azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

No president in the U.S ever apology for his own people and around the world like Obama attack,blame,critic,and anti America in the history,even Mrs.Clinton,sorry,where is America value? Obama is the wrong man for the wrong job,the wrong person for the wrong place,and the wrong leader for the wrong country. Wake up, America! you still have better leader,most experience leader, smarter leader,stronger leader, America loving leader,and true America leader Mitt that can lead America to prosperity and will lead the world,in his leadership,he protect America, carry America value,and represent America principle,he is the hope of America,he is the America dream,he is the man that met the need of America now, America will rally with him in 2012,and they will replace Obama by Mitt in 2013, and sent Obama back to Illinois,so he can takes some vacation to Kenya. Mitt can be a great president,and so America will lead the world as Reagan did.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

First, that was an insanely painful passage to read. Second, admitting your own mistakes is an admirable quality. Do you not apologize or take responsibility for yours? That's all Obama has been doing. He's working to make us the country we pretend to be, so that we can actually model what great things democracy can do for a country. BUT, we can't fulfill that role unless we own up to where we've failed at this and change these things first.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

People in general, and the world opinion, may like Obama, and I admit he is a likable guy. But his personal likability, or his apologies, have not produced any tangible results in foreign policy. I don't believe him to be all that respected by foreign leaders, and he certainly is not feared. He is not even feared in his own party. Nations act in their own self interest, not because their populations happen to like our president. Witness the lack of real cooperation in Afghanistan by our NATO allies. Yes they sent support troops to work in the offices, be police, clean the latrines and cook. But put them out front to pull triggers on the bad guys? Not a chance. And no amount of Obama charm will make them do it.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

Witness the lack of real cooperation in Afghanistan by our NATO allies. Yes they sent support troops to work in the offices, be police, clean the latrines and cook. But put them out front to pull triggers on the bad guys? Not a chance. And no amount of Obama charm will make them do it.We're fighting in Afghanistan to avenge an assault on American territory and to bring the perpetrators and those who assisted them to justice. Why would we expect other nations to put their own citizens on the front lines? This is our fight, and we should honestly be thankful for the support that we do get. Instead, people like yourself complain that our allies aren't dying for us.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

One sentence in.......seriously, there is no way I'm reading all that.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

What is painfully clear is that Romney's own party didn't choose him and he quit his own race!
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

Someone upvoted Thomas... I'm calling shenanigans on this entire debate.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: No

It's either someone's hate bot junking up the place, or an 8 year old.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

This argument does not state "at what" would Mitt Romney be a president than Barrack Obama. First of all, Barrack Obama (it's Barack) does not exist so I would win the argument right there. But I will ignore this fact and move on. I choose that the "what" be the Stormin' Mormon Deuce of Clubs book club. Being that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and Obama not, Mitt would be a better president of the club. Argument resolved.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Points for originality.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Also points for originality.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------Ya.---------------------
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

The real question may be who wouldnt make a better President than Obama? This would be a very short list indeed!
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Wouldn't you be prouder saying "President Mitt Romney" rather than "President Barrack Obama"? I know thaty I would! I mean, Mitt Romney sounds so much more official! (;
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Mitt Romney before he was in Government had and created his business that created thousands of jobs boasted 15 billion dollar profit in the private sector. He has insight to how hard it is for business to start up and thrive and believe me it's not easy. If any of you are employed by someone other than a government or state job you need to look at small and large business and say thank you because we are the ones making your paycheck. Or if you work for a private business or corporation and rely on them for a paycheck your welcome. Obama has never done any of this so how would we expect him to know how to fix it. We need to wake up and realize that in order to run a strong country we need someone who understands business. So the answer is a overwhelming yes that Romney would have been a better leader and president.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Romney is more likely to balance the budget than ObamaRomney balanced the budget in 2003, as Governor Massachusetts. Romney balanced the budget in 2004, as Governor Massachusetts. Romney balanced the budget in 2005, as Governor Massachusetts. Romney balanced the budget in 2006, as Governor Massachusetts. Romney was able to leave money in the rainy day fund, even though he faced a 3 billion dollar budget deficit when he came into office. Romney turned around budget problems at the Winter Olympics, which was $239 million dollars short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympic_bid_scandal) Romney has promised to only spend money on things that we can justify borrowing money from China for to pay for.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Romney would be less likely than Obama to offend our allies:It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office and send it packing back to the British Embassy – not least as it was a loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is common sense. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html Gordon Brown was however treated shabbily when he visited the White House in March 2009, and denied a Rose Garden press conference as well as a dinner. To cap it all, the decision to send him home with an assortment of 25 DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz – which couldn’t even be played in the UK – was a breathtaking display of diplomatic ineptitude that would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World country. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/To-special-friend-Gordon-25-DVDs-Obama-gives-Brown-set-classic-movies-Lets-hope-likes-Wizard-Oz.html The mocking views of a senior State Department official following Gordon Brown's embarrassing reception at the White House in March last year says it all: There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment. One would have thought that this kind of monumentally shallow insult would have resulted in at least a formal apology and a reprimand for the official involved, but unfortunately Obama administration apologies are strictly reserved for the French and assorted enemies of the United States.Despite Nicolas Sarkozy’s distinctly unflattering opinion of Barack Obama, the US president has gone to great lengths to appease French interests, even going as far as apologising to the French people in Strasbourg for hurting their feelings over the war in Iraq. The Obama administration has also done its best to give Paris a lead role in the NATO alliance at Britain’s expense, granting it one of two supreme NATO command positions – Allied Command Transformation (ACT). This, despite the fact that France has for decades been ambivalent and obstructionist over NATO, and is failing to carry its weight in Afghanistan. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6106250.ece  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-at-Strasbourg-Town-Hall/ Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu 'a liar' while Obama retorted: 'You're fed up with him - I have to deal with him every day!' Read more:
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Romney would be more likely to improve efficiencies within the federal bureaucracy than Obama.Romney succeeded in Massachusetts, the Olympics, and in business by improving the efficiencies of the organizations that he led. Romney is aware of, speaks out, and has good proposals to make government more efficient. He said: "President Obama’s approach to human capital is, here as elsewhere, to let government take the lead. The federal government has been pouring money into retraining programs. In fiscal year 2009, the sum total was $18 billion for 47 separate employment and job training programs administered by nine different federal agencies. Seven of the 47 programs account for three-fourths of the spending, but all except 3 of the 47 programs overlap with at least one other program. Only 5 of the 47 programs have had their results thoroughly evaluated since 2004. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), “little is known about the effectiveness of most programs.” It also turns out that the little we do know has not been particularly heartening. A 2008 study found that one of the five, the Workforce Investment Act Adult and Dislocated Workers program, produced only “small to nonexistent” results. This is the kind of government waste, political horse-trading, and administrative chaos that has brought discredit on the federal government. We cannot afford to squander taxpayer money in this way. President Obama’s job retraining record is a live, ongoing demonstration of why federal spending in so many areas needs to be scaled back."
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

A Mitt Romney candidacy would help the republican party maintain sanity. We need our political parties to be sane. Our political parties should be open to moral people of all religions. A Mitt Romney presidency would do for religious minorities, what Obama has done for black people. Our political parties should be based on ideas, and not based on identity politics based on income or class warfare. Too often people with lots of education are not made to feel welcome in the Republican party, and a Romney presidency would help that. Our political parties should be based on ideas, and not based on identity politics based on region of origin. Currently the republican party is very strong in the south and rural areas, but very weak in the cities, the North East, and on the coasts. The republican party should stay a party of ideas, and reach out to non-rural candidates. Our political parties should be based on ideas, and not based on identity politics based on lack of education (anti-intellectualism). The republican party must reject the notion that we are going to hate, despise, and not vote for those uppity college educated candidates that think they are smarter than us, and keep embracing no-nothings like Sarah Palin. We should all aspire to be more educated, and prefer candidates who have done really well in school, instead of prefer candidates who where their lack of education as a badge of honor. This will be better for the long term success of the party to project a sophisticated image that is able to attract aspirational young people. Our political parties should embrace rich businessmen who are out of touch with the middle class, but want to help make the rest of us more prosperous, our federal government more efficient. It is stupid of us to require that our politicians be good at kissing babies, and making friends with millions of complete strangers.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Romney is a better leader than ObamaRomney has had more years of leadership than Obama. He was a leader at Bain Consulting for 25 years (many of these as the chief operations officer), and then started his own Business as its leader. Romney has had more success in leadership than Obama.Romney, who graduated at the top of his Harvard Business Management School, has learned more managment techniques than Obama.Romney, who met weekly with the opposition in Massachusetts, has shown a willingness to engage in the issues that Obama has not. Romney has been thinking about what he would do as president for the last 5 or 6 years. Obama swept into the presidency after only 1 partial term in the US senate, and was considered an underdog. Romney has been reaching out to people to help him figure out what to do, and everyone says that Obama has sort of locked himself in the white house and hid from everybody, not even calling or meeting with democratic leaders.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Obama incorrectly wants to create an entitlement society:Obama has inserted the federal government more deeply into health care (Obamacare), finance (Dodd-Frank), energy (XL Pipeline, Solyndra), environment, and labor (removal of the secret ballot, giving GM to the labor unions)Federal spending under Obama is now nearly a quarter of our GDP.Federal spending under Obama as a percentage of GDP has risen to the highest level since the national emergency of World War II.When the federal government takes more power, the free economy has less power to reward hard work, good business plans, education, and risk taking. The federal government gives out rewards inefficiently, and wastes a countries wealth.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Building ever costlier government entitlements is not the way to grow our economy:The dead hand of bureaucratic Washington can only stifle entrepreneurship.Government dependency can only foster passivity and sloth.We need to rein in government and unleash the extraordinary vitality and creativity of the American people
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

Romney is more likely to balance the budget than Obama. Greece has problems because their public sectors unions have bankrupted the nation, demanding higher wages than the tax revenues can support. Obama is totally controlled by the unions. Romney is not controlled by the public sector unions. Chris Christie, someone who has been very effective at confronting excesses from public sector unions, has supported Romney. Romney, as a republican from a very blue state, learned how to deal with sane policies, and will be trusted by independents to make needed reforms.Greece and Portugal were able to hide their debt. Romney wants to be fully transparent, and publish a balance sheet each year along with the federal budget.Romney's experience fixing broken companies will help him fix the finances of the federal governments. Romney's experience balancing the budget in Massachusetts without raising taxes prepared him to keep America from going bankrupt. Romney's experience preventing the 2002 winter Olympics from going bankrupt will help him prevent America from going bankrupt.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: yes

If trade laws are burdensome and antiquated, enterprise will stall:This is obvious, but easier to say than do. Romney, as a businessman with 25 years in business consulting, and almost that means years leading organizations as their CEO. Romney knows better than any other candidate how to keep our trade laws from becoming burdensome and antiquated. He is not just a social crusader responding to popular culture, but understands all the little boring details of making our economy successful. They are not very sexy issues, but these little boring things will help more Americans have jobs, if our president actually understands.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: Yes

Yes of course! Obama hates America! All he cares about is his face being put on the dollar bill!ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT!!
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: Yes

The current state of America is increasingly progressing with greater economic gains an the unemployment rate SLOWLY decreasing. Obama's slogan for the 2012 campaign is "forward"(the one for 2008 was "change"). Obama's advocates and himself have been pushing these great achievements they have seemingly triumphed in the last 4 years when in reality we are just climbing out of the hole Barack Obama dug us in 2008 and the subsequent time he has been president. I acknowledge Obama does not, in any way, deserve all is blame. Part is attributed to bush and his decision to enter the war we are still not put of people! Over a decade! However, with all this happening, Obama did not have the resources to spend trillions and trillions of our money on programs that will see failure sooner than social security and many other "government programs".  Obama has dug us into more debt than every other American president combined. FACT.  Mitt Romney is not the warmest of people nor the smoothest, socially, to say the least. But what Romney has is real economic and business experience which is what America needs to get out of its slum. The media and liberals criticize Romney for his Swiss bank accounts and offshore banking ventures when in reality this is the type of person we need.m America needs to turn profit and that is exactly what will happen with mitt Romney. Although I see the treatment of dogs as a large deciding factor in the upcoming election, if elected, Mitt Romney will prove to be a better president than Obama will be in his second term.
Debate: Would Mitt Romney be a better president than Barrack Obama.
Side: Yes

For one thing, Mitt is a TRUE AMERICAN. He has no other agenda but to perfect this nation. He loves the country. He has morals. Don't listen to all of the propaganda put out by the Muslim, LYING, TYRANT ASSama Hussein Obama and his band of JOKERS. It's true, most people who live in OUR country are not for what is good for all. Most are PARASITES. No matter if you are Republican or Democrat, you should want a better country. With all of the GARBAGE on TV and at the movies, WE will never be GREAT again. Most don't seem to care. Well, it is my opinion that sooner or later, WE will have a REVOLUTION. It can't possibly keep going this way. Blacks have more than anyone in this country as far as opportunity. Take a look at TV and commercials. See any blacks?? I think there are too many. Anyway, Mitt is honest and Obama is a LIAR. He has no political sense. Only sense he has doesn't many any. He carries his cents in his pockets. He should be, ARREST, TRIED, CONVICTED and EXECUTED, NOW. My humble opinion of course. Soon, if the LYING PUNK gets his way, WE will not have the right to OUR opinion. My name is Larry Velasco, AMERICAN and Hispanic who despises Barry Boy and everything he is and does. You can include the BEASTY Meshall too.
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: USA

The USA would demolish North Korea within weeks if they so wanted. The US' military spending is roughly 25 times North Korea's entire GDP.In fact, the US would beat any country. I dare someone to name a country that could likely defeat the US in war.
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: North Korea

Russia, we don't even know all the weapons they have........................
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: USA

Russia is probably one of the few that could stand a chance, but America would still overpower them. Most of Russia's weapons belong in the 20th century, not the 21st. And the whole "Russian secrecy" doesn't persuade me. Especially when the US has drones that obliterate entire towns under wraps.
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: North Korea

I think that Russians have stores have small pox as a weapon...
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: USA

America has smallpox too. Besides, I think the sheer amount of cash America spends on military would render any enemy impotent in the long run, unless they could like Blitzkrieg America or some shit.
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: North Korea

I actually wish america would fight DPRK so it would fall apart, (economy) but you know DPRK has one of the top militaries so 3 weeks is too low of a number
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: USA

Where is your source for DPRK having one of the best militaries in the world?
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: North Korea

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/active-force.htm
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: USA

The strength of a military is much more complex than the number of active troops of a country.
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: North Korea

You do realize that Russia did create the biggest nuclear bomb ever, and not to mention that they also have the fastest ICBM's in the world, and they technically are ahead of us in terms of nuclear weaponry. So if you're saying that we would kick Russia's ass that means you're either ignorant and stupid and belive the USA is still the best country in the world (In terms of weaponry)even though you don't know what technological advancements other countries have made in the past few years such as the one stated above, or you know something nobody else does which i highly doubt.
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: North Korea

They had all that tech during the war in the Middle East, yet still managed to kill more civilians than actual enemies. Having weapons won't do much if you don't have the intelligence to use them wisely. That being said, the US spends an insane amount of money of their military, making them probably much stronger than any other army in the world.
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: USA

Is the same not true for the United States ?
Debate: Would North Korea win in a war against USA
Side: North Korea

Russia would win without a doubt... Ya USA has more technology but Russia for sure has some of the best special ops teams/spies.. if they wanted to they could invade America and still have million more soldiers back in Russia.. Even if Russia didn't win that's either because USA nuked them or its been about 10 yrs of invasion n finally all those troops are dead... But Most likely if Russia and America ever did get in war we"d all be dead Because I'm about 85% sure that war would turn nuclear real fast. :D