azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Speaking and taking action are two separate things.I just said that.If you use your freedom of speech to say something racist and that offends someone, to bad for them, freedom of speech applies to everyone and every topic,But we shouldn't be encouraging it. Do you want nothing but trolls everywhere? we don't have to to talk about the weather, we have it to talk about controversial things. Now if you happen to make a THREAT, then that is different. Saying "I don't like Asians!" is one thing, saying "I'm going to kill Asians!" is another.But a threat is an attack on someone's personal safety, which is linked to their personal ego. A racial insult is an attack on their pride of race, which is also linked to their personal ego. Their personal ego is who you are. If someone said that your race was shit and a pestilence, that would be offensive. We shouldn't be offending people as much as we shouldn't be scaring children for life for seeing naked people on the street.I'm not making that kid lose his dignity, I'm saying you and/or the government have no right to tell people what they can and can't name their kids.But in doing that, you are giving a lot more children indigity.You seem to be confused. I am telling you to stay out of their lives because naming a child is a big part of a parents life, so, stay out of their lives!I'm saving their child's dignity and respect as a human being. Fuck their parents if they want to name their child Yoloswag, it's not on. And I know some teenage parents actually wanting to name their child similar things.Sometimes we need to put regulations on things for safety, in this case, to protect the safety of the child in their school years and older years where they will be judged for everything about them. It'd be quite hard to get in an interview with the name Yoloswag.Neither. I believe in a system that resembles the first amendment. Where there shall be NO laws passed taking away freedom of speech. That way its not the majority deciding or a few individuals deciding, no one decides and everyone's right to freedom of speech is protected.Sometimes we need laws against public nudity, yet you may argue that it is taking away our freedom of expression. Again, we have these laws for psychological protection. With the way you say it; do you actually support the Westboro Baptist Church for voicing their hate? Would removing them from the funerals they picket be a violation to their right of speech? I'm not bullying you, I'm joking around.Anyway, I've gotten bored of writing walls of text to you and you sending a wall back to me, especially that it is on a subject that is really starting to bore me. So I'll stop going on, maybe I'll catch you in a more interesting debate.It's a mutual curse. I often loath finding walls of texts in my argument activity daily.I'll see you in some other debate I guess.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

With the way you say it; do you actually support the Westboro Baptist Church for voicing their hate? Would removing them from the funerals they picket be a violation to their right of speech?I don't support them, however, I support freedom of speech. All people are entitle to it and they are no different because they share offensive views. And no removing them from funerals they picket is a violation of their right to assemble.Wait wasn't this debate supposed to end? Well, here we go again...
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Hence you believe they should be aloud to speak out their hate, and that any act to silence them should be stopped; possibly by law, if necessary.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

I believe they should, everyone should be allowed to speak out of hate, love, happiness, sadness, boredom, excitement, etc.Again, someone speech offending someone of being deemed morally wrong is not grounds to take their right to express themselves away.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Again, someone speech offending someone of being deemed morally wrong is not grounds to take their right to express themselves away.But we need to see what is more valuable first. Don't hide the words 'offensive, hate-mongering' behind the word 'rights'. The families that are hated on, despite them grieving over the loss of a close relative/soldier don't deserve the psychological anguish.The people spilling out the hate, don't deserve to spread anger and hate, and make the grieving families overwrought.Is it too much to ask to relieve people of such distress?Or do you just sympathize the people who must feel very depressed for not being able to to spill their hate, and spread anger on everyone?Because they must feel worse than the grieving families, because one of their 'rights' have been taken away from them.But seriously, think about the meaning of 'rights' and why they existed in the first place; to ensure order and general happiness. We'd do anything for the greater good, and happiness of everyone, but sometimes, certain rights can cause more harm than they're worth. We should have a flexible system that supports the best for everyone; not mindlessly following fallible rules with many cracks in between. Enough of this mindless conformity; we need to really look at what really helps us.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Didn't I just say that we need to look at what really helps us, instead of mindlessly following rules?Right here, the whole problem with your argument. Its not a rule, its an idea that says "don't make a rule pertaining to speech" setting rules over speech. Allowing for police to use force to punish those who say something that the sub-moron majority or the corrupt politicians in a far distant capital decided is "bad" is being blind. Opening the door for power hungry monsters to abuse this power to ban other speech is being blind. If you don't think this has/will happen, go look up what happened in the past when speech that was considered offensive to the "majority view" (uninformed idiot view)
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Don't just pick on a single argument, when I have lifted up questions like "would you sue a teacher from stopping children from verbally abusing a troubled child."
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

This is the main idea behind your entire argument, I'm tired of talking about nit-picky details of specific situations so I thought I'd just dispute your main belief.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Again, you ignore the question I have brought up, "Would you sue a teacher for stopping a child from being verbally abused?"They call it verbal abuse for a reason. Don't ever think that the people who committed suicide over verbal abuse never existed.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

They call it verbal abuse for a reason. Don't ever think that the people who committed suicide over verbal abuse never existed.Yeah I do, however, I'm not going to put a gun to someone's head and say "say something we don't like and you die" because someone over reacted in a case of bullying. You still didn't respond to my argument.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

You didn't respond to my other argument first.Right here, the whole problem with your argument. Its not a rule, its an idea that says "don't make a rule pertaining to speech" setting rules over speech. Allowing for police to use force to punish those who say something that the sub-moron majority or the corrupt politicians in a far distant capital decided is "bad" is being blind. Opening the door for power hungry monsters to abuse this power to ban other speech is being blind. If you don't think this has/will happen, go look up what happened in the past when speech that was considered offensive to the "majority view" (uninformed idiot view)You have shifted away from the examples I have provided before. You know, I know, we all know that stopping bullies from verbally abusing a child is the right thing to do. Would you ever protest against the rules in schools that prevent bullying?The well-being of those being abused verbally matters. Letting people enact nothing but hate doesn't matter. Fuck destructive expression, bless productive and positive expression. I'm not defining destructive expression as simply disagreeing with something; I am applying it to those who show clear irrational hate, such as the WBD. Don't say that this means everyone does not have rights, I will repeat again; I am only applying this to people like the WBC, or KKK, who bear an irrational hate that is plaguing our society. It is a hate without any positive outcomes from protecting.We are sane human beings, we can tell that the WBC or KKK are hate-mongering nutters. The WBD are not secretly correct, nor a misunderstood minority. Their hateful beliefs do not define our existence, because we know the world is more than the cage of their ideologies. Hate expressed from them is impeding the growth of society, and therefore must be reasoned with.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

You have shifted away from the examples I have provided before.You know, I know, we all know that stopping bullies from verbally abusing a child is the right thing to do. Would you ever protest against the rules in schools that prevent bullying?Do you understand the difference between a Federal Law and a school rule? There is a very large difference between a teacher telling kids not to be mean and the Government telling you that if you say something that they deem unfit they may take legal action against you. It is a school rule not a government law, the school can't take legal action or prosecute you in anyway. When you go to a school they have you sign a code of conduct form that says you agree to follow their rules why you are on their property. There is a world of difference between this and congress giving the government power to regulate and restrict speech.The well-being of those being abused verbally matters. Letting people enact nothing but hate doesn't matter.Freedom of speech matters.Fuck destructive expression, bless productive and positive expression. I'm not defining destructive expression as simply disagreeing with something; I am applying it to those who show clear irrational hate, such as the WBD. Don't say that this means everyone does not have rights, I will repeat again; I am only applying this to people like the WBC, or KKK, who bear an irrational hate that is plaguing our society.It is simply disagreeing though. You simply disagree with their feelings and emotions and you don't like them expressing their views. No matter which way you spin it, it comes down to disagreement. We are sane human beings, we can tell that the WBC or KKK are hate-mongering nutters.Because we disagree with them. You can respond to them if you like, when the KKK says "all niggers are bad!" you have the right to say "go back to your trailer, white trash!" You have rights, they have rights, they don't deserve to have their rights taken away because you disagree with their hate.The WBD are not secretly correct, nor a misunderstood minority. Their hateful beliefs do not define our existence, because we know the world is more than the cage of their ideologies.I think people understand that they don't define most people...Hate expressed from them is impeding the growth of society, and therefore must be reasoned with.How, because a homosexual gets offended when some fat red neck holds up a "god-hates-fags" sign? That's not impeding the growth of society at all, its just offensive. Restricted speech, now that impedes the growth of a society.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Do you understand the difference between a Federal Law and a school rule? There is a very large difference between a teacher telling kids not to be mean and the Government telling you that if you say something that they deem unfit they may take legal action against you. It is a school rule not a government law, the school can't take legal action or prosecute you in anyway. When you go to a school they have you sign a code of conduct form that says you agree to follow their rules why you are on their property. There is a world of difference between this and congress giving the government power to regulate and restrict speech.There is still more danger included in verbal abuse. I haven't spoken about taking harsh legal action against offenders, I just think they should take measures to prevent it.Freedom of speech matters.Why? Why does negative, unproductive, untruthful, delusional speech matter?It is simply disagreeing though. You simply disagree with their feelings and emotions and you don't like them expressing their views. No matter which way you spin it, it comes down to disagreement.But it's a logical disagreement to their deluded beliefs.Because we disagree with them. You can respond to them if you like, when the KKK says "all niggers are bad!" you have the right to say "go back to your trailer, white trash!" You have rights, they have rights, they don't deserve to have their rights taken away because you disagree with their hate.They deserve to have their rights taken away if it means people will get negatively affected, influencing suicidal acts. A person dead means all their rights that they can possibly express is taken from them from death.I think people understand that they don't define most people...I'm saying their beliefs don't bear any viability. Their world does not work in the real world.How, because a homosexual gets offended when some fat red neck holds up a "god-hates-fags" sign? That's not impeding the growth of society at all, its just offensive. Restricted speech, now that impedes the growth of a society.It generally makes people pissed off about them. Restricted speech does impede society, but not their speech which everyone dislikes. Do you think letting them spread hate helps us/ makes us happy/ improves our society?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

The families that are hated on, despite them grieving over the loss of a close relative/soldier don't deserve the psychological anguish.Of course they don't deserve that anguish; they didn't deserve to have a member of their family taken away from them, either. But the WBC has the same freedom of speech as any other non-violent hate-group. Polite speech does not need protection, and if you start policing offensive speech, you will soon find yourself censored as well.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

But what would be worse? Letting these families be oppressed by them, or stopping the hate-mongering?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

But what would be worse? Violating the principals of free speech and free assembly. Those families aren't being oppressed so much as they are being harassed. It's disgusting, but it's American. They already have restrictions; jump to the bottom of page 31.http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1627enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1627enr.pdf
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

But it is only 'violating' the negative, unproductive, and hate spreading speech that is impeding the progression of society.I only chose the funerals of soldiers as an example; there are many other examples that don't have restrictions. Such as spreading delusion, verbal abuse, threats. If stopping children from verbally abusing a child is the right thing to do, why is it not considered right to stop verbal abuse upon others?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

But it is only 'violating' the negative, unproductive, and hate spreading speech that is impeding the progression of society.Polite speech need not be protected."If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989)."[It is] often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual."Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971).If stopping children from verbally abusing a child is the right thing to do, why is it not considered right to stop verbal abuse upon others?It is a different matter altogether where children are involved. I truly find the WBC's involvement of very young children despicable. However, by and large, these protesters are adults. They are endowed with all the rights delineated within the Constitution. Once you silence a group, no matter how unsavory their speech, you open the flood gates of censorship in the public forum. They have not engaged in violence, nor do they advocate or incite violence. If that were the case, subduing their speech might be advisable.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Polite speech need not be protected."If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989)."[It is] often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual."Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971).You are using the words of other people to justify the potential damage caused by threats, absolute racism, and the spreading of delusion, of which is not 'disagreeable' but illogical. It is a different matter altogether where children are involved.Children aren't located completely to the other end, they a human beings, just like adults, and as human beings we can take offense to certain things and feel ostracized and mistreated. Some adults even have the mind of a 'child'.I truly find the WBC's involvement of very young children despicable. However, by and large, these protesters are adults. They are endowed with all the rights delineated within the Constitution.The Constitution is a fallible man-made idea with cracks in between.Once you silence a group, no matter how unsavory their speech, you open the flood gates of censorship in the public forum.Does this have to happen all the time when you aim to be helping the victims of their delusion? Disagreeing with their delusion doesn't always come down to opinion; what they believe is completely illogical, and the actions they take to disservice society are not justified and must not spread around the world.They have not engaged in violence, nor do they advocate or incite violence. If that were the case, subduing their speech might be advisable.They have threatened an eternity of suffering on a great deal of the public, and have bereaved many grieving families, likely promoting suicide. People witnessing their actions around the world may become hateful. A whole world of people who have reason to be hateful over something more would have negative effects around the world. It would just make everything worse.Anonymous has taken acts against the WBC, silencing their website and such. No 'floodgates' have opened for society from that.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Again, someone speech offending someone of being deemed morally wrong is not grounds to take their right to express themselves away.As much as I despise the WBC, they have a constitutional right to do what they do.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

But this constitutional right; is it really helping out, in this particular case? Is it really the best choice over the grieving families?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

I hope you realise the people who named their kid Adolf Hitler were from New Jersey and the Government trampling all over their "rights" is the American one not a European one.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

I hope you realize that I was referring to the over all idea, not single instances. Look at the American Constitution for example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."Now look at The French Declaration of The Rights of Man and of The Citizen: "No one is to be disquieted because of his opinion, even religions, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law."The difference is the Americans basically say: You the have freedom to express your opinions and religion and there shall be no law made against this.Where as the French basically say: You the have freedom to express your opinions and religion as long as the government doesn't say you can't.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Whereas in practice the opposite seems to be true if in America you truly have freedom one of those being freedom of religion why does it take a Muslim or someone who doesn't look "normal" twice as long to get through airport security even if they have done nothing suspicous? America may have the right to peaceful assembly etc but that only works when the government uphold it, read the OCE report about use of excessive force, kettling, arrests of journalist, breaking up of protest camps etc, the constituition may say you have the right but the government and police are making sure you don't get it. Wave the constitution about all you like but unless everyone in America receives the rights and freedoms promised by it its worthless.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Whereas in practice the opposite seems to be true if in America you truly have freedom one of those being freedom of religion why does it take a Muslim or someone who doesn't look "normal" twice as long to get through airport security even if they have done nothing suspicous?They don't. We all have to go through a ton of airport security now and I have been stopped and searched a couple times, I may be a large man, but I'm not wearing "I <3 9/11" shirt or anything. We all get stopped. This is why I am against the TSA.America may have the right to peaceful assembly etc but that only works when the government uphold it, read the OCE report about use of excessive force, kettling, arrests of journalist, breaking up of protest camps etc,I am not supporting this, I believe that many politicians trample the constitution every day.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

"People have the RIGHT to not feel traumatized, bullied and offended, "No one has a right not to be offended. You only have a right not to be assaulted, or stolen from. In a free society, with free speech, you are almost guaranteed to be offended by something someone says.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

No one has a right not to be offended. You only have a right not to be assaulted, or stolen from. In a free society, with free speech, you are almost guaranteed to be offended by something someone says.It still does not make it okay.Bullying from having an odd name implies possible assault, as well.