azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I agree with all of your statements. I think one of your most important points is the topic of having no constitution. Without the constitution, we would have nothing to fall back on and decide what America is really made of. Without it, America would dissolve and there would be no common interest between all Americans to uphold the constitution and enforce it's ways. With the constitution, we have guidelines for every single person, telling us things like every american has the right to freedom of speech, but also deciding whether or not someone should be punished in a cruel way.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

We as a people need a government. First of all, without a government there would be chaos, and we wouldn't have any kind of law or regulations. And the crime rate that we have would go up, but there wouldn't be anyone to tell us of an increase by percentages because there is nobody to do that, on any level. While life could be better for some people, it would be crap for others. If we as a people try to live without a government, that would be possible. But, it would be a whole mess, and as humans, we will form some sort of government in due time naturally. Living conditions, they wouldn't be regulated, Imagine living in a world without having running water, or heat or AC. The world our world would have such things for a time, but when everyone is worried about otter things, it will be non-exist ant. Clean water would be rare, for those who don't know how to get it, as water treatment wouldn't be regulated after a time, and wouldn't happen after longer. Money wouldn't have value, and theses with a lot of it, well they are not rich, and people with out a lot, not poor. One good thin would be everyone is now equal-ish. The chances of this happening, ie: total government failure in one day, is mostly not happening.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

We as a people need a government. First of all, without a government there would be chaos, and we wouldn't have any kind of law or regulations. And the crime rate that we have would go upAre you stupid? If there are no laws then how can the crime rate go up?
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

Having no form of Government would end in revolts, endless violence, and social unrest! The Governments purpose, or what it was instilled to do is to keep unity, peace, and provide services that one cannot provide for themselves. These include military defense, fire and police departments, roads, education, social services, and environmental protection. You may overlook these when thinking that having no Government would have little to no impact on this country, but by thinking this you are very far from right. With having no Government our country would be extremely vulnerable to attacks from neighboring countries or countries that do not like our country. Countries would be able to easily conquer our country because of our lack of a unified military force. Another factor that makes having no Government undesirable is the social services aspect. When a hurricane, tornado, or any other natural disaster hits, the Government is responsible for providing resources and aid for those injured or involved, they also take care of evacuating those who are in harms way of these deadly storms. Without this cushion of the Government people who were injured, trapped, or are about to be either of, wouldn't have a way to protect, evacuate, or care for themselves, which could lead in mass casualties. Without installation of the Government crime rate would be at an all time high. With no prosecution method for those who have committed serious crimes (shootings, murders, homicide, cannibalism, the list is endless) ruthless killers, mobs, cults, and mafias, would rule our country in terror. An example of this is in the movie "The Purge" with was created and directed by James DeMonaco and Gerard McMurray. The film synopsis of this movie states (In an America ravaged by crime and overcrowded prisons, the government sanctions an annual 12-hour period during which all criminal activity -- including murder -- is legal. James Sandin and his family face the ultimate test when an intruder drags the vicious outside world into their home. James, Mary and their two children struggle to survive the night while trying not to turn into monsters like the ones they are striving to avoid"(FilmSynopsis). This movie gives a close simulation as to what our country would be like if we didn't have the Government, but instead of being for only 12 hours, it would be for every hour of every day. After reading my argument I hope that I have convinced you that the Government (while having its flaws) provides protection, hospitality, and instills unity and peace in this country and that to take it away would be a mistake that would be irreversible.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I believe that having no government would be better in the end. One reason is because there would be no politics which cause most of the riots/fights in America. Also there would be no taxes so you wouldn't have to pay a government ever. There would also be no currency so it would be harder to have corruption. We would have to rely on each others skills to survive which could unite us. For example if I, as a farmer needed to build a house I would have to rely on someone that knows how to build one that they are doing a good job and give him some food as payment. Having to rely on each other on a more personal level could end up uniting us. Additionally, everything would be more local. There would be no chain nation-wide business that would force the local ones out of business because it would be hard to have employees on such a large scale with no unified currency. Therefore everyone would shop more local making the nation more community oriented which is a good thing. All and all, I believe that having no government would be the better way to go in the long run.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

You are right in most of if not all of your claims. Yes there would be less violence. As well as this the people would likely unite. Also less payment to the government is better. The fact that there would be more local trading points is very true. All of those good statements are why I agree with you.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree with you for a few reasons. Yes, not having any politics may reduce some conflict within society. However, without politics we wouldn't be able to effectively elect any leaders for our country which would leave our country in complete chaos due to its lack of authority; ultimately leading to even more altercations. I also disagree with your statement about currency. This is because without currency, corruption would occur even sooner due to people taking as many goods as they please without anyone working to produce more because they're not being paid to do so. Your vision of relying on each other's skills to survive is not a bad idea. However, this resembles a Feudal structure from the Medieval Period and statistically, these structures were unsuccessful in the long run as a result of specific groups not holding up their end of bargain.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

While you put up a good argument, I still believe that having a government is necessary. For example, you mentioned that it would be good to not have to pay taxes, but this is not entirely true. It would be problematic to not have taxes because that money goes toward things like cleaning the water supply. Without these taxes, many people would die because of drinking water that is harmful to them. Taxes also go towards things like firefighters and other organizations that keep the people safe. So getting rid of taxes would essentially make the world a lot less safe. That is why despite your strong argument, life without a government would still be heavily flawed.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

Nice argument, but I disagree with your statement. Firstly, riots and fights would be more prominent without a government in place, since there would be no law forbidding them and no consequences to discourage them. Taxes, although very irksome, and, to say the least, expensive, support things like infrastructure and social security. Also, corruption results from greedy people rather than money itself. It (corruption) can even occur in your example. Who's to say the builder will do a good job since there are no regulations guiding his work? He most likely will charge you more than usual since there will be a higher demand for builders and only a few people capable of building. Finally, although localized consumption may sound good, what will happen if one day a blight hits your community? No government will send you emergency resources, and other communities won't willingly give up a ton of resources when they have to provide for themselves too.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

Nice argument, but I disagree with your statement. Firstly, riots and fights would be more prominent without a government in place, since there would be no law forbidding them and no consequences to discourage them.No. This is a false dichotomy in which you misrepresent government as the only possible alternative to lawlessness and depravity. It's the same as demanding we must adopt Sharia law because otherwise we are destined to suffer in hell (or whatever is the Islamic equivalent). In no way, shape or form, have you put forward any kind of rational argument about why the citizenry cannot run its own police force and/or criminal justice system, without the intervention of a third party.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

you are infadel to go jahannam if you no practice of the islam.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

you are infadel to go jahannam if you no practice of the islam.No like Islam you go big boom boom.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I don't believe this to be true. While you say that we would rely on someone to build our houses or provide services we would have no regulated currency to pay them with. On top of this, lack of proper payment could cause disputes between people in a community. When the disputes happen there would be no one to settle them. Without the governments judicial system there wouldn't be a fair way to settle these disputes especially when they eventually turn violent. Lastly when you say the nation would be community oriented would there even still be our nation without a government. I think we would break into little towns or communities and those could die off because of lack of supplies from the government such as water or food when tragedies happen.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

You have made a decent argument about how it's a good idea in not having a government, but there are a few flaws. I would have to disagree with the benefit of not having taxes, because taxes is the only source of money that finances our country. Without taxes there would not be any money for education military, healthcare, and so on. I would also have to disagree with the benefit of not having currency. Without currency our country wouldn't be able to trade or interact with other countries. This would definitely disrupt the process of supply and demand, putting a HUGE dent in the economy.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I agree with some of the things you are saying but there is many cons. But a problem is there won’t be many riots but there will be a lot of violence. Everyone will fight each other for material to survive. Some people will not want to work with others but if they do there will be eventual corruption. Once a group has great power they will eventually try to conquer others. No government would be bad in the long run because there will be no one todo the job of the government. For example electricity, waste, and oil and other resources will be scarce. There will be anarchy amongst others and many will die. There will also be no hospitals available for the people in need. So all those people who need medication would die, and that would be a lot of people. No government would be bad for the people.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

But a problem is there won’t be many riots but there will be a lot of violence. Everyone will fight each other for material to survive. Some people will not want to work with others but if they do there will be eventual corruption.Nobody is arguing that there doesn't need to be some form of law and order. What people are rightfully questioning is whether that necessitates the existence of a centralised government. It is ironic that you would even mention corruption given the established facts of how often governments are susceptible to it. It is precisely the narrowing of the people involved in making important decisions about wider society which makes corruption such a risk in the first place. If no one person has complete control then that risk is subsequently reduced.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

While you have very valid points, if we had no currency how can we get things we need. Life would be a free for all. People would be rioting left and right trying to get food and supplies. The point of local is very true, but what about foods and materials that aren't local? How are we gonna transport them in a good and efficient way? Plus, how can we rely on each other, when we have a government and already have people betraying each other. How can we trust and rely on people without a government, when we can't even trust them in one?
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I understand your point about everything being more local, but when looking at it on the larger scale of things, is that the #1 most important issue facing our country? Yes, widespread chains do sometimes drive the smaller, local business out of company, but is that really as important as having safety regulations? No companies would be able to run if nobody was alive due to being murdered or shot. Also, fighting between the political parties is a big topic in the USA, however would getting rid of the government help that ? I don't think it would because people would still have their own opinions on issues. The only thing getting rid of the system would do is take away people's right to vote on certain problems, which would make our country chaotic and unorganized.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I would disagree with your viewpoint. Firstly, you're oversimplifying things by saying that no politics equals to no fights/riots. Even without the politicians and corruption, what to stop one person with extreme amounts of money/resources to rise up and take power? There would be no government workers to fund or organize the police, fire department, or any other necessitities. On your second point, the issue of cutting off currency, that in the end would do more damage than good. It would completely cut off the country from the world in economic terms, how would we trade or negotiate with countries in economic policies? There are just too many holes in the situation of living in a no government oriented land.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I agree with your arguments about the union upon survival and the big companies no longer forcing out smaller ones. However, I believe you failed to tackle one of the bigger arguments in that how vulnerable we would be as a country. Without a central unit to relay messages through or to look to for directions or ideas, it would be extremely difficult, almost impossible to unite together as one nation in time that we need to. This nation union would not only be important in fighting another country but also dealing with natural disasters or disease. So although small things such as loving your neighbor more and supporting locals businesses may improve, the country as a whole would be weak and easily torn apart.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree. Personally I think taxes are necessary. Although they can be annoying they are promoting general welfare and helping everyone i.e. public schools which allow education for all children. Also If there was an argument about a way of going about things we couldn’t unite. There is no possible way for everyone to always agree. There is no way of settling this dispute long term. There would be little order as well.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

Good argument but I would have to disagree with some of it. You mentioned that we wouldn't have to pay the government at all which can be a good thing but at the same time paying those taxes is a plus. When you pay taxes to the government they use that money to help improve things that need to be fixed or even just built for the people. You also mentioned that having no government could unite people but at the same time people may not want to partake in what is supposed to "unite people". If people don't want to be apart of something on a more personal level then how is stuff going to get done? Therefore, government is the better way to go.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

With no government means we wouldn't have an economy. This would lead to no corruption but we wouldn't have markets like you said because we wouldn't have money to buy essential things from the market. Paying taxes is essential because it protects you, supports you and your family, and gives food and water to people who need it. The weak would starve. We have seen what no government does. If you look at gangs in the 1970s, which is when the government had no control, the gangs killed and robbed and no one could stop them. If there was no government huge gangs like this would occur and there is nothing we could do to stop it.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree with you for many reasons. First, it would cause more disputes and fighting because there are no rules. The riots that happen today are usually stopped by police officers before they get out of hand. If we didn’t have a government there would be no one to start any of the fighting/killing. Next, having no taxes sounds good at first, but it makes the value of money go down. We wouldn’t have to buy anything, but then we would run out of resources because we couldn’t buy things from other countries and the government organizers are imports so it would be hard to get resources in the first place.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I disagree with your opinion that having no government would be better. You say there would be no riots caused by politics, but most riots are not a result of politics. I believe there would actually be way more riots, because people wouldn't fear punishment from the law. You also brought up the point that there would be no taxes. This would actually be a bad thing, because there wouldn't be funding for cleanup services, teachers, public transportation, road projects, parks, and more. So, while you do make some good points, I disagree with your statement that having no government is better than having one.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I have to disagree with your claim. Having no currency means no money, and having no money means that no one would ever have to pay for everything. Our country would run out of the resources it needs if we just blow through them since no one has to pay for anything. Also, large nationwide chain businesses keep out economy in good shape as a country. Lastly, there would still be riots and fights in America. People would try to gain power. That cannot be stopped without a government to shut them down.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

Although this is a very good argument, I would have to disagree with you. You are right that there would be no disputes when it comes to politics. However, I don't believe it would limit the fights in America because there would be no laws or overarching power. This would make it so people could steal, kill, etc. If this was allowed and no one was making sure it didn't happen, chaos would occur. Also, no taxes could be a negative because they pay for things we need such as clean water. Without taxes, we wouldn't be able to have things that are needed to stay safe.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree with this statement for a couple of reasons. One is that if we didn't pay taxes we wouldn't have our common needs such as roads or firefighters or police officers. Taxes from us pay for these things. Another reason why I disagree is with no government you have to think of other peoples situations, some could be really hurt from this if having a lot of currency and having it all go to waste or if someone doesn't know how to build anything and they are clueless on what to do in their life without a government. All in all, I think we do need a government so these things don't happen and we can live without any worry about this stuff.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

First of all, the majority of riots and fights is held by politics because our government prevents the reasoning for riots held over other needs. For example a serious riot would be held over food or jobs, which would be causes of having no government. So while it may completely erase the amount of riots with the cause of politics, there would be many more, because of the variety of societal problems following the erase of governments. Also in contrast to your point, the loss of the monetary system, and the regulations placed around it would cause an eruption of corruption in those that have the necessary needs and those that do not. In addition we would rely on each other to form our own societies. This is correct however it would not be a peaceful little town or community. In actuality they would either dominate smaller groups or be dominated by a larger group. Finally, because of the groups formed by localized people, the local areas would be more frequently robbed and run out of business as there would most definitely be roving bands of thieves. In addition there would be nobody to stop them with the loss of the police force. These are only some of the possibilities of what could go horribly wrong with the loss of the government.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I can see why you would think it would be beneficial to be free of government, however there are a few flaws in that plan. First, even though there would be no riots regarding the government, there would still be riots and fights over other issues and there would be no authority to stop the fighting, which would result in people getting hurt. Second, though you would get a tax break, there would be no economics system so you wouldn't be able to make any money in the first place. Also, it would be very unreliable to depend on other people's willingness to help you survive. Though it would be nice to be able to trust people to that extent, it is a little unrealistically optimistic. So, though your points are compelling, they are a bit unrealistic.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree with almost the entirety of your statement. No taxes seems good in theory but taxes are what pay to maintain roads, education and many things that keep the country working. No currency would stop most corruption but no currency would make transactions very hard. Bartering isn't efficient, if we use your example, if you are the person who built the house and you want a new shirt but you get food instead you would have to trade for a shirt. You could find someone who will trade you a shirt but what if they want cloth and not food so you have to trade food for cloth and then cloth for a shirt. This could be significantly longer and be many more steps. But if currency was used the farmer could pay you $20 for the (just go with it for the sake of argument) then you could pay the person with the shirt for the shirt and be done. With no nation-wide businesses it would be hard to get goods from other parts of the country or world because it would be expensive. Also with no nation-wide businesses there would be no jobs from those countries leaving people having to find different jobs and local businesses would likely be run by families the jobless people would still have to find new jobs. All in all, I disagree with most of your statement, and bartering is inefficient.