azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

It is only appropriate to blame a crime on the person(s) who violated somebody else's rights. Simple as that.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

Even though both parties often can be shown to have had some influence on the situation only the assaulter acted upon those influences. Take a bar room brawl for example: Both parties entered the bar on their own, but the one that knifed some one is clearly the victim. If we start blaming all parties involved, society itself would be sentenced to lethal injection for their part.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

The description says to hold all parties accountable to some degree. Not to hold all parties equally accountable. Equal if they are equal, but varying if they are not.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

It is never okay to blame the victim. Victims do not choose to be raped, murdered, or tortured.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

He said "assaulter". I will give an example when some kinds of assaults are okay:You spend maybe 10 minutes writing out a detailed explanation about a topic with well thought out points. The other person ignores all those points and just typed some random one liner that she has repeated 20 times before. That person deserves a good slap round the face. That is a justified assault.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

You are wrong. No one deserves to be assaulted. You have no right to another person's body.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

Well if you believe in people being arrested etc etc etc etc then you do see that some people deserve to be assaulted. And some people do deserve to be slapped in the face sometimes.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

Arresting someone is not assault if they are guilty. .
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

Catchphasity catchphasity catchphrase. Catchphrase catchphrase. CATCHPRASH...caaaaaatchphrase. Catchphrase?
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

It is never okay to blame the victim.The debate framework explicitly states: "Blame not the victim [...]." Victims do not choose to be raped, murdered, or tortured.The debate framework never states that victims deserve to be victims.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

Saying that rape victims could have done something to prevent the rape is the same as saying that they are to blame for the rape.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

If I suggest that the victim of any other form of physical assault take some self defense courses to protect themselves from being victimized in the future, that isn't blaming them for being assaulted. Of the many forms assault can take, why is rape the only one where that ceases to apply? I can't help but think your emotional attachment to the issue is clouding your ability to think about it rationally.I'm not talking about bullshit like "don't walk in X part of town in Y outfit" or tripe like that that's designed to minimize a persons chances of being targeted. I'm talking about things a person can take the time to learn to to protect hirself from becoming a victim when s/he is targeted.The fact that one potential victim is able to defend hirself from an assault and that another is not has no bearing on who is to blame for the assault in question: the assaulter, every single time. But one also cannot deny the fact that the one that is prepared to defend hirself does not become a victim. There are two components to every assault: The attacker, and the would-be victim. The attacker is more or less always to blame (or at the very least carries the majority of the blame) for the situation, but the abilities and actions taken by the would-be victim have a definite factor in the outcome. Remember- the proper authorities can try to catch the person who victimized you- AFTER you've already been victimized; If you don't want to be victimized in the first place, the only one you can count on is yourself. And unlike the tripe thats normally suggested, learning to defend onself is effective against actual attackers, not the all-but-fictitious 'stranger in the bushes.'
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

I agree. I support survival. .
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

I disagree. Rape is never the fault of the victim. I have no problem with teaching survival, but it is wrong to say that victims are responsible for being raped.You disagree with what, exactly? I never asserted that rape is the fault of the victim, or that they are responsible for being raped.Do you feel that suggesting the victim of any physical assault take some self defense classes amounts to blaming said victim for being assaulted? Because it doesn't- one would have to make that suggestion before the assault in question, as individuals cannot predict the future; it always carries a connotation for 'in the future' to me, but maybe you don't see it that way.Do you disagree with the notion that active self-defense on the part of the would-be victim can have an impact over whether or not they are successfully victimized?Do you disagree with my assessment of the proper authorities ability to prevent an assault from happening vs. respond to an assault that has happened?Or is your disagreement simply that all of this goes out the window as soon as the assault in question is classified as rape?What do you disagree with here?Edit: Ok, you edited your post, nevermind then.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

I was wrong. I reread what you wrote, and I agree. .
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

He said that rape victims can do things to prevent being raped. I'm glad you have finally agreed with what I was saying
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

You are wrong. There is nothing rape victims can do to prevent being raped. It is wrong to blame the victim.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

Then you don't agree with him? Or is it just that with your mental illnesses you can't remember what you were agreeing to?He said that a woman can help prevent rape by learning self-defence. You said you agree. Have the guts to stick to your convictions.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

No, they are not the same thing.Blame necessary entails the assignation of fault. Recognizing that one can take steps to reduce their risk of being a victim of anything does not assign fault. It only recognizes the pragmatic reality of our existence. Risk assessment and mitigation does not need to rely upon a moral judgement framework; in fact, it functions best if it is amoral.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

Yes they are. Saying that victims are responsible for the rape is the same as blaming them.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

Except that I have never once said that the victim is responsible.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

When you said that victims can prevent rape, you were saying that they are responsible.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

Nope. As evidenced by the simple fact that I made a distinction between the two. I cannot help it if you are incapable of separating two distinct concepts from one another. I do not even believe in responsibility, so I would hardly begin to assign it to anyone.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

You are letting victim blamers dominate that conversation around risk mitigation. Just because they conflate risk mitigation with fault does not mean everyone else has to. The consequence of letting that association become the norm in conversations like this is that risk mitigation becomes taboo, which is actually damaging to those most likely to become victims. My identities place me at considerably greater risk than most people to experience violence. There are things I can do to reduce that risk. Some of them I do, others I do not. In no way does my awareness of those things or election not to do them make me at fault if I become a victim of an assault. It just means I was empowered to know where I stood and take action according to that knowledge.
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

Pardon, Jumps in!No, they are not the same thing.Hmm....I think I partly agree with both you AND Dana!Saying that victims are "partly to blame" comes across to me as a very dangerous statement. Many victims of sexual assault (particularly children) actually feel like they provoked the assault. When in reality, were it not for the abusive nature of the ONLY culpable party, the assault would not have occured.Blame necessary entails the assignation of fault.Not NECESSARILY.....depending on context sometimes blame can simply mean "attribute to".Recognizing that one can take steps to reduce their risk of being a victim of anything does not assign fault. It only recognizes the pragmatic reality of our existence.Nice try, but you are unquestionably trying to "assign fault" to the victim. ie Their fault: not being careful enoughWith blame understood as implying immorality or criminality (And unless you live a cave, you know it usually does) IT IS appropriate to blame the assaulter, and inappropriate to blame the victim.In other words if you only have one person who violated another persons rights then there is only one person "to blame"Risk assessment and mitigation does not need to rely upon a moral judgement framework; in fact, it functions best if it is amoral.Funny, I think that's what morality is in a nutshell "Strategic risk avoidance"
Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Disagree

The victim means that they were unjustly done wrong. So if the assaulter assaults the victim, it is wrong, so the victim can't be to blame if they didn't infringe on the assaulter and his rights. If they did, they would be the assaulter.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

America cannot continue to be used as a dumping ground for cheap and shoddy Asian goods whilst at the same time permit the unregulated immigration of millions of Mexican illegals and hard core criminals.How smug the liberal ''do-gooders'' must feel as they try to occupy the moral high ground and spew out their well rehearsed sanctimonious platitudes such as ''build bridges and not walls'' and ''Love Trumps hate''.They're all very clever play on words but, how in hell's name is the game of smart-ass ''wordplay' going to resolve the ongoing problem of the insidious ''appropriation'' of large tracts of America by Mexican illegal immigrants and violent criminals? The in vogue, 'yuppie' pastime of the Trump bashing brigade don't realize we're not in a game of any description, we're in the shit right up to our oxters and Donald Trump is big enough to grab the challenge by the horns.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

OK, if you want to bash liberals as stupid, misguided or insidious -------I'm with you 110%Unlike illegal immigrants (the peaceful ones) liberals are in fact the greatest threat America faces. They undermine our Constitution with ideas that are essentially socialism. The end of their road is indeed Orwellian.Most are sheep, unaware of the path they follow and the destruction of freedom waiting at the end. In the lead of this heard of fools, walks the insidious figures who march toward yet another failed attempt at socialistic utopia.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

Daver,Would you say America is in decline? If so, what is causing our downward spiral?
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

The tax on Mexico could support some of the payment for the wall, and the wall would keep some immigrants out. According to the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the approximate cost of immigrants coming illegally over the border is $113 billion. A lot of this money comes from educating children of illegal immigrants, which costs about $52 billion. Also, these immigrants are taking our jobs, being paid under the table by employers for a considerable amount less than minimum wage. This leads to Americans not having jobs and still having to pay taxes with money they don't have or being left on the streets, while immigrants are not having to pay taxes and still getting paid. The wall will keep them out of our great country and give jobs back to our own people.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

What evidence can you provide that the wall actually will keep Mexican immigrants out of the US? Since 2006 we have seen a rise in border patrol agents yet a decline in apprehensions, while the amount of illegal immigrants in the us has yet to go decline.http://immigration.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=004796 http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000844
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

This is a very valid claim. Border patrol does only catch about 40-50% of the immigrants crossing the border. The only answer I can find is that Trump will reinforce the sections of walls already built and then create new sections to fill the gaps. However, I do understand that people are not always the most reliable, and not all of the immigrants will be caught
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

Okay I know I did one that was against the wall but I was supposed to do an argument for the wall instead so here it is. Okay so as our great and powerful leader TRUMP said, we need to build that wall!!!! Building the wall could help our economy by giving more jobs to American CITIZENS not illegal immigrants!!! The proposed wall would ensure that unemployed and underemployed Americans who have paid taxes in the past will be provided with the economic opportunities they truly deserve. Also to those people Talking about how we already have a wall and a wall that doesn't keep Mexican citizens out, that is EXACTLY why we need this new wall. Yes it may be pricey but overtime it will be rewarding to the US economy and its hardworking citizens. This wall could also create new jobs especially jobs in infrastructure and automation considering Mexico is the place that the US gets those materials and service from. If we stop using their products we can create jobs in those fields here in America instead which will in turn add money to our economy. Also on the topic of cost and the 20% tax here is a good article that explains that and some of the things mentioned here in a clear way. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/donald-trump-mexico-import-tax-border-wall/index.html
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

As all other methods of keeping the Mexican drug gangs, rapists and other criminals out of the U.S.A, have fallen well short of achieving the desired result the construction of an impregnable wall will be an effective measure to, at worst, retard the flow of the filth, and at best, along with increased border security personnel, stop the infestation completely.As the criminals are spawned in Mexico the onus is squarely and indisputably on the Mexican government to stem the flow of their own garbage into neighbouring countries, but in particular, the United States.If the Mexican government will not accept their responsibility on this issue and take the necessary measures to control their own marauding criminal gangs then the cost of an effective solution must be imposed upon them.The proposed 20% additional import tax on Mexican goods and produce will mainly result in a dramatic reduction in the number of American consumers prepared to buy overpriced inferior Mexican imports.When Mexican exports to America take a nosedive the Mexican administration will, if they have any savie at all, begin the financing of the fence to help keep their own 'homegrown' filth in the Mexican sewers and maybe even try to improve their country so their citizens feel less compelled to flee the shithole.In case no one noticed, those lowlife greasers who have fled the failed nation of Mexico are turning parts of the United States of America into crime ridden, 'no go zones'.How the sanctimonious liberals enjoy being members of the trendy cult of Trump bashing.While the 'hand clasping' liberals feign shock and horror at the building of a much needed security fence they fail totally to present their own feasible alternative plan to stop or control the flow of Mexican crime gangs onto America's streets where they terrorise American citizens and cause misery and the breakdown of what previously was an ordered society. The U.S.A, is swamped with 11 million illegal immigrants.The word illegal means;- contrary to, or forbidden by law, so by definition they are criminals.Those criminal immigrants either do not work or, as they are in the country illegally, cannot pay taxes on their earnings. The argument that a security fence will split families can be simply remedied by repatriating the criminal immigrants back to their country of origin where their sobbing relations will greet them with backslapping and hugs. They'll be happy, and the hard pressed American citizens will be delighted.It's a win win situation.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Your vitriol lends a very unpleasant taste to your argument. While surely there are dangerous criminals coming across our southern borders, along with an unknown number of Islamic Terrorists, they alone are the proper target of righteous anger. What your missing is the distinction that there are the millions of illegal immigrants who have come here simply for a better life. While certainly they are technically criminals, it is ludicrous to liken them to the dangerous, violent, criminals and terrorists who come here to exploit and destroy. We currently have millions of America citizens who are out of work and needing the benefits of gainful employment. For this reason primarily, we currently have too many immigrants entering our country. The wall will certainly stem this uncontrolled flow and restore/establish a large measure of much needed order to our borders. In my experience, most Americans want a controlled flow of immigrants coming here to be a part of and share the benefits of our great nation.It is completely within our power to distinguish between these two categories of illegal immigrants and fully reasonable for us to do so without racial prejudice.
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am for the wall and MX tax

I would first like to address a few falsehoods and detracting generalizations in your argument. You continue to paint all illegal immigrants with a very broad brush and refer to them as "filth", "garbage" and my personal favorite "lowlife greasers". While your deep seated concern for American lives is respectable, it is completely unfounded. Out of the 11 million illegal immigrants and the 20 million legal and naturalized immigrants (according to the 2011-2013 immigration statistics) which you can find on http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states  only 1.9 million of the total 31 million immigrants have a criminal record. To present that in another fashion, out of the total 31 million legal and illegal immigrants, only 6.1% of them have committed crimes, save for the 11 million coming here undocumented which is moot. That is an incredibly low crime rate for any demographic, especially considering that you have labelled them as "filth" and "garbage". Compare, if you will, this percent to the percent of males in the U.S who have criminal records which is 45%. I would also like to point out that this wall is going to be an ineffective waste of taxpayer dollars. If the goal of the wall is, as you say, to stop the flow of contraband, criminals ect. then instead of capping a brewing wound you should fight it at the source. President Trumps own pick for head of Homeland Security said that a wall will be largely ineffective, and instead funds should be focused on stemming the problem at the source. If you would like to read more of his interview with John McCain you can find it here. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/homeland-security-john-kelly-border-wall.html? r=0
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Thats a fine answer daver , as an Irishman I and many others worked in America ( a fine country) illegally and legally ; a lot do it short term , long term people normally get legalised , get married , settle and pay back taxes to the government .We are having the same debates this side of the world most countries have illegals good and bad coming in , I would never demonise people fleeing oppression or dire economic circumstances to feed their families , are any of us any different if we were in their shoes ?
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Yes. Europe is especially plagued with Muslim immigrants right now, who, to a too large extent do not come to assimilate but rather to simply spread. OK now you've gotten me started ------- stand back. Islam has been at war with itself since Mohammad died, some 1500 years ago. To further complicate the matter, Western society has changed during those centuries to a greater awareness of human rights, as well as basic freedoms. This has not happened within many Islamic societies who cling to Sharia law. The resulting problem for Western societies becomes finding a way to accurately distinguish between so called moderate Muslims and would be Terrorists. Rather than being a racist or Islamic issue, in truth, it's simply a need for proper distinction, which so far, eludes us all. What to do?
Debate: Building the border wall and paying with it through 20% tax
Side: I am against wall and tax

Yes , it is a huge problem indeed and the problem which the PC brigade hate to mention is actually Islam itself , as the religion is by nature regressive and divisive and is certainly not tolerant or inclusive of other lifestyles . May we live in interesting times :)