azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

No. I'm not sure how they justify finding suspicious individuals, but either way its wrong. Our government is seriously overstepping its boundaries and needs to be refreshed on what exactly a governments duties are. I understand that if they were able to "spy" on a guilty party it would be a positive thing, but based on principal alone it shouldn't be legal or allowed. This is a free country, or at least its supposed to be. Until we become a dictatorship, stop snooping
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

TO ME THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE MONITORING NO ONE UNLESS THE REALLY NEED TO BE MONITORED.SOMETIMES EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD BE LOOKING SUSPICIOUS SO HOW WOULD THEY MONITOR THE WHOLE WORLD? THIS IS WHY I SAY NO BECAUSE WE ALL NEED OUR PRIVACY AND JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE MIGHT LOOK SUSPICIOUS DOESN'T REALLY MEAN THEY ARE SUSPICIOUS IN THIS WORLD YOU WOULD SEE A LOT OF SUSPICIOUS PEOPLE BUT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN THEY IN THE WRONG. I BE LOOKING SUSPICIOUS SOME OF THE TIME BUT I'M NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG OR HARMING OTHER PEOPLE THAT MIGHT BE SURROUNDED BY ME...
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

No, because what the government is thinking just might be wrong now people are misunderstood there are enough laws as it is.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

I think that they shouldn't be doing that because just because you seem suspicious they think you gonna do something bad or something but that doesn't mean they got the right to monitor you. If they person doesn't look suspicious they shouldn't do nothing to that person because he or she is not doing nothing wrong at all. If you been watch most of the time you won't have at least your own privacy.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

In my opinion I go for yes and no. I think they should be able to monitor you secretly if they really think that you are part of some crime or if your a killer or something then yeah they should be able to watch you cause they are trying to find out if you did what they think you did. but if they are doing it just to monitor you. then i dont think that they should be able to do that at all cause thats basically invading your privacy.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

Even though it would be a good thing if the government caught every suspicious terrorist before they harmed our country it would also be a bad thing. What if the government blamed everyone to be suspicious then no one in this country would have privacy! There is no way that the government can know who is really suspicious and who is not suspicios!
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

I believe that the government should not be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, because everyone has their rights and by the government secretly monitoring everybody they are violating their rights by the constitution. Also, everyone deserves their privacy not only does the government already limit our rights, but trying to spy on their every move? No, that's not even right at all.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

The government should be able to monitor us, but secretly is just impractical. It's like waiting for something bad to happen and then do something about it. Wouldn't it be better to just let the suspects know that they're being watched? Chances are they're not even going to attempt it because they won't be able to carry it out succesfully. Giving suspicious people such as terrorists any chance of having drug-resistant anthrax or something of the sort, is just stupid.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

To be Honesty, Even Though the Government is the limit power. I think that the Government have no right to secretly montior individuals because its invading in personal space in their on home or where ever the individual is at.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

Should the government be able to take away unalienable rights? I don't think so. There is a place where suspicious people go and that place is called jail. Just because a man/woman is said to be suspicious does not mean there rights should be taken away from them. I believe that a person should be more than suspicious in order for them to be monitored. If the case is a little more severe that's what house arrest is for. Either way the government should not have the right to monitor a beings every movement.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

I beleive the Government should not be allowed to moniter any individuals. We as Americans have rights, and are supose to be free to do whatever is not illegal, and if we have the Government watching us we would be free but would have no privacy. The Government has no right to invade your privacy even if you are a wierd crazy person.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

No, I don't think that the government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, because whose to decide what is and what isn't suspicious. Just because someone acts suspicious doesn't mean that they are going to end up being guilty of something. Most individuals who have gotten to the point where they are professionals at doing whatever they do, don't act suspicious at all. They normally know how to handle situations to where they seem as if they are innocent. So, just because someone is acting suspicious doesn't mean that they should be monitored.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

I belive that the government shouldn't secretly monitor suspicious individuals because it's taking our analiable rights from us. We are all equal in this country and it's not right for the government to invade our privacy. If we let the government do this, they will have the opportunity of taking more of our rights and corrupt us.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

No one is exactly the same, so what classifications in a person seem suspicious? And who decides what is suspicious? Is it a person morals, alibis, or religious backgrounds that decide if they are “not normal” enough to be treated like a regular human being? I would love to live in a safe and sound world where the government takes drastic measures to ensure the safety, but who is going to discriminate against what? I don’t believe suspicions define a person. Many different people are worried by many other people or the things they do, but no one has the right to quarantine an individual on a hunch.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

The government is only limited to the amount of information given from individuals. The input given can only derive from the information that the public produces and the word of the spoken. I feel that the government should not be able to monitor suspicious individuals because it is a choice that the individuals have made. I believe that keeping up with today’s society and crime records, the government already knows of the negative side. Throughout my lifetime, I have seen several individuals who have made bad decisions but they learn from them. The crime rate has gone up, but the government has found ways to protect society as a whole. Monitoring individuals only shows that the government is weak and can’t protect the other citizens like they have been doing for a long time. We, as citizens of the United States, have rights that we are given when we were born and to invade our privacy is wrong. I feel that the government should not be allowed to secretly monitor suspicious individuals.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

I think that the government shouldn't be able to watch suspicious people. What if the person that they were watching turned out to be a good person? Now probably that person feels like his rights were taken away for him and maybe he felt upset. But who knows maybe the person might be fine with it because they know that they didn’t do anything. No one wants to be spying on!
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

I think that would be a good idea. Us being citicens of this country need some sord of protection. But that would be to much for the goverment would do. This is the united states of america. I dont think that would be freedom.
Debate: Should the government be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals?
Side: No

I say no to that question because not everybody is a criminal or a dangerous person. Yes people need protection for the better of their lives but not to the point where someone is watching you 24/7. The Government has to abide by the law to run the country in the right way not to creep up and watch people run around lingering and living there life.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Yes. I don't want to have to deal with a kid named "Kar-a" pronounced, "Kardasha." ;)
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

I met someone once who called her daughter Chardonnay like the wine (her own words), I was tempted to ask her if the wine was the reason she had the kid
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

I once ran into someone named Brandy. I approve of the choice of drink ;)
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

There's a port... on a western bayAnd it serves.. a hundred ships a dayLonely sailors... pass the time awayAnd talk about their homesAnd there's a girl... in this harbour townAnd she works... laying whiskey downThey say "Brandy, fetch another round"She serves them whiskey and wineThe sailors say "Brandy, you're a fine girl""What a good wife you would be""Yeah your eyes could steal a sailor from the sea"
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Only if the name is particularly sadistic to the child. Otherwise, whatever name suits.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

I remember the children named Adolf Hitler. that was quite overkill.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Turned out there was abuse involved in that family as well and the childs names gave the social services the excuse they needed to investigate the family and get the kids into care
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

If someone wants to name their kid Adolf Hitler they can, its their choice and it doesn't matter who it offends. People should be allowed to name their child what they want regardless of if you deem their name to be morally acceptable or not.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

This sort of answer I would expect from one those retards with swastika as an avatar.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

You British kids amuse me. Their name is just that, THEIR name, not yours. It is their choice not theirs, regardless of your idea that only what you deem to be morally fit should be a legal name.Calling me a Nazi for allowing people to choose their kid's name even if it is Adolf, is like calling me WestBoro Baptist Church member for allowing people to choose their kid's name even if it is Hesus.PS: The Nazis regulated baby names and made it illegal to give your kids the first name of any well known Ally or Jewish leader. So it all actuality, you are more likely to be the one with a swastika as an avatar.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

PS: The Nazis regulated baby names and made it illegal to give your kids the first name of any well known Ally or Jewish leader. So it all actuality, you are more likely to be the one with a swastika as an avatar.He shoots.... HE SCORES!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

But we have to understand just what is more important here; the traumatizing bullying the child will face from being 'different', and the distress of the individuals offended over the name, (old survivors of the holocaust being reminded of their distress at the mention of Adolf Hitler.)People have the RIGHT to not feel traumatized, bullied and offended, which I believe, is MORE valuable.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

But we have to understand just what is more important here; the traumatizing bullying the child will face from being 'different', and the distress of the individuals offended over the name, (old survivors of the holocaust being reminded of their distress at the mention of Adolf Hitler.)Whoever is offended does not matter, freedom of expression isn't just so we can talk about the weather and wear a crazy hat, its to ensure we have personal liberty. Offense =/= grounds to take away someone's right.People have the RIGHT to not feel traumatized, bullied and offended, which I believe, is MORE valuable.People have the RIGHT to freedom of expression, I know over in Europe the idea is "you may express yourself as long as we say it is legal" but most rational people have this idea of "you may express yourself, its your right."
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Whoever is offended does not matter, freedom of expression isn't just so we can talk about the weather and wear a crazy hat, its to ensure we have personal liberty. Offense =/= grounds to take away someone's right.WHY THE FUCK DON'T THEY MATTER?They have the right not to get offended and the child has the right not to get bullied afterwards.DO YOU LIKE WATCHING A CHILD GET BEATEN?And naming a kid a stupid name doesn't define everything in existence that is about expression. It is just a minor, shitty little thing which you have some how managed to place above the massive deal of bullying on the child and shit!People have the RIGHT to freedom of expression, I know over in Europe the idea is "you may express yourself as long as we say it is legal" but most rational people have this idea of "you may express yourself, its your right."I'm not sure what you're talking about, but naming a kid a weird name will TRAUMATIZE HIM AND BE TARGETED TO BULLYING.How the hell is that freedom of expression when the name given ISN'T even the choice of the child anyway, which means that nothing can stop that child from having a fucked up name.Except for the government, who can save his life from torment.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

WHY THE FUCK DON'T THEY MATTER?They have the right not to get offended and the child has the right not to get bullied afterwordsNo one has the right not to get offended! Your view that people can only name their kids what you deem to be morally fit offends me and you don't see me making it illegal to have a different opinion.DO YOU LIKE WATCHING A CHILD GET BEATEN?And naming a kid a stupid name doesn't define everything in existence that is about expression. It is just a minor, shitty little thing which you have some how managed to place above the massive deal of bullying on the child and shit!I'm not pro-beating children I'm anti-authoritarians telling people what they can and can't name their kids.I'm not sure what you're talking about, but naming a kid a weird name will TRAUMATIZE HIM AND BE TARGETED TO BULLYING.No, it doesn't. Naming a kid an un-common name doesn't traumatize them and it doesn't make them anymore of a target for bullying than a normal kid, all that will change is the insults, instead of "your fat", "your have glasses" or "your a nerd" its "you have a name I don't like."You typing in all caps and exaggerating the effects of naming your kid something other than George or Frank is not grounds to take away others rights.How the hell is that freedom of expression when the name given ISN'T even the choice of the child anyway, which means that nothing can stop that child from having a fucked up name.Teens can legally change their names...Except for the government, who can save his life from torment.People generally aren't tormented over their names, chill out, I'm sorry someone called you "Luke the cook" or "Pat the fat" in Kindergarten, but please, try and be somewhat reasonable.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

No one has the right not to get offended! Your view that people can only name their kids what you deem to be morally fit offends me and you don't see me making it illegal to have a different opinionSo that makes it okay for people to get offended? Who gives a shit if you feel your expressionism get offended? It's not even real offense. Is the death of 6 million jews not enough for your expressionism?I'm not pro-beating children I'm anti-authoritarians telling people what they can and can't name their kids.Which one do you favor more? Apparently, IT'S THE SECOND ONE. Which contradicts your non-pro-beating/bullying on children, because it is inevitable that children would be bullied for all the shit you can make up with a creative name, like Starshine or Jam jam.No, it doesn't. Naming a kid an un-common name doesn't traumatize them and it doesn't make them anymore of a target for bullying than a normal kid, all that will change is the insults, instead of "your fat", "your have glasses" or "your a nerd" its "you have a name I don't like."How ignorant and painfully assumptuous of a reply. "Naming my son Celestia will certainly not be thought as weird to others." What the fuck.You typing in all caps and exaggerating the effects of naming your kid something other than George or Frank is not grounds to take away others rights.How the fuck is saying that your children will be hurt by bullying an exaggeration? Bullying hurts a child; did you know that? Humans judge other people, and children do the same but more openly by name calling. Actually, having such an unusual name will make it easy for them to name call. Teens can legally change their names...........................................................................................................................................since when were they born teens? And within the period of time when they are in school before becoming a teenager, is when they are most prone to being bullied.And seriously, why put all this crap on a teenager when you can simply give them a normal name. No paperwork for namechanging, no bullying. Too much to ask for?People generally aren't tormented over their names, chill out, I'm sorry someone called you "Luke the cook" or "Pat the fat" in Kindergarten, but please, try and be somewhat reasonable.THOSE ARE NORMAL NAMES AS EXAMPLES. And I don't mean that the name will torment them itself, the bullying will TORMENT. It will cause complications that could of been avoided.There is no 'reasonable' boundary if you think we should not have regulations.Without regulations, they could call their children Bumfuck or Toelick, or HitlerDidNothingWrong.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Again, people kill themselves over verbal abuse. The death of thousands of children through verbal abuse is enough to show that.I am not talking about banning thoughts, bimbo slut, although I don't know where the fuck you came up with that stupid waste of text. There is a difference between thinking about something, and talking/taking action. Speaking racist things is a no-no, thinking racist things is not encouraged, but allowed.Speaking and taking action are two separate things. If you use your freedom of speech to say something racist and that offends someone, to bad for them, freedom of speech applies to everyone and every topic, we don't have to to talk about the weather, we have it to talk about controversial things. Now if you happen to make a THREAT, then that is different. Saying "I don't like Asians!" is one thing, saying "I'm going to kill Asians!" is another.You have no authority to have a child lose their dignity. Apparently you don't value that as much anyway.I'm not making that kid lose his dignity, I'm saying you and/or the government have no right to tell people what they can and can't name their kids.Who are these people? What are you talking about?You seem to be confused. I am telling you to stay out of their lives because naming a child is a big part of a parents life, so, stay out of their lives!Why? Do you just want a few people to decide everything for the majority of individuals to be screwed over?What would you prefer to be screwed over? Some people or more people?Neither. I believe in a system that resembles the first amendment. Where there shall be NO laws passed taking away freedom of speech. That way its not the majority deciding or a few individuals deciding, no one decides and everyone's right to freedom of speech is protected.Now that's just too far. Basically we've been joking, but now you're actually going to bully me? That's sad.I'm not bullying you, I'm joking around. Anyway, I've gotten bored of writing walls of text to you and you sending a wall back to me, especially that it is on a subject that is really starting to bore me. So I'll stop going on, maybe I'll catch you in a more interesting debate.