azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Smoking is a certain damage on people's health. It causes many health issues, the most spread of which is lung cancer, the reason of thousands of people's death. Yes, the fact of its unusefulness to the human body is not even debatable.  However, when it comes to the ban of smoking at all, it takes more than just an argument of health issue. In my opinion, the question of human rights outweighs the previous one. Why should some be boarded on their rights because others want it? it is up to other people if they don't want to smoke, but making other people banned on their habits is not right. Everyone should be responsible for their actions only, and stay out of somebody else's business. After all, if smokers would get negative consequences on their health, they should accept it, because they take responsibility for their decisions. And if people decide to smoke, so be it. People should respect each others' decisions, no matter how risky it can be.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Cigarette smoking is definitely an unhealthy habit, but completely banning cigarette smoking would definitely be a violation of human rights. Cigarette smoking does not effect one's ability to drive, operate machinery, hold a steady job, or be a decent parent. The only thing it does is put the smoker's health at risk. At this point, smoking is banned in all public places except the great outdoors where there is plenty of space for non-smokers to dwell while they are outside to avoid secondhand smoke. In New York, the state government is indirectly trying to ban cigarette smoking by jacking up the price of cigarettes. Four years ago, in Long Island, NY the average price for a pack of cigarettes was $4.50; now it's up to $10.00. Smokers should not have to have a hole burned through their pocket because they smoke cigarettes. So, yes, smoking is in no way good for smokers health wise, but it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do with their health and should not have to pay five dollars per pack of cigarettes in excise taxes because it is unhealthy... why not ban the sale of snack foods and carbonated beverages while you're at it?
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

The government does not have the right to do that .
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Before I begin I will start with an observation: The affirmative of this question needs to argue that tobacco should be illegal, but the negative can still support regulations while upholding tobacco's legality. Points:-The fact that an item may be a risk to one's health does not mean it should be illegal. Cars kill thousands every years and are quite dangerous but still retain their legality. The government can regulate traffic laws to make cars safer without unnecessarily outlawing them. Likewise, there can be designated areas for smokers this way no one else has to intake their smoke.-Restricting freedom in the name of safety is bad. Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean the government has the right to regulate our lives and protect us from it. Give me liberty or give me death. I do not want a body to tell me what I can and cannot do. For an example to put things into perspective: does the government have the right to listen into our phone calls, follow us, or interrogate us in the name of counter terrorism? The idea that the governing body can restrict our freedoms in the name of safety or the general welfare of society permits the restriction of freedom.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

I agree with your point, but I'd just like to be a dick and point out that after the PATRIOT Act, the US government does have the right to:"listen into our phone calls, follow us, or interrogate us in the name of counter terrorism".Assuming that you're an American, that is. Although I'm pretty sure there are equivalent laws around in most countries, I've only really heard about the US one because it's the most talked about.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Thanks, but im not American, I'm Cuban-Syrian. Please don't listen to the stereotypes, that's why I don't like pointing out my nationality. BTW wanna be an ally or are our points of view too different.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Well where do you live? Cuba, and pre-revolution Syria both had similar laws place I'd be sure, they both are/were very state controlled places. And I'm not one to stereotype, I'm English, but I've lived in India & Qatar, I have friends from all over the world. I'm not too fussed, tbh I'm new to this and don't really know what it does.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

I live in UAE,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

I live in cuba ,,,,,,,,, ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Also, another idea that I just had, a large reason why cigarettes are unhealthy is the massive number of chemicals put into them. This is done to generate a larger profit. If a government organisation, not for personal profit, created a brand of 'healthy' cigarettes, with small amounts of nicotine, and tobacco, along with paper, a filter, and some gum to keep it all together, would that be anywhere near as unhealthy as cigarettes currently are? It's to my understanding that the tobacco caused only a tar build up (which can be negated through exercise to an extent), while it was the chemicals & poisons that 'confused' cells and made them cancerous, among other things. I'm no expert at all, but I think I've read something along those lines.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

I totally agree that smoking is horrible. The reason the tabaco companies still make drugs is not only to make money but to help people... in a sense. Pretend just for a moment that you have been smoking a pack a day for two years then all of a sudden no more cigarettes. They have stopped making cigarettes and not even illegally is there any way for you to smoke. Not only would you greatly suffer but you could die from loss of your pleasure. What i do suggest though is that they slowly reduce the amount of cigarettes they make and then completley stop. Forcing people to reduce their amounts of smoking and completley stop too. Then i think the gouvernment should be able (from the thousands of dollars they have gained from tabaco) to give each smoker 1000$ each for any sicknesses they might need to pay for.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Everyone has the right to do whatever they want to. Smoking? Yes, that is an act of killing oneself.But the question is, is there a need to BAN it?Why can't we just make a law that forbids smoking in places where there are more than 40 people?I don't see the necessity of banning such an act.There are so many people who rely on smoking for relieving stress and people who have smoked for several years.If we suddenly ban it, what would happen to them? They would SUFFER!!!!Would people who have been addicted to smoking suddenly become normal citizens who aren't addicted to smoking? NoSince there are people who are addicted and since banning won't benefit the society, there is no need to ban smoking as a whole.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

If I got a dollar for every time this question was asked on here, I would be $20 richer. Look at any number one of those for my response.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

no it should not. many people would be angered by this. what we need to do is ban it from public places so that it hurts no one but the smoker. i know many of you will say who cares if it angers people but thats not the only thing we need to consider. in an ideal society people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. so educate people about smokings health issues ban it from public places but ultimately the person should have the right to smoke by themselves. not to mention the money the government gets from smoking.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

I choose not to smoke because its on healthy. But to ban completely because someone in congress thinks they know whats best for me?? I DONT THINK SO... In America, we are meant to be free of ridiculous laws and regulations like this. That's why thousands of Americans gave up their lives in ridding the colonies of the British regime. Besides, if tobacco is banned, its just going to start an underground market for it, creating a lot of unnecessary violence over something as silly as cigarettes.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

I don't smoke. I think it is a disgusting thing that has influenced the world in bad ways only. However, what happens if it gets banned? Won't everyone just get sudden nicotine cravings? The only solution in my mind is to slowly up the price on tobacco until it is removed from the shelves for good.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

While it's obviously not healthy so is a bunch of things we don't even know about that we come in contact with everyday
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

It's only a choice for the people smoking. What about the children at home that develop asthma because dad was exceeding his rights? Or people in linking places you didn't choose to have lung problems?It's not fair to those who are forced to inhale second hand smoke by no fault of their own and despite their choice to be free from it.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Smoking is a certain damage on people's health. It causes many health issues, the most spread of which is lung cancer, the reason of thousands of people's death. Yes, the fact of its unusefulness to the human body is not even debatable.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

I totally agree that smoking is horrible. The reason the tabaco companies still make drugs is not only to make money but to help people... in a sense. Pretend just for a moment that you have been smoking a pack a day for two years then all of a sudden no more cigarettes. They have stopped making cigarettes and not even illegally is there any way for you to smoke. Not only would you greatly suffer but you could die from loss of your pleasure. What i do suggest though is that they slowly reduce the amount of cigarettes they make and then completley stop.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

We can't ban smoking entirely. Some people are saying that it's bad for heatlh (which I think is mostly said), but it's truly someone's choice whether to smoke or not. We should only ban it in public places. Smokers will suffer greatly if they can't smoke anymore;they smoke to relieve stress and relax their minds.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

No smoking should not be banned, as people we should have that freedom, I understand that smoking should be restricted in libraries and public areas. But to completely ban it? No. I believe that all drugs should be legalized, on the package it will say all the side effects and people will be aware of the negative results but we should have the freedom of choice.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

It isn't my choice to tell you what to stick in your mouth. However, I struggled with smoking for many years and managed to quit. I could never go back to that stressful way of living. People should be allowed to do that but please, keep it out of everyone else's faces.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

no, its addictive, do you know how much revenue is generated from the sin tax alone? -btw I don't smoke.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Smoking is legal. Also, States make plenty of revenue from the taxes levied upon cigarettes.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

While I don't think that this is a practice that should continue indefinitely, the fact is that we are in a major financial crisis right now, and we can't afford as an economy to allow AIG to fail. They are simply too intertwined in our entire economy to let them fail. If taxpayers don't foot the bill on the front end via a bailout, they will likely have to do so on the backend via a long term economic recession and asset devaluation.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

so, you're saying that people that have nothing at all to do with AIG should have to pay for the company's stupidity with their money? here's what i say we do. we stop giving all those high level suit-and-tie managers millions of dollars a year with even more millions of dollar bonuses and let them bail their own damn selves out!!
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

Scoring a yes on this topic actually makes me want to puke. But, from my ill-educated vantage point, it looks as if the reprehensible thieves who run things are so embedded that shock removal, even violent removal, would crush the system itself. What's needed is Obama and the re-imposition of strong regulatory oversight to avoid this kind of greed fest in the future. Sure, the system needs crushing. But I don't want to be crushed along with it.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

presumably by "reprehensible thieves" you are referring to Chuck Shumer, Barney Frank, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus and Chris Dodd among others who fought tooth and nail to prevent the Bush administration from passing regulations a couple years ago to fix problems that led to exactly what we are suffering from now. And of course I would never suggest that it is anything but coincidence that these individuals are among the greatest recipients of bribes . . . I mean campaign contributions from the GSEs and ACORN. Why were Obama's cronies listed above so strongly AGAINST regulation when Greenspan warned about the GSEs and when the administration tried to do something about the coming crisis which has now come? Could it be because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions they would lose? Why aren't Democrats throwing out the same invective they save for oil industry lobbyists when it is Democrat dirty money that is screwing the country now? What is needed is Obama? Regulation? Are you nuts!? Obama's hands are so dirty with ACORN money that is a joke. Regulation is what got us into the problem we are in now. Regulations in the CRA are what mandated sub prime lending. Fighting regulations by Frank, Dodd, Shumer and the CBC is what prevented restraint of the GSEs that led to our current issues.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: Necessary in this case

In general, I disapprove of government bailouts to companies that overstretch themselves and get caught by the short 'n' curlies. But AIG is responsible for insuring a huge list of mutual funds and pension plans against failure and that's a long-term consequence that would make the Enron collapse look piddly. If AIG could not honor its obligations, the financial world would be in a lot worse shape.Lehman Brothers was old, respected, and a pillar of the financial community. It was not part of the defensive structure that prevents a wholesale collapse similar to the events of 1929. The decision to let it die was hard for the investors and workers, but I applaud the decision there. If every firm on Wall Street felt they had a right to expect government bailouts, the risk-taking would expand drastically and the amount of taxpayer dollars poured into that particular black hole would be obscenely large.Finally, I am glad that the government now has the ability (as part of the bailout) to toss AIG's senior management and replace with someone new. I only wish they'd made the same deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I really do have a problem with Freddie Mac's CEO collecting bonuses and stock options worth multiple millions when his company tanked due to his risk strategy and leadership.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: Human Nature Bail out

You need to define human nature...
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

for purposes of the context of my post this one will do: the fundamental dispositions and traits of human beings
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

not much to say just YES OF COURSE
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

Once again, the Bush administration has utterly failed us and we are left with no choice but to spend massive amounts of money to bail out his Wall Street friends.Where was the SEC/Fed/other regulators during this entire lending frenzy? Where was the Republican Congress and this administration? Repealing the very regulation that would have prevented the kind of business from the securities firms that led to this debacle.Very important point of business: if you don't have transparency, you have suspicion. What could possibly be more suspicious than these mortgage bonds? I see no choice but to waste vast amounts of my money buying these stupid securities against my will now via what amounts to a hold up from the financial sector.I demand accountability. These people should be banned from ever working in the securities or banking industry again. Federal bailout regulation should include provisions for this and repeal the bankruptcy law provisions regarding them so that the federal government can go after their homes, assets, and income. If I have to fork out a trillion dollars they darn sure should not be allowed to pocket billions in earnings that many of them made. That should all be a part of the federal legislation. Go after their money. If I have to forfeit mine, they should at least have to forfeit theirs.Personally, I would prefer seeing them stripped to the same $150 in cash and a small home that the bankruptcy courts grant, then send them to camps for hard labor for the rest of their useless lives.It is inexcusable that the Bush administration has waited until the last conceivable moment to deal with this, and then demands that Congress act in hours yesterday. Glad to see that they didn't do it.This needs to be weighed carefully. This is like being asked to co-sign a mortgage. This is not small change and it is going to apparently take a major part of our national wealth to bail these freaks out.I don't want to own their businesses, which is what happened so far. I want them regulated so tightly that this never happens again, and I want criminal prosecutions from here out.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

The BUSH administration? What rock have you been under for the last 5 years? It was the Bush administration that attempted, under prodding from Alan Greenspan, to regulate Fannie and Freddie. It was the DEMOCRAT leadership in Congress, specifically Dodd, Frank, Waters and Shumer who shut down the administrations attempts to head off this mess. Obama has insisted he had a phone call with Bernanke about it but Republicans actually had hearings under Chris Shay and tried to fix the horrific abuses. They were shut down by Dems who were funded by the GSEs and ACORN. Please explain exactly what regulation you think the administration repealed that caused this debacle? Because the truth is that Dems fought and stopped the administration from regulations correcting the issues that allowed Freddie, Fannie to lead us here. Tighter regulation? It is regulation that got us into this mess. What we need is GOOD regulation. Not tighter regulation. Why are the mortgage backed securities suspicious? There was transparency. The investors could see the underlying loans and if they didn't, it was their own fault. I agree that it would be better if we adopted covered securities instead but there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the MBSs.You demand? who cares what you demand? Did you vote for a Democrat member of Congress who voted against the administration led attempt to reign in Fannie and Freddie? Then you are to blame. In fact you are to blame anyway for trying to blame the admin for what congress caused. They mandated the sub prime loans in the CRA, they removed all risk from lending by having GSEs buy up the paper and now they have the audacity to tell us they are going to fix what they caused? And you sit here blaming everyone except the ones who did this to us? lol what a joke.What is inexcusable is that you sit here blaming the Bush administration for acting at the last minute when they tried to act years ago and were thwarted by the Dems who were making money hand over fist for preserving the status quo.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: Necessary in this case

"It was the Bush administration that attempted, under prodding from Alan Greenspan, to regulate Fannie and Freddie. It was the DEMOCRAT leadership in Congress, specifically Dodd, Frank, Waters and Shumer who shut down the administrations attempts to head off this mess."Nonsense. The GOP was in complete control of BOTH Congress AND the White House for almost 6 years, and they didn't absolutely nothing to stop the problem. In fact, Greenspan was at the forefront of advocating for ARMs!"'I made a mistake' admits Alan Greenspan"http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24548000-643,00.html"Please explain exactly what regulation you think the administration repealed that caused this debacle?""Tighter regulation? It is regulation that got us into this mess."Once again, this is sheer nonsense. The GOP Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which was originally invented to prevent a "repeat of the 1920's era scams in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank." Sound familiar??And guess what law repealed that Glass-Steagall Act? It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Yes, that is the same Phil Gramm that said that we've become "a nation of whiners", and the same Phil Gramm whose legislation led to the Enron scandal.What else did Gramm do you ask??"100 Year Crash: McCain advisor spurred $62 trillion derivatives market that will swamp global markets"http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/15/100-year-crash-mccain-advisor-spurred-62-trillion-derivatives/print/"Why are the mortgage backed securities suspicious? There was transparency."No there wasn't, period."They mandated the sub prime loans in the CRA"No, they really didn't."Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis"http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.htmlAlso:"the CRA Didn't Cause the Housing Bubble"http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/ 2008/09/oh-my-god-cra-didnt-cause-housing.html