azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

To remind you, there was a great leader, Subhas Chandra Bose who was killed in a plane crash. Just a accident or sabotage.. no one can say but if that great person existed then I think India would have gained it's independence long long back.... He beleived in violence against a violent govt. Gandhi ji surely gave us our must awaited independence and I respect him for that, but it was a deep dark and long process..... Why on earth do we make things complicated?????? Non-violence is a very good approach but not applicable in the 21st century where there is no place for humanity!A hard slap back on the person's face who slaps us just at that moment, why to put forward your face again to be slept hard AGAIN???????????????
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Suuurrrrre we can. Let's take the terrorists out to dinner and see how terrifying they are afterwards.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I have a deep philosophical commitment to the principle of non-violence. Not naive notions of non-violence so commonly associated with cowardly submission to tyrants but the kind of non-violence practiced by the truly powerful.It is an expression of desperate weakness to resort to violence. Here is an example: Suppose as you approached, there was a ten year old boy assaulting your kindergarten age daughter. You must act as immediately as possible to stop the attack. You shout stop! with no results when you see nice heavy rock you could bash his head with. Fortunately you ignore the panic induced violent impulse and act in a more admirable way by quickly and somewhat forcefully pulling the boy away and restraining him as opposed to delivering a blow. The point is that when we are staggeringly more powerful we need not resort to violence.If you equate non-violence with refusing to use force, then non-violence cannot help fight terrorism. If you think of non-violence as a deep commitment to prevent injuries whenever possible you are on a more enlightened path than the Dalai Lama.“Non-violence is the philosophy people adopt once they become sufficiently acquainted with the realities of serious personal conflict.” ~ Atypican
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

'Hatred Never By hatredIs appeased in this world;By Love alone is it appeasedThis is an ancient law.'Also never speak harshly to anyone regardless of the situation you're in.'Speak bit harshly to anyone.For those accosted will retortPainful in vindictive talkYou may recieve blows in exchange.'That is why only Non-violence can destory terrorism.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

So the Dalai Lama is wrong? I mean, one would imagine that the Dalai Lama would be all for non-violence.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Non-violence can defeat terrorism if the terrorists-to-be are persuaded by peace. Terrorists mostly come from backgrounds that promote hatred and denigrate peace (relatively in comparison with western society). So they generally don't respect the peaceful protesters because they wont fight. Less-lethal weapons aren't exactly non-violence but they can be more useful.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

if they are persuaded by peace, then they are not terrorists. terrorists main goal is to strike terror in the hearts of the public. if we just roll over and let them wreak havoc, then, they will wreak havoc. they will not stop if we just stop fighting back.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

The terrorists are only terrorizing us because we are killing their people. We just randomly bomb towns with tons of innocent people. Believe it or not, the terrorists don't like this. They see America as a threat.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Well...., you better watch out. Your town may get randomly bombed. BTW, what drugs are you on ; )
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Really, we need only look at what's happening today compared with history. America has been at war with 'terrorists' (not that I don't believe there are terrorists) in the Middle East for ... well, ever since America was a country. And in those 200+ years, we haven't really solved anything.The reason is because the villages in the Middle East aren't very well-educated, so when the Taliban go through there, the villagers won't think against what the terrorists say. Killing the Taliban won't work, because they can always recruit more from the uneducated masses.But enter in people like Greg Mortenson (who deserves a Nobel Prize) who builds schools in the Middle East, educating the villagers. With education, villagers are much more likely to think critically about what the Taliban say and realize that what the Taliban do is not right, and, thus, not join them.It is obvious the Taliban hate the schools, because there have been a few attacks from them on brand-new buildings. Obviously they feel threatened. Thus, we should do it more.More schools, less killing.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding NO

no we dont need 2 use violence coz it isnt the answer and plus it dont solve anything just talk to them or persuade them etc etc
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Destroying terrorism using violence will never work. It is a band-aid solution that does not address the underlying problem, whether its poverty, discrimination, religion, corruption etc. Fighting with ideas is the way to defeat terrorism. We need to counter religious propoganda/indoctrination with rationality, counter corruption with transparency.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Destroying terrorism using violence will never work. It is a band-aid solution that does not address the underlying problem, whether its poverty, discrimination, religion, corruption etc.Violence is a systemic problem with humanity that will probably never be entirely erased, so everything in a sense is a band-aid solution.We need to counter religious propaganda/indoctrination with rationality, counter corruption with transparency.In ideal circumstances, that would be fine, but unfortunately, there are always going to be groups of people who simply won't listen to reason. There will always be people who blame innocent people, and inspire violence. Until there comes a time when everyone will be reasonable, there can't be a peaceful solution.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

wewwewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

wewssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssddddddddddddddddddddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

the reason they commit "terrorist" acts against us is because of our horrible foreign policy that plagues their countries. if we stopped fueling wars in the middle east and propping up dictators, and shipping over heavy artillery, and torturing, and establishing foreign military bases, and flying killer drones over their cities, and enacting kill causing deaths of millions of civilians, etc, then they wouldnt be trying to terrorize us, and besides, terrorist plots are rarely successful and even when they are its usually 5 or 6 people killed. compare that to the amount of innocent deaths caused by these wars
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Actually..., doing all those things you said we shouldn't be doing has put a damper on their terrorist activities. You may not know this but the radicals over there are like, "Look! Up in the sky..., it's a bird..., it's a plane..., it's a flying, killer, dro...." ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

When we stop arming, funding, and making more terrorists due to blowback of bombing innocent kids, families, ect then there wouldn't be nearly as many "Terrorists" as there are today. People ALWAYS looking for a CURE but not for the CAUSE. How to terrorists a threat to us? We have a the 2nd amendment. Truth is they are NOT a threat and nothing but a boogeyman so we can destabilize the middle east and try to justify more military spending for the war profiteers!
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Non-violent protest is a proven concept.The issue was terrorism is that it is not just caused by violence. You would have to solve a lot of problems before people stop trying to be terrorists. Even then, there will always be outliers.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I think we cant because all they think about is the mission and if they go suicide on us it means they are dead serious that they want us dead.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

We need to show them that we are dead serious and we want them dead too (;
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

You sound so impartial, here. You try to find solutions to problems, you dont point fingers, your not on the left or the right. The only person your fooling is yourself. Your an apologist for grave war crimes commited by your governement.I find that to be disgusting.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Oh come on. Who are you kidding. You love it. I bet that when you were a kid your mother would tie a piece of steak around your neck so that he dogs would play with you. If it wasn't for me, you'd have no one to pay any attention to you ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Again, how do you expect that argument to hold up when your the one with 12924 arguments on this thing.I love the way you throw that at me and probably think, ya i got him good there. Then you probably go into your room and have a cry and a wank at the same time, while lamenting your lost youth spent on some shit debating site. You think im attention seeking, all i say to that my friend is 12924.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Why would I think, " ya i got him good there." ????I already told you a millions times, I don't do real debates. Why would I care if I win or lose or get an up vote or a down vote? I don't even know you, so why would I care what you think? Whatever anyone types on this site will never be used in a peace accord between Israel and Palestine to stop their fighting. Why would I take any of this seriously?
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Well i implicitly assumed that you engage with people in arguments in order to see of you can beat them.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

No. I engage with people in order to make jokes. I don't expect to beat them at anything nor do I want to try and change their minds.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Oh come on, i know you probably dont care a whole, i get that.I know, for the most part, you probably do just engage with people to make jokes but you know as well as i do thats theres a little bit more to it than that.When your arguing with someone you know you want to beat them (to a certain extent) whether you realise it or not, because you beleive your views to be correct, otherwise why argue in the first place.Ive seen plenty of your deabtes and alot of them are far from just fun and games.You might pretend to be facetious all the time but we both know your not alot of the time. Competition is natural, even when arguing with someone theres no point in denying it.Again(as usual), the only person your fooling is yourself.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

When your arguing with someone you know you want to beat them (to a certain extent) whether you realise it or not, because you beleive your views to be correct, otherwise why argue in the first place.Do you really think that I'm arguing with you? I'm flattered. I'm not trying and I'm succeeding ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Well this really has become more of a to and fro mud slinging match, no real argumant ever took place cause you didnt want to have one.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

The problem is that you are so passionate about this subject that you get all emotional and then you are unable to think clearly ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Look that would be a fair enough criticism if you were willing to actually look at the facts rather than saying no you're wrong simply because i dont agree with that. Thats what stirred me up.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

What facts? That human nature is what it is? I've always known that. If America were to get blowed up tomorrow, some other country would take its place and it would be back to business as usual.Most passionate people are young. They are idealistic. Then they grow old and realize that nothing's changed in thousands of years and they move on with their lives. Think about all the hippies in the 60's. Where are they now? They became the people they used to warn others about ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I say no because terrorism happens in peaceful countries and it happens in violent countries. Plus non-violence can be a sign of weakness to a terrorist.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Non-violence will never work! We have to bomb the hell out of them!
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Look at that statement, do see anything wrong with it, anything at all. Ya bomb the hell out of them, let just drop all the nuclear weapons we have on the middle east. I said you should commit suicide cause i honestly beleive the world would be a much better place without you nutjobs.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

You make statement lioke that and then have the guile to say i need to educate myself, your a fuckin extremist, your as nad as Al Queda member im afraid and thinking not is only a self delusion, dot he world a favour and kill your self seriously do it do it. Whatever problems you have there only gona get worse with time , think about it its much easier just top yourself. You wont be missed i can assure you.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist!
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I dont care if this isnt serious, your an idiot and this is conclusive proof of that
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

You're one angry little man ; )
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Im not angry, im irish were not insecure people like you americans, i say what think. I'm just stating an opinion that i beleive the majority of people who argue with you will agree with (whole heartledly) because you dont know how to debate or listen to reason or the facts.I'm not little either im 6 foot 2 and i weigh 13.5 stone (~180lb).
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Oh, Irish! Well that explains it then. You're just drunk ;)OK, I think that's all of them. See you tomorrow. ;)BTW, want to become my ally? That way you will be notified every time I post something. Or maybe you want to join my community.http://jaded.createdebate.com/I really think you like my arguments. You keep on coming back for more ;)
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: Friends maybe

hear is the voice of reason drowned out in a room of incompetents. observe closely, his kind will cease to exist in the near future due to out breeding.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Totally! But those people over there are hiding them, so I say that we scare them into handing over the terrorists...like terrorize them or something! Yeah, let's do that.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Lets just hope Hamas sticks to the cease fire this time.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Let's actually hope Isreal sticks to the ceasefire, and they are the ones who broke the previous one.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

OK, so Hamas took a break from launching rockets in order to build a tunnel, they got caught, lost 6 men and they went back to launching rockets.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Oh I see. We're dishing out the punishment of death for people building tunnels? People who could well be building tunnels to bring in much needed food and water? Obviously it has to be weapons because, after all, that's all these simple minded muslims know; how to kill.I would have thought someone from a free and democratic country would have understood that catching someone building a tunnel isn't legitimate grounds to kill them. Arrest them, interrogate them, fill the tunnels back in? All of these would be sensible options during a ceasefire. Nope... death is obviously the only option for these tunnel building bastards.Regardless, you continually make ignorant statements about hamas breaking the ceasefire, and the absolute fact of the matter is that Isreal broke the ceasefire on November 4th.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

I'm ignorant?! Who is the one who believes that the tunnel builders were doing community service? :P
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

That's not what I said at all, and just goes to show the stupid "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude that some people have towards this stupid war on terror. We don't know what they were doing. Isreal will say smuggling weapons. Palastinians will say smuggling in food and water as the Isreali checkpoints were refusing to allow in humanitarian aid. You've obviously made your mind up which one you believe without any actual evidence. That right there is what I mean by ignorance. You've obviously decided which side you believe and will lap up anything they say and instantly dismiss anything the other side says. I listen to the things being said from either side with a very skeptical ear, as both are engaged in a large propganda campaign at the moment.As I said, arrest them and interrogate them if need be and actually try to find out what they were doing and present some facts to back that up. That's how free and democratic countries such as the US and UK do (or at least should do) things. To shoot them on sight simply on the suspicion that they are building tunnels to smuggle weapons is absolutely wrong.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

You say you listen to both sides but every sentence you have ever typed on this site is in defense of the terrorists. You've obviously made your mind up which one you believe without any actual evidence. That right there is what I mean by ignorance. You've obviously decided which side you believe and will lap up anything they say and instantly dismiss anything the other side says.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

"You say you listen to both sides but every sentence you have ever typed on this site is in defense of the terrorists."Thank you for proving my point. You have a terrible "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, and its obvious that no amount of sense or logic can ever motivate you to look at a situation from both sides. Just because I take a step back from situations and look at them from the view of both sides, I am "defending terrorists." If I don't agree with your factless baseless bullshit, I'm a terrorist sympathiser. You used the exact same argument before when I called you out for calling muslims ragheads."You've obviously made your mind up which one you believe without any actual evidence."Actually, I clearly said I believe niether. Niether side can show me sufficient evidence at the moment. In that position, I have to side on the fact that killing people just for catching them building tunnels is NOT okay. That's my default moral position.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

You have a terrible "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, and its obvious that no amount of sense or logic can ever motivate you to look at a situation from both sides.So why bother arguing with me. Never try to teach a pig to dance.My position is that they have both committed atrocities and I really don't care. The world will never allow the Palestinians to destroy the state of Israel and the Palestinians are currently not strong enough to destroy the state of Israel. So why don't they just give up until they are strong enough. Saying that Israel did this and it was wrong and the Palestinians did that and they were wrong is a waste of time because you will always find someone who will justify those actions.You keep on trying to pigeon hole me into being and the side of Israel and against the Palestinians, Look at the the debate above. It has nothing to do with Israel and the Palestinians. It has to do with destroying terrorism and how non-violence will not work because terrorists are fanatics.You try to get me to believe a poorly made propaganda piece and get offended when I don't sympathize. The official at the very end was not done talking. He was cut off in mid sentence after uttering the words the interviewer was looking for. The qualifier for the words were purposely edited out. If you really believe that dribble, then I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you.Also, if you expect me to believe that we should frisk little old ladies at the airport instead of young, middle eastern men, then you have an uphill battle. I'm all for profiling. Same goes for the tunnel diggers. The fact that I don't believe the tunnel diggers are good Samaritans does not not mean that I'm for Israel. It means that I really could not care less about the tunnel diggers. If the roles were reversed, I'd make fun of Israel for being stupid enough to get captured. I've met Zionist in college. I don't like them. Zionists are fanatics and no better than Hamas.Anyway, that's my stance and if you try to pigeon hole me again I'll fart in your general direction ;)