azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Why shouldn't we be watched? If you aren't doing anything illegal or even anything immoral, why would you worry about people watching you? I wouldn't care less. I believe it would make us much safer than we currently are.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

Stores usually have security cameras just incase anyone decides to shoplift or if something else happens, not necessarily to watch what you are doing. If people see that retail stores have surveillance systems individuals would be less tempted to steal or engage in unauthorized activities
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

No, I don't want to give up my privacy for national security. Ensuring national security not only takes away our privacy, but gives hackers more of an opportunity to figure out ways to hack the national security. This leaves us with no privacy and no safety.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

There is no need for privacy or concern about hackers if everyone does what they are supposed to do and has nothing to hide.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

We live in the real world, everyone has done SOMETHING they want to hide and having the government know ANYTHING about me that they already don't know honest to God terrifies me. We're already supposed to do so many things and now we have to be perfect?
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

How do we really have privacy if its so easy for hackers to hack into our information and for the government to watch what we are doing?
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Having no privacy doesn't guarantee national security. It does guarantee that we become more vulnerable to hackers and outside sources. We would live in a world where all eyes are on us and we can't feel comfortable anywhere.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Even if we have nothing to hide people act differently when we are being monitored and watched. This in itself promotes inauthenticity and causes people to act differently than they normally would. Allowing no privacy.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

If people are acting differently when monitored or watched, and are being watched at all times, wouldn't this mean they wouldn't commit crimes because they know they'd be caught?
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

I do not think we should be giving up our privacy. They say we are ensured national security yet hackers and terrorists are able to so easily access our information. I am not willing to give up my personal information for something that is not guaranteed.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

The CIA already has a lot of data on the average person, just from their social media accounts and using the web. We're already vulnerable to hackers, and this is with our privacy. Giving it up or being monitored isn't really going to change that.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

How do you know that for certain? I certainly don't know how much data the government holds, and I'm very certain most of our social media accounts are somewhat private. I think the bigger thing here is text messages on our phones is some of the privacy we would give up in a scenario like this.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

There has to be an in-between solution that protects national security without violating our civil liberties. Having cameras watch our every move will ensure absolutely no privacy, and access to this footage could potentially get into the wrong hands. Also, what would cameras do to thwart an attack if it is happening in real time? We need solutions to protect our security before something happens.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

your opinion is neutral. you should to stand an absolute position.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Video footage can be hacked and accessed by people who would abuse it. Even if video footage were present, I agree that it would not do much to help the attack in real time and may not even provide much evidence for later. With excess amounts of cameras and an abundance of footage, authorities may react more quickly at warning signs that may not lead to anything at all.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

There is no way to ensure National Security ever. In that this argument is irrelevant. Nothing in life can be 100%.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

With the number of corrupt members of the government, which is quite a lot, there is no guarantee that they will not take control over the surveillance or whatever they're using to give us no privacy and "protect us" for their own gain or use the content gathered to their benefit.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Keeping in mind the government or corporate men that run alongside the government, there is nothing telling us they won't find a way to make profit out of the situation, which I personally believe will completely be the case.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

if there was no privacy, a persons freewill is compromised. people will start making decisions based of being recorded instead of what they want to do.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

This was a really good argument that I didn't think of before. People would change how they act due to the constant surveillance.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

There is always a way around any situation and terrorists or potential threats to national security will find a way to get around the surveillance or the system they out in place to take our privacy away. We lose privacy only to get attacked anyways.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

I have a problem with the government intercepting my communications. I should be able to trust the government to protect me against the evils of the world such as terrorists, for example, but instead they take their spying to the next level and monitor the people of its own country. This is happening by the CIA spying through peoples televisions, cellphones and laptop cameras. Our daily lives are being monitored and watched. There should only be cameras in stores or restaurants to help catch criminals. Not for the CIA to watch "live action sitcoms."
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

I disagree with the notion that a nation needs to get rid of privacy in favor of security, because security should not come before individual rights. By giving up privacy in favor of security, we are in effect giving up our individual in favor of a community, this translates to an authoritarian government which can oppress.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Personally, I don't believe that we can ensure national security. Therefore, how could we just give up our freedom of privacy to someone that cannot guarantee that absolutely NOTHING will happen to our country?
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

True, for national security to know everything about me does not mean that I will be safe and protected from everything. There is no need for my information to be exposed. It is important for me to expose what I think is necessary and keep my private life private, this will keep me safest. If I did do something wrong, then I have to give up my privacy.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

This is a great point. Even if we give up all of our rights as a society and allow this kind of hyper surveillance, there is NO guarantee that anything at all will change. Terrorists will still find a way to attack if they want to, rapists and murderers will find away around this technology, the only true thing that will change is that average citizens will have no right to privacy and increased information on them in the hands of the government.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Very good point. Why would we give up the way we live when everything and anything is extremely uncertain these days. Hackers and attackers are skilled and just because surveillance would be put on them doesn't mean they will stop and will be caught
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Just because we have full security does not mean we are safe. There are very good hackers out there and bad things still happen even with security cameras everywhere. It is possible for people to disguise themselves and even steal identity if they can hack a security system. It is important to keep whatever information we can private so we can prevent our information from being stolen.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

I agree with you, no matter what we could always potentially be unsafe due to technology and people who are extremely skilled in this field. There is always going to be a sense on uncertainty and a lack of safety but we can't let this dictate how we govern our societies.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

National security does not guarantee 100% safety, but it stills makes the statistic for safety higher than it would be without this security which is important when considering potential criminals actions. We want to know that at least some of these harmful individuals could be stopped even if its not guaranteed that they all can be.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

The government should not be allowed to watch our every move. With the notion of supporting national security, this means we will handing over our entire lives to the government. They will be able to watch us every second of the day and learn about our every day whereabouts. Even if you are someone who does not tend to do anything wrong, I would not feel comfortable being watched and knowing that my every move is being analyzed.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

As it is now, we see the issues increases surveillance by the government and other companies, in WikiLeaks and the current Facebook scandal. If we increase surveillance even more, these problems will only get more and more visable in society. Do we want to become "1984" where there's no escape from the government's eyes? Do we want to take ideas from communist countries where people who violate the slightest, strictest rules (like talking bad about the government) and get sent away, taken from their families and friends? While these are extremes, increased surveillance will only give more power to the government and less to the citizens under the guise of 'safety'.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Privacy is a basic right that we all deserve. By having privacy, we are able to live our lives. We shouldn't be under the watchful eye of a "Big Brother" type because that hinders our abilities to be our true selves. Although there may be some bad people in the world, I'm sure we can still find ways to stop them.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Oops can't erase comment fully.....just ignore. :D
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

The Constitution, thought the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th, amendment protects and ensures Americans a constitutional right to privacy. Privacy, going hand and hand with personal freedom, is a guaranteed American right. Removing privacy prohibits people from living their full and best lives. In a world without privacy, discretion and discreetness is long gone, which is harmful to us all. On a personal level, the more of your data and life is exposed to the internet leaves all of us more vulnerable to digital attacks. It's hard to protect against these kinds of attacks as well. Todd Davis, founder of ID theft protection company LifeLock put his Social Security number and his personal data out there for people to steal, betting that his security was good enough that people couldn't get it. Turns out, he bet wrong and his ID was stolen 13 times before he withheld some of his data. While all of us aren't putting our social security numbers on billboards, we are willingly handing our SS numbers (and infinitely more data) to any company that requires us to sign terms and conditions. A lack of privacy does not necessarily equate to more security for us on a personal level. Looking in a more broad sense, removing privacy doesn't move society forward by much either. Corporations have a lot to lose if privacy is on the line. There are trade secrets and insider information that is only valuable so long as its secret. If they lose their ability to keep their data safe from hackers, what can drive the economy forward? Lack of privacy also does not ensure perfect security for everybody. Yes, Treyvon Martin's death is a devastating tragedy, and a security camera may have produced more justice. However, it wouldn't have necessarily saved his life. A lack of privacy is more dangerous than the alternative option of having privacy and discretion.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

we need privacy, how would you feel if you knew that the government could watch you through your television and record you. To have someone, who you don't even know, know everything about you by watching you. What happens if one day the government takes the wrong turn, we couldn't be safe because they would have infiltrated every aspect of our lives.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Many would argue that we shouldn't be against having no privacy if we have nothing to hide, but anyone that says they literally have NOTHING to hide is lying.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

No one wants their privacy invaded by anyone they know, so what's the difference if it's the government? Imagine you're walking down the street one day and one of the men that watches the footage of your day to day life goes "Hey I know you, how was the Taco Bell you had yesterday?" I mean no one would want that, even if they don't say it, someone out would know about every single thing you did.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

The minimum argument length is 50 characters.I need free but pricvacy.I don't want quit the real world,And no matter how worse the world is, I will working on build a better world.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

We shouldn't have to give up our privacy for something that cannot be ensured. There is no definite way for the entire country to be safe, therefore, I would rather keep as much privacy as I can. Even though I may have nothing to hide, it's nice to think I can keep things to myself without having someone watching me all the time. If someone was watching me all the time I feel like I may not be my true self.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

By giving up our privacy, this could potentially make terrorist and anyone who may be a danger to our country smarter in the way they act. Personally, I don't believe that it will stop anyone from hurting us because they will continue to find even sneakier ways around it and since the government would assure us that there will be national security, they may not be on-guard as they should be for terrorists, due to the fact that they think they will be seeing EVERYTHING since we would have no privacy.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

For a moment, imagine that you are in a reality tv show and your whole lives are being watched basically all the time. Would you like it? Do you want someone watching you all the time, knowing your every move? I'm going to go ahead and say no. Most people don't want that. So, with all of our technology nowadays that can be easily infiltrated either by the government or hackers, we are being watched all the time. Imagine you can't even sit down to watch television without worrying that the government can see you through your tv. It's the same with your computers, phones, toys, and more.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Even if we don't do anything wrong in our daily lives, it's still our lives, our business and we have a right to keep it private. So, even if I don't commit wrongdoings it's still my life and I don't think anyone has the right to infiltrate it without my saying so.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

We need privacy because as people there are things that we do that we do not want other people to know. Ensuring national security is a hard thing to do. Plus there is more or less a way to find privacy and anonymity if that happens without national security then who are we being protected from? ourselves?
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: YES

To answer your question, we are being protected from blackmailers and hackers. Ensuring national security is definitely difficult, but it isn't impossible. There are plenty of ways to make sure people our safe, like increasing the police population and increasing the number of cameras in cities.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

No one in the world is truly safe, and if anyone wants to truly believe that for a second they can trust the US government, of all governments, to protect them by giving up their privacy they are naive.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

There is no real protection when you give up a ig piece of your life and privacy is about as big as it gets
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Privacy is THE fundamental right, it's not even free speech because that one doesn't even mean what most people think it means, but privacy means just that, privacy. If we give that up not only are we not safe from attacks, but we're not safe from our own government.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Privacy is necessary to live a normal life, and out government taking that away with the promise of national security would be ludicrous. Technically I'm not even a part of this nation so I'd get my privacy taken away when I'm not even a state (Puerto Rico).
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

She is completely right... Puerto Rican people don't have the same rights as the other U.S. Citizens meaning why should we expose ourselves completely for a government who doesn't see us as equals and treats our country like garbage.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Puerto Rico isn't even a state, and by the history of how the US Government has basically strung us along they're not going to protect us and we're certainly not going to give up privacy because we'd be doing that for a government that isn't ours and a security that isn't ours.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

Privacy is extremely important, we need to understand it. For us to live in a world where there is freedom and trust, we cannot be watched all the time
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

I understand the point of wanting national security, although it has nothing to do with me, but privacy is just too important.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

I believe that a surveillance society is detrimental to our privacy. Adding to this, we have seen countless examples of school shooters etc that have posted their plans online, just to have nothing done to stop them.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

The little privacy we give through use of social media is already a threat to our lives,so guess what will happen when we willingly offer all our privacy to the government. What am saying is the government is made of people who just like any other human, are not perfect. Some may want to use the privilege of accessing our privacy for their own malicious use. And what happens when one government hands on to another? Won't the outgoing use what information they have about the incoming government to pull them down.
Debate: Do we want to live in a society that ensures national security yet no privacy?
Side: NO

He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither............................................................................................................................................................................................
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Yes, next question!
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

So,What do you mean in your unclaryfying argument 1 day ago????
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

I accept evolution, is that too hard to understand? What are you disputing?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

I see that you accept evolution,but you just only said'Yes, next question!'!
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

And I see that you have disputed me and said you understand what I wrote, so what are you disputing?What do you not like about evolution?
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: No

But I don't understand your first argument , NOT the SECOND one!
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

"Do you accept evolution?" is a yes or no question. So, I chose the yes answer. A yes answer means that I accept evolution. Someone who believes evolution is an accurate description of how things work would be considered as accepting evolution. So, I hope I was able to clear up what I meant by "yes".The ? symbol indicates that the statement was a question. There is no limit to the possible questions that can be asked. Since there are more questions possible there must be another one. The question that directly follows this question would be the "next" question. I hope that clears up the rest of my post.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Hey! I saw this.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Yeah, sorry man, had to do it.
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

Why would anyone bother to down-vote this? Freakin' psychos on this site
Debate: Do you accept evolution?
Side: Yes

We have no alternative to it .