific community, and there is a lot of evidence which suggests that we are a strong factor in it), evolution (it has achieved complete scientific support for over a century), vaccines and autism (there is no link).By pretending to have two sides what happens is that a political movement or misinformation campaign is given the appearance of being on equal footing with legitimate science.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

we have global warming (there is no argument that it is happening in the scientific community,Not sure how you little rant is irrelevant to media and equating to balance, but since YOU ARE OFF SUBJECT!!!Actually, let me guess, all your sources will be government agencies or government sponsored entities, the very entity that you believe is INCAPABLE OF LYING.All evidence provided by government research, right.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

Not sure how you little rant is irrelevant to media and equating to balance, but since YOU ARE OFF SUBJECT!!!Please go back and read the entire paragraph. It is important. Those examples are not two-sided issues but they are presented as such.Actually, let me guess, all your sources will be government agencies or government sponsored entities, the very entity that you believe is INCAPABLE OF LYING.Paranoia?All evidence provided by government research, right.If you wish to argue a point with me, pretend I am a computer. I have no vested interest in governments and I have no emotional bond with my information.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

I agree. I think people get the commentary and the news cast confused with each other.Yeah the commentary is biased and slanted, but that isn't any different than any other cable news channel. You will never hear/read/see someone with conservative leanings on any other news station as a counter point, as much as you do on Fox.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

Lib = Far leftist liberal Hallo Debaters, Look at your libs, now back to Fox, now back at your libs, now back to Fox, fortunately Fox isnt the libs,but if it stopped using logic filled argumentation and told only half truth, Fox could be like the libs in the govt.look down, back up. where are you? you are in financial turmoil, with the man you put in office that Fox could emulate.whats that in your hand, back at the libs, I have it!its the diminishing dollar with a letter from IRS,now look again, ahhhh! your taxes went up.Eveything is possible when your libs push for less freedom of the press like the Obama administration is trying to do, and not making people think for themselves like Fox.im on a horse
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

If it is as far right as the title of this debate suggests, one would assume that this propaganda would appear somewhere in the broadcasts.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Just the facts

This one made me "LOL".People attack the "right wing" news station instead of the leftist? Just a comment not open for debate.
Debate: Fox News: "Ultra Right wing Propaganda" or "Just the facts"
Side: Ultra Right wing Propaganda

If its not open for debate then why did you come here?Really?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

The big question: Who watches the watchmen? This could create the very dangerous situation where coercive power falls into the hands of an inhumane corporate machine. The day our democratically elected government orders a company to do something and the company says, "No." is the day we're all seriously fucked.But if you could solve that problem then it might work. The important thing would be to make sure these companies can't become too powerful, so that they can be appropriately regulated. Let's say these companies can only have light weapons. Keep the tanks and SWAT teams in the hands of elected officials. And let's not let anybody take more than 10% market share.With appropriate safety measures in place, I do think free-market mechanisms could lead to much more effective law enforcement.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

><And are these publically owned entities on the stockmarket?If I'm BP can I buy up all the cop shares and order them to arrest anyone who complains about all the oil in the gulf?Can a Chinese investor buy the Oklahoma City police through money managers?How about if Wal-Mart starts a police branch who "just happen" to congregate around any Target store in the area with guns and tazers drawn.And when one of these cops-for-hire kills a kid eating a slurpy because he had a bad day, who arrests him? Call the 911 brought to you by 7-11?Maybe the Wal-mart police decide to arrest the BP police for false arrests on the coast. Now you have basically gang warfare with a badge.Private police aren't police,they're mercenaries. State and government police are hard enough to keep from being corrupted without a private industry free-for-all.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Not a very constructive attitude if you ask me. Seems like you should be asking, "How can we make this work?" rather than saying, "This will never work."If I'm BP can I buy up all the cop shares and order them to arrest anyone who complains about all the oil in the gulf?Hmm, that could be a problem. Ok, so let's say no stocks. Let's say these entities must be funded via premiums paid by individuals within their service area. State and government police are hard enough to keep from being corrupted without a private industry free-for-all.Do you not think that competition would reduce corruption?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

goddamn CD, they logged me out. I already went through this. Here we go again:Not a very constructive attitude if you ask me. Seems like you should be asking, "How can we make this work?" rather than saying, "This will never work."I suppose I could, but I feel the anti-government pro-anarchy crowd has had quite enough time on the CD bully-pulpit without me offering their crazy notions quasi encouragement. There are instances of privately funded police, in third world countries. It has never worked. I don't believe it ever could so why give the crazies hypothetical reasons to continue their anti-government rantings in any form?Hmm, that could be a problem. Ok, so let's say no stocks. Let's say these entities must be funded via premiums paid by individuals within their service area. Well that would be great if you're in a rich service area. If you are in a poor area where crime actually happens then you're screwed. If you have to drive through a poor area you're screwed. And unfortunately areas with high crime breeds more criminals. It would only be a matter of time before this new generation of criminals seeps into the upper class neighborhoods. Eventually you would have a few walled castles complete with guards within each city, and hordes of peasants outside robbing and pillaging.Do you not think that competition would reduce corruption?Competition may lower prices when implemented fairly, it may improve service when back room deals aren't being made (which they almost universally are) but competition will never reduce corruption. Competition encourages corruption. Corruption can give companies a leg up on their competition, and companies only care about money, they're not designed to care about laws or people or anything of that nature unless it benefits them. Who is going to arrest corrupt police if there is no government entity?One could introduce oversite I suppose, but now you are spending just as much policing police as you would be on police. Plus the same crowd who cry privatize everything are the same who hate oversite.The whole thing is silly. Government is essential, and police are one of the essential functions of government. Without this type of social order we'd still be cavemen hitting eachother with clubs. I refuse to encourage it even hypothetically.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

goddamn CD, they logged me out. I already went through this.I write my arguments in an external editor and just copy and paste them when they're done. Saves a lot of headaches.I feel the anti-government pro-anarchy crowd has had quite enough time on the CD bully-pulpit without me offering their crazy notions quasi encouragementlol, I guess you've got a point there.There are instances of privately funded police, in third world countries. It has never worked.Pretty sure that's not true."The growth of private policing is a phenomenon that is occurring all over the world."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police If it never works, I think it would not be a growing trend.Well that would be great if you're in a rich service area.Premiums. Vouchers. There are ways of dealing with this problem.One could introduce oversite I suppose, but now you are spending just as much policing police as you would be on police.It would be drastically cheaper to police just the private police than to police everybody in the country.police are one of the essential functions of government.On what stone tablet is this written? I say go with what works.Private policing could bring many benefits, such as those listed in the Wikipedia article.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Pretty sure that's not true."The growth of private policing is a phenomenon that is occurring all over the world."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police  If it never works, I think it would not be a growing trend.The article mentions no place where a State's Police force is replaced by one of these groups, only where a private industry has taken it upon themselves to hire additional security. This of course I have no problem with. The problem lies, again when one disolves a State run police force in favor of one which functions independant of government oversite and based on a capitalistic model. In any instance where one replaces the power of their vote in government (we elect Sherrifs) for the power of the dollar, it encourages a system where only those with money receive said benefits, in this case police protection. Why would a for-hire cop, whose boss is in no way beholden to the public but only those who fund them, waste their time with any citizen's problems who was not in a top-income bracket?There is no reason. Police over time would respond to a rich person's watch being stolen before they respond to a serial killer who only targets hookers. This is a fact of capitalism. Capitalism needs social programs to maintain any semblence of democratic government, and law enforcement is one of these social programs.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Do you not think that competition would reduce corruption?Historically, no. Competition on the market is full of corruption.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Historically, government is also full of corruption.The critical difference is that when corruption causes companies to provide inferior service, they lose business. This feedback cycle between producer and consumer is severely weakened when you introduce a layer of government bureaucracy.Also: regulation.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Historically, government is also full of corruption.Right, that's why all sorts of government models have been developed to both stem this corruption and magnify it. What seems to work best at fighting corruption is a division of power and the ability of the citizens to choose their leaders and laws.The critical difference is that when corruption causes companies to provide inferior service, they lose business.Not always, sometimes they are monopolies.This feedback cycle between producer and consumer is severely weakened when you introduce a layer of government bureaucracy.It can be, but other times that bureaucracy protects us from business incompetence by providing a safety net, so to speak. Other times it keeps businesses in line.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

I'm not sure whether corruption would be more commonplace in a competitive market than in a well-run government agency. I suppose in either case it would kept down to a reasonable level.But I do believe that for-profit agencies are much more competent than their government counterparts. And even if markets were somewhat more corrupt, I'd be willing to put up with that in return for higher quality of service.Not always, sometimes they are monopolies.Right, which is why I suggested not letting any private police agency take more than 10% market share.Seems like you're arguing against an unregulated market -- but what I'm advocating is a regulated market.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

There won't be nearly as much corruption since everyone would be able to opt out of any corrupt agencies and it will cost a hell of a lot less since it will no longer be at monopoly rates. =)
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

... right because a private company is going to spend all kinds of money looking for a guy who killed someone, that really helps their bottom line.And just what we need, spend less money on cops as if they are already not outarmed enough.Your ideas on this site are consistantly moronic.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

... right because a private company is going to spend all kinds of money looking for a guy who killed someone, that really helps their bottom line.Assuming their business IS investigation, then yes, yes it does. ...How do you not understand this?And just what we need, spend less money on cops as if they are already not out armed enough.No, you don't understand. In a free market there will be exactly the right amount of police as there needs to be. There is an equilibrium between supply and demand and however many police the supply is willing to pay for will be how many there are. So, as long as person want police protection, there will be an ample supply.Your ideas on this site are consistantly moronic.Yeah, that must explain why YOU'RE the one constantly backing down. =/It's "consistently" by the way.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

It could work. I don't see any reason why not.People are willing to pay for police, so police would exist with or without a government.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Finally! I was beginning to think I was the only one with any sense around here! I mean, Jesse is on my side for this one too, but I can't honestly say I agree with him 100%.Then again, I can't say the same about you either. Is it just police specifically that you find could work without state intervention, or would you agree that one (a government) isn't needed at all and is in fact a hindrance to the economy?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

No, I pretty much agree with the things you're saying. :p
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Well, let's see what private industry would do:-In the name of competition, corners would be cut, for instance in training and employee benefits.-Background checks wouldn't exist probably, since that wastes money and effort, so you'd have more thugs.-Police protection would compete for customers, like insurance, and devolve into a protection racket.Of course, we can always look at real-life examples:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Huh... and here I was beginning to think you were one of the good guys... =/- In the name of competition, each agency would be forced to compete for customers, therefore strive to provide a better and less expensive service. "Cutting corners" is easier and seen to a much larger extent when one company can operate on monopoly terms. Especially if it's a coercive monopoly like the one most governments have.- Supply and demand my friend. If background checks for employees are enough of a concern that the demand would sooner pay a company that does them, then that's what these companies will do in order to remain competitive on the market.- Again, supply and demand. You're not the only person against such corruption. If rackets are such a worry amongst the populace then one of two things will happen (probably both). Either people will willingly opt out of an agency they fear are getting too big, or companies built for the sole purpose of investigating police agencies will arise and do just that. You can't opt out of the current system and you have nothing but the corrupt system itself to depend on for stopping it's own corruption. It's just simple logic. Companies that must strive to be the best will offer a better service than those that don't have to.