azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I think it is the nature of society. You will always have a few As, extra Bs and a whole lot of Cs, even if the standards for a C become that of an A.Thank you so much for the "even if the standards for a C become that of an A" part.You mean to tell me that if all, or most (say eighty per cent), American students will start to earn A's, fully understand all concepts taught, pass all tests and complete all assignments, for the next decade, and we raise the standards of public education so that A's become the new average, then come up with a new grading system, and result in a time when no one will watch that idiotic show "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader" because the answer is "yes", when Americans can finally make a better car than Japan, when the one-fifth of Americans who now cannot locate the US on the map (sad but true) can, and the facts in the book The Dumbest Generation by Mark Bauerlein no longer holds true, we, the United States of America, are still going to be in the same conditions as we are now?This is why I think corruption is unavoidable, there will always the less intelligent who feel inclined to take short cuts, or sleaze by.Finally, short cuts are good. Applications: reading/skimming textbooks, not doing homework (or just most) in college because they only count between ten and thirty per cent, test out of classes, investments, hire a lawn care service, and so much more.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

You mean to tell me that if all, or most (say eighty per cent), American students will start to earn A's, fully understand all concepts taught, pass all tests and complete all assignments, for the next decade, and we raise the standards of public education so that A's become the new average, then come up with a new grading system, and result in a time when no one will watch that idiotic show "Are you Smarter than a Fifth Grader" because the answer is "yes", when Americans can finally make a better car than Japan, when the one-fifth of Americans who now cannot locate the US on the map (sad but true) can, and the facts in the book The Dumbest Generation by Mark Bauerlein no longer holds true, we, the United States of America, are still going to be in the same conditions as we are now?You should read what I said again.Variation always exists within a population, and it follows from this that even if you raised the intelligence of each citizen by fifty points, you would still have gaps between the brightest, bright, and new average which is actually where the brightest were before.If you found ways to make everyone exceptional for a generation, the next generation would be people who are that capable on average and vastly better when exceptional.These gaps in intelligence would allow for the ultra-intelligent to exploit and manipulate the intelligent.However it must be said that the first condition of my argument would probably vanish. The population would be more capable at running government, it's just that the scene would remain similar due to one group exploiting another.Finally, short cuts are good. Applications: reading/skimming textbooks, not doing homework (or just most) in college because they only count between ten and thirty per cent, test out of classes, investments, hire a lawn care service, and so much more.I've often found that in a competition with one who takes short cuts, I come out the victor over them.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Variation always exists within a population, and it follows from this that even if you raised the intelligence of each citizen by fifty points, you would still have gaps between the brightest, bright, and new average which is actually where the brightest were before.However it must be said that the first condition of my argument would probably vanish. The population would be more capable at running government, it's just that the scene would remain similar due to one group exploiting another.I never said there lacked variation in society, or want this variation to disappear. We must have variation to compare things and concepts. Raising the overall intelligence of everyone would enable better understanding and appreciation of current things. And though it may solve current problems it does generate new issues. By increasing the average lifespan in the States causes of death such as infections is decreased but give rise to cardiovascular diseases and cancers. But before new problems arise, society as a whole would experience little to no problems for a short while. Is this short while not enough to stir action and change?These gaps in intelligence would allow for the ultra-intelligent to exploit and manipulate the intelligent.If in the current society the common in power exploit the common not in power, and in the advanced society the ultra-intelligent exploit the merely intelligent, then by law of nature, if we are to compare the "lowest" members of society to the bottommost species on the food chain, no matter what situation we are in, exploitation is inevitable. Thus we all must embrace the fact inferior people always stand to be exploited, and superior people will always exploit. And each person is best to know his/her place in the world and accept destiny.George Orwell wrote "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" which not only applies to Animalism/Communism, but to every society/forms of government. No matter what may occur humans can no more escape their predator/prey instinct than they can their own skin.The best option then is for those with power to always use and manipulate those without power, and those without power should always obey as they can do no better in any society.Thus to halt corruption, we must allow corruption to take place fully; when all is corrupted, none is corrupted.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Almost forgot to add an example to prove I was wrong. Martin Niemoller gave the following speech on January 6, 1946:They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.Science and history has clearly demonstrated that those in power should always exploit the weak, and the weak must accept their fate. I am now conviced corruption is the way we ought to live. Simply give into corruption and it will disappear.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

It depends whether, by "government", you mean "state" or you mean "system of governance".When most people refer to government (of a nation or country, rather than something like student government of a university), they are referring to a state. A state is defined as an institution which has, and either wields or reserves the right and capacity to wield, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (violence).Some nations or countries may lack a state (like Somalia, or the Duwamish) and may be ruled or occupied by another state (like Palestine or Tibet). In some of these cases, such as Palestine, some form of governance may exist (in order to delegate rote tasks like refuse collection), while in others, many (or no) such system may be in place.As another example, during the Spanish Civil War, parts of Spain had been removed mostly or entirely from the aegis of any state's power, but operated under formal governance without an institution that claimed a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.All of these examples are very different, and help to illustrate my answer:Absent a state, corruption can be eliminated (anarchist Spain tended in this direction before its successful destruction by communist and fascist forces; that isn't to say that it was a utopia, but that its trajectory was toward the creation of a truly egalitarian society) but may not be (Somalia, Palestine).If a state exists, corruption is not just inevitable but built into governance by design. A claim to have monopoly on the legitimate use of force is itself a corruption, by definition. Such an institution grants itself, under threat of violence, the ability and even the duty to define (and redefine) virtue or right behavior as it sees fit, and obligates itself to treat as illegitimate and repress any challenge to its determinations in this regard (failure to do so undermines its monopoly, and thus its legitimacy).The corruption of a state can vary, depending both on its strategy to maintain power (the more democratic states tend to favor "soft power" where effective; more autocratic states tend to be more repressive) and on its fragility (a contested state tends to wield its monopoly more), but at its root a state is inherently built on coercion. The only form of authority which is not tainted in this way is that which derives solely from the consent of its subjects. Consent and coercion being mutually incompatible, a state is inherently corrupt.This may seem like a wordy regurgitation of the adage, "power corrupts...", but it should be taken to be more nuanced. Power is not what's being denounced: a talented athlete, for example, can possess and exercise power without resorting to coercion. As can a talented orator. Power should be understood as the ability to effect, not necessarily to coerce.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

I'm an optimist and I'm laughably surprised by how many people marked "yes" on this. Going on a slightly unrelated tangent, I find it strange that CreateDebate is over 50% Conservative, which is like the definition of political pessimism, and yet there is an overwhelmingly positive response to this question. Makes me think about the silly flaws in my own beliefs. Ah well, no one's perfect.Focusing more on the subject at hand. I don't think it's possible to have a government absent of corruption simply because it's within human nature to sin (faith or no). Temptations are not impossible to overcome, but they're impossible to overcome every single time. Think in your own heart, the corrupt desires you gave into. Think you can avoid them every day for a year? How about four years? Most governments are more than a single person too, you just increased your odds big time. Yeah, seems like pretty impossible odds to me.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

Your surprise isn't surprising.I see this as a kind of engineering problem. Suppose you're a microchip manufacturer. The plan is to produce 1,000 working chips. You have a battery of tests to ensure that all the chips are working. Each test has a 90% chance of detecting any faults and thus fails to detect an actual fault 10% of the time. If you choose to use only one test on the 1,000 chips, you'll probably have 100 faulty chips which is pretty bad. Two tests would reduce this down to 10 and three would reduce the probable number of faulty chips down to 1. Adding additional tests would steadily increase your odds of having zero faulty chips, that is, a greater guarantee that your 1,000 chips really do all work. Indeed, a battery of more than 163 tests each being 90% reliable would reduce the odds of missing a fault to less than the odds of you and me both happening to independently choose the same atom in the universe.Going to the definition of political corruption:the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gainOk. So now suppose we're looking at 1,000 cases where a government official has used legislated powers. We need 163+ tests each 90% effective at identifying illegitimate private gain if present. We don't have a government absent of corruption in the strictest sense but the presence of corruption has no practical significance.So how could we seriously perform 163,000+ tests in any reasonable amount of time? We could have a computer system which monitors the use of powers and any personal gains made. It could red flag any correlations between the two and attach all the evidence which will be required in court to obtain a conviction.Political corruption can be approached as an engineering problem of a fairly routine variety. It's just that political philosophy doesn't teach engineering problem solving.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

No. I do think that it is possible to have a government with very little corruption that, for the majority of the time, is beneficial to the people. However, people are people and think bad things and make bad decisions. As long as people are human, there will be some corruption not just in government, but also in each and every one of us.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: yes

I think it comes down to job design. An artist friend told me he used to be a police officer and he figured that most people who join the police force are people who are politically right of centre. I disputed that. I said that my experience with people about to join the police force are politically representative of the population but have simply found themselves at a stage in their lives where they have several career options and they happen to prefer the police officer option. It is then in doing the job and finding themselves frustrated at times by liberal legislation, designed to do things like protect the human rights of suspects etc., that police officers become politically right of centre. My point is that people are shaped by their jobs and that their thoughts and behaviour are really a result of their job rather than their nature. If some part of the shaping is not desirable then redesign the job.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

If you look in history, power almost certainly corrupts the person. And even though it also shows we are not learning from it, what makes people think we will start anytime soon?
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

-bursts out laughing-Two words for you, my good friend: Human Nature.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

No. As long as humans run anything it is vulnerable to corruption and exploitation.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

As long as government had the power of coerion, corruption will always exist in government because the use of legal power is the driving force of corruption.
Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

Um, no. Human beings are not perfect sentient beings who will always carry out the moral/rational/effective decision. I think that particularly in the American system there is an appropriate balance of power and yet corruption gets worse and worse with the passing decades. There is no example of a government without some level of corruption, and for good reason: It's not possible to achieve.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

It is more a choice than beyond your choice. Although it is true that parents and society do their brainwashing to promote certain beliefs the fact that some individuals opt out or choose something else is evidence real choice is still involved.Personally, I think most people aren't so much choosing yes/no I'll hold a particular believe as they are choosing in which ways do they want to shake up their world. Because let's face it, the easiest thing to do in life is to go along with the flow. The hardest thing is to make a change against the norm, whether that is changing religion, moving far away, marrying someone different then you're expected, getting an abortion, taking an unusual job, etc. When people surrender to the socialization to belong to a particular religion it doesn't always mean they're all in, it also can just mean it wasn't a priority for them to challenge that which they can easily just pay lip service to. So ironically, not addressing their religion is in and of itself a choice. Why fight with your parents (or with religious conservatives on this site) when you can just not talk about it, and meanwhile exercise your choice in some other way more important to yourself.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

A well put argument.I can see an argument here for it being a choice as to whether or not you research the facts about religion, as you said "Not addressing their religion is in and of itself a choice," but that's not really a choice in belief. After choosing to research religion, and seeing the arguments, do you think one has a choice as to whether or not to accept the arguments, or do you think that the function of their brain at the time, in response to the arguments, is out of their control, and whether or not they find the arguments convincing enough to change their beliefs is therefore out of their hands, and not a choice?Look at Galen Strawson's argument against free will if my point doesn't make sense.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

It makes sense. And in fact the answer for whether or not it's free will may depend in part on each individual: whether their nature tends toward independence or compliance, their level of education and/or of intelligence, the random luck of which religion they were most familiar with to start with, etc.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

If it "isn't a choice", then atheism is incorrect. But we knew it was incorrect already.*
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

If it isn't a choice then why does it follow that atheism is incorrect?
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

As always, the anti Christian bigots swarm to any debate that gives them a forum to spew their anger and hatred. It's a reunion of bigoted judgmental hatemongers.So why not tell us all why you have developed such hatred? Some so called Christian must have tortured you to develope such hate?Now I want you to always blame Christianity for the actions of a few false Christians. Show us all the logic of bigots. Remember, all Black people are bad because of the color of their skin. Remember, all Christians are bad because of their beliefs.You speak of people growing up brainwashed and having no choice to what they believe?So tell us all, do you have a choice in your hatred towards Christians? Or were you brainwashed into it.It matters not because people have the ability to change and replace their hatred with love and forgiveness.It's up to you if you want to choose God's forgiveness, or the world's insecure hate.It's all a choice. It's a choice such as supporting the killing of viable unborn babies when you vote for the Democrat Party, and it's a choice where you spend eternity.Choose wisely.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

I'm not sure if you're speaking to me, but I'll act as of you are.This debate was never meant to be about brainwashing/indoctrination, at least not as a main focus. The question about choice is this (adapted from the words of Galen Strawson): You believe what you believe, in any given situation, because of the way you are.To be ultimately responsible for what you believe, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you believe.In other words, belief is not a choice.If brainwashing was the only factor I would see belief as a choice, but brainwashing isn't the only factor, and it certainly isn't always present. If you weren't addressing me, you might have a fair point with regards what some people are saying about indoctrination.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

This debate was never meant to be about brainwashing/indoctrination, There are atheists even on this site who admit were brought up as atheist.There is an irish father on this site who trains his kids in atheistic manner(not 100% for his religiois wife sake) and makes his children believe in the unproven evolution theory as fact So don't come here being all hypocrite. Like you are not aware of that. Atheism indoctrinates so why are you attacking religion only.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

"Is religious belief a choice?" is the title of this debate. That goes both ways, so I'm not only talking about belief, but lack of belief too. Me saying "This debate was never meant to be about brainwashing/indoctrination," doesn't imply that only religious people indoctrinate at all. I'm not attacking anything there anyways.In the debate description, where I said: "Religious people often speak about choosing to accept God into one's heart" that was merely to give some context, and I've never heard an atheist talk about choosing not to believe. When I said in the debate description: "If the correct answer is no, belief is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him?" Perhaps that was an argument against religion (on the assumption that there is no choice) but I only said it to match the context at the beginning, and I don't see anyone disputing it rationally.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

I don't see anyone disputing it rationally.Point of correction. No one is disputing it according to your rationality.Because it is blind and faulty.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

Dispute it then. Saying something is blind and faulty proves nothing but your arrogance. If God makes people who have no choice in what they believe, then blames them for not believing in him, then that is unfair, and therefore unjust, which is inconsistent with the God that most Christians believe in. What is wrong with that logic?
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: Yes, because...

Saying something is blind and faulty proves nothing but your arrogance.It is blind to the other complementing side(which is atheism indoctrinates also) and faulty when 1. you say therefore God cannot blame one for being atheists.2.Not all christians(specifically) were indoctrined in childhood. Some converted as adult atheists, muslims,pantheists, humanists etc. a good example is constantine.
Debate: Is religious belief a choice?
Side: No, because...

I didn't say anything that would imply that atheism doesn't indoctrinate. I agree that atheism can indoctrinate in the same way as religions. Why is it faulty that God couldn't blame one for being an atheist? If there is no choice, then what is he blaming them for. (Remember, the point I asked you to dispute was assuming that there is no choice, so your not allowed to make an argument as to why there s choice to dispute it.)I agree that not all Christians were indoctrinated into childhood, and that has nothing to do with what you are supposed to be attempting to dispute.Here again is what you are supposed to dispute: "Assuming that belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him?" Argue why my reasoning is wrong, or accept it as a valid point.