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

I disagree because there are also issues that will arise without politics even if there is no government causing people to fight/riot. Also, we pay taxes so that in return we receive services like clean water and gas to stay healthy. In big cities like New York, where many citizens rely on public transportation now have no way to get to work. No currency will also cause a conflict because trading will become much more complicated due to there being no real system. In conclusion, I disagree with your claim of it being a better society without a government for these reasons.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I agree with some of your points about how without a government there would be no politics and that will cause less riots however I think that we need politics in our lives because if we didn't have it we wouldn't have people voting on a leader or a president and then it would leave us with complete chaos. Also without a government you would be living in danger. There would be no laws so you could basically be doing whatever you want and not get in trouble for it because there would be no laws to tell you what you can and can not do without a government. Although I do agree with the idea of everyone relying on one another to unite us all but the only issue with that, is that not everyone is gonna do there part in helping. What I mean is that when you said something about the farmer needing to build your house, they really don't have to do that because there are no rules telling them that they have to build a house for you so you can't really rely on everyone.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

Your answer has some valid points. When you mention that there would be no currency I believe that would cause chaos. People would not do their part in society, they would just steal from others or find other ways to make a living without working like other in society. Second you talk about local businesses. If people no longer had to pay for service people would just work for themselves and not serve people. I believe without a government nobody would work together and people would just work to appease themselves.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I have to disagree with your statements for many reasons. First, if we get rid of government fights and riots will begin to rise even higher. Without any laws people are allowed to do whatever they want to each other and will fight over a scarce amount of supplies. With no currency people are allowed to take what they want causing a various amount of disputes. Also, how would we be able to build houses with no one giving us our needs to build one? Lastly, how would people be able to unite if we are constantly fighting over each other with the lack of fundamental laws and supplies.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I have to disagree with your statements for many reasons. First, if we get rid of government fights and riots will begin to rise even higher.I'm fairly sure that slavetraders used that as an argument for why slavery should not be banned. Slaves need order, and taking it away would lead to fights and riots. In other words, it's an immoral, if not outright stupid argument.With no currency people are allowed to take what they wantWho says? You literally made that up. The precise opposite is true. With currency people are allowed to take what they want, whereas the people who lack currency get nothing. How is that fair?
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree with your claims for many reasons. One reason I disagree is because of your claim about money. Without money there would be no economy and there would be no way to rise up in the social classes. Another reason I disagree is because of your claim about businesses. If we all had local businesses there would be no diversity within society. Also there would be less jobs for people to work at.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

Without money there would be no economyLiterally all you do is make false dichotomies.there would be no way to rise up in the social classes.LOL the thing which artificially keeps certain bloodlines on top and often holds others back is the only way to rise up the social classes? You should really consider the fact that "social classes" are a social construct to begin with, and also that capitalism isn't the only system that has ever existed or will ever exist. Honestly the only reason I'm not cussing you out right now is because you're probably like 12 years old.If we all had local businesses there would be no diversity within society.That is nonsensical, are you saying that large corporate monopolies create diversity? You need help.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I believe that living with no government would be better for everyone for a multitude of reasons. The first of which is that there would be no taxes or monetary system so trading would come back. Also there would be no emergency services which would mean that people would have to care for themselves. Another reason I think that not having a government would be better is so that people are not restricted in what they can do or have, which would be true freedom. Also it would fix the problem of people being saved from Darwinism by others. The world would be a much better place for the people who could take care of themselves because they would not have to obey the no longer in place laws. Also the fact that there would not be a government would mean that there would not be required schooling. This would be a huge plus and would mean that everyone would be home schooled. This would be a plus because the kids would only learn things that they needed. This is a large plus because then the kids would know that everything they learn is useful. Another bonus to not having a government is that people will be more likely to grow closer to live in more safety. All of this is why I think that living without a government is better than living with one.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I do not agree with your claim that no government would be better for everyone. When you say that not having taxes is beneficial and that trading could somehow replace the need for taxes, you are very wrong. Taxes uphold our society and country by supplying the country with an army, providing roads and public transportation, libraries, parks, etc. Also, you imply that emergency services are bad. Emergency service such as police, firefighters, and paramedics save lives every day. They solve crime, put out fires, and take care of people that are on the verge of death to make them healthy again. Finally, you also say that required schooling is a negative thing. You claim that home schooling would be the most beneficial alternative to school because people only need to learn what they need. At that age students do not know what they need to prepare themselves for life. In school they receive a wide variety of education to let them decide what they like most. They may find a subject extremely interesting that they never even knew of before. Home schooling also limits the student of social interaction. The student may then fall behind in social skills and will not understand social queues. Social interaction at a young age is crucial to prepare for future life and a life in "the real world." Without a government the world would fall into chaos.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

With government funded, and required schooling not only do we have a more intelligent nations, but also one with further developed social skills. The "homeschool effect" would be a nation wide occurrence, people would loose the sense of empathy toward others feelings, and would not react well to difficult social interactions. Also having required schooling is important to insure a developed people. If education was not required, and funded, knowledge that is currently easy access, and, might I add, important, will not be common domain. School forces a social mindset, it develops well rounded character, an understanding of people, and how to problem solve, deal with disputes, and understand others in a more intellectually less physically driven way.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree with you for several reasons. First, emergency services are vital for society. We cannot put out house fires ourselves, operate surgery on ourselves, arrest a burglar, etc. They provide protection and help us when needed. Also, school should be required. It's important that children start learning at an early age and have social interaction with other kids. The subjects schools teach kids will definitely be useful later in life because they'll find hobbies and interests. Having a government keeps us safe because they provide shelters when natural disasters occur and they enforce the law when needed.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I disagree. I think that although it is critical that people learn to care for themselves, there are some things that the common citizen can not do for ones self. Such as surgeries and provide other critical medical attention. Also, leaving schooling up to the kids themselves allows for an extreme amount of laziness and the fact that it is very likely that as a country would become much less educated, government provided schooling allows for students to be exposed to all their options before making a final decision on what they want to pursue in life and what skills they will need for that path. This is why I think that without a government would be a mess compared to having the regulations and help provided by a government.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree with what other people have said about taxes. I think we should have taxes because they help pay for all the services the government provides us with. We also need to have emergency systems because what if your house was burnt down by someone. The police would not be able to arrest them and the fire department would not come and put out the fire in your house. Also not having a school system is not a plus because if we could not read or write. So what is the point of living when you can't do anything because your not educated.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

what is the point of living when you can't do anything because your not educated.The irony is strong here. Most kids in middle school know the difference between "you're" and "your". One is a contraction of "you" and "are", and the other is a possessive pronoun.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

While I do love what you have said, there are some things that aren't quite right. No emergency services, true, but that comes with a huge cost. I think we all know what that cost is, a lot of people have been saved by EMS, but now people can't. And that would help with Darwinism, which I believe in somewhat. Now, if we removed warning labels and signs, what happen? But Schooling is important. While some parents would home school their kids, most wouldn't. While they will learn some useless things at school, they do learn a lot of helpful things. And you can always learn at home what your parents think you need to know. And what you need to know is different from the next person. Some cases, a government is good, others bad. But here we need it, now for fixing Darwinism...
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

You have a well-thought out argument, however I simply do not agree with your opinion for many reasons. The two main reasons focus on taxes and the people's freedom. First, I would like to address the fact that you think that getting rid of the government would be good because taxes would go away and trading would come back. I am puzzled to the fact that you think this would be beneficial because we have evolved from trading for a purpose, which is so taxes are enforced. This is advantageous because the money benefits society be covering the costs to maintain public facilities in the most fair way possible. I also do not agree with your second statement, because allowing people to have or do whatever they want can and will lead to complete chaos and destruction.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree with your opinion on this matter because what would the people do who can't take care of themselves or need certain medical help from different services? How would those type of people survive? Home schooling is also not a plus since many parents or guardians would not be fit to teach children the same type of material they would learn in school from professionals. Many adults would not know what would be useful and what wouldn't. Also, the chance that people would come together to create more safety is very slim, since in the type of world we live in today, they're many violent people and groups.Lastly, the fact that "the world would be a better place for people who could take care of themselves because they would not have to obey the no longer in place laws" makes no sense since many laws are in place to help certain people and without them it would be complete chaos.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I disagree for a few reasons. You say it would be better with no emergency services because people can care for themselves, but what if they can't? What if they have a disease or an injury only professionals could handle? You also stated that people would have true freedom and live in more safety. That sounds amazing, but it's just unrealistic in my opinion because with that freedom there would come people who would abuse it and hurt others or use it for evil.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I disagree for a few reasons. You say it would be better with no emergency services because people can care for themselves, but what if they can't?Will you bozos please get it through your skulls that government and paramedics are not the same thing? You don't need one to have the other.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

Life in 2019 without a government would be an awful idea, especially when it comes to the monetary system. What would I trade for an iPhone cause a monetary system would start up because as a 15 or 16 year old you don't have much to trade. Also if your house is on fire, how would you put it out or would you just let it burn to the ground completely? In addition to this Darwinism would increase not decrease because it is natural human nature to belong to a group and chances are that you would join into a group fighting for power based on your character. If we had no government pure anarchy and chaos would ensue and the basic socialism elements would cause incredible poverty and disorder in time of need.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

I appreciate you giving reasons reasons of why government is not needed, but I do not agree with your statement. First off, we need emergency services. If people are left to care for themselves, its very unlikely that they know what to do, and may make the situation much worse for themselves. Second, if people are able to do what they want to do, they can do actions like murder people. For example, if someone wrongs somebody else by accident, rage can build up in the person who was wronged, and the person who was wronged has the ability to kill the one who wronged him/her. The person who did the wrong doing most likely does not want to die, and it would not be fair that wrong doer can die for doing a wrong accidentally. Finally, if schooling becomes optional, most kids/teens would not attend school if it is optional in todays standards. The uneducated teens/adults would not know what to do, and would have to rely on their parents for their lives. Plus, people don't live forever, and if the uneducated kids/teens aren't educated and are parentless, they are going to be left to struggle, and will most likely fail in life. Overall, I respect your opinion of why there shouldn't be a government, but if you were to think about all of the possibilities of it being removed (including the negative ones), society would collapse, and everyone will be left helpless and insecure.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

As has been said before, emergency services are a crucial part of our society. Without emergency services, deathes from disease, fire, and accidents would skyrocket. Additionaly, without taxes, we wouldnt be able to comfortably drive or trust the food we eat an drink. Additionally, people can still grow close with a government. Look at Denmark for instance. Denmark has one of, if not the most, highest hapiness average in the world. Denmarks families live together in harmony and support eachother heavily.
Debate: Room 122
Side: No

I do not agree with your statement because many of the reasons you use to support your statement can easily be used against you. First off, you support your statement by mentioning that there would be no emergency services and people would care for themselves, which is terrible because some people can't care for themselves and rely on emergency services, so without them they would die. You also mention "true freedom" with how there would be no rules in place to restrict you, the fault in this statement is that those rules are there to protect you and everyone else by getting rid of danger. Now of course there are laws that could be super restrictive but that's why we have a congress and a constitution to stop these laws from passing. Another fault in your statement is how you say public schooling is a bad thing, which it is not only a good thing but is a necessary. Without forced public education kids would not get the proper education they need, and although home schooling is an another option it isn't the best because parents are not always professionals in education and although they will most likely be able to teach their child the basics they won't be able to teach their child everything they need. Lastly, you say that people will live closer, which is true, however that wouldn't mean total peace because there would be almost constant war between these small tribe like people and they would be free and open to corruption which would lead to more deaths. I can see how you would think living with no government would be better then now, however the negatives pile up and it would just result into chaos every time.
Debate: Room 122
Side: Yes

First off, you support your statement by mentioning that there would be no emergency services and people would care for themselves, which is terrible because some people can't care for themselves and rely on emergency services, so without them they would die.You are cherry-picking the things which you agree and disagree with to satisfy your own pre-existing bias. For example, you disagree that no government is a good thing, but have no problem accepting the (false) premise that no government necessarily means no emergency services. This is by no means true, as citizens themselves could easily organise a medical response service. Hence, you are presenting a fallacy known as a false dilemma.
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: For

People are getting too over-reliant on the issue of using social media . Individuals are being more accustomed to using different forms of social media for hours a day . They use social media to talk to different people around the world . But their reliance on using social media has hindered their ability to talk face to face as they do not have to hide their own personal opinion . As they are hiding behind a keyboard , they have a sense of confidence behind them which makes them more vocal about the different issues. Since they isn't a need to hide their personal opinions which may be offensive to them , they talk using a keyboard and thus are less social
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: For

From a survery, 24% of respondents said they’ve missed out on enjoying special moments in person because they were too busy trying to document their experiences for online sharing. Social media made them forget to live their life to the fullest instead of taking a picture perfect shot of themselve eating their lunch
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: For

Social media has made us less social as we tend to drift in the waves of the movement of social media that social relationships are not fully developed.A question that we should ask ourselves is that..."how much do you understand about your friends on social media platforms?"
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: Against

However, it will allow us to make more friends and it does not necessarily be not fully developed social relationships
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: For

So how many real life friends do you have?How many friends do you understand in your daily life?
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: Against

Sure, social media may have affected a person's life in terms of the number of friends they have in real life, but social media actually helps give the person a head start in making new friends which can be easier in terms of over the Internet as making friends in real life can be a challenge to a few. Of course, the time will come for that person to make new friends in real life but social media can be a starting experience for him or her.
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: For

With social media you would interact more online then in the real life which would thus make less experiences with others as with without social media
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: Against

But the social media are the stepping stones that allow you to be more social and friendly in real life
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: For

Social media has made us less social as we find it easier to talk about certain issues or talk to certain people using social media instead of face to face. It may be called social media, but all it is doing is that its makes people less sociable. There are many times when you see people in public just using their phones and not even talking to each other. That is an example of people becoming less sociable. Nowadays even meetings are done online instead of face to face. This makes the entire society as a whole less sociable. This is also backed up with the amount of ridiculous number of people on social media and the startling figures like 1.2 billion tweets in January of 2010 alone. This just shows that it people like social media more instead of face to face interaction and because of social media, people can communicate there and this all the more lessen face to face interaction, hence the few times that people meet, they will get more socially awkward and in the end the society will become less sociable.
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: Against

I do agree with you that there are quite a number of people constantly on their phones in places such as public transport or in public as general. However, I do feel that this is alright as they are using their phones to access social media when they are surrounded with strangers, who most will not feel comfortable striking up a conversation with. The only real problem is that when people start constantly using their devices while with people they know and should be socialising face-to-face instead of facing their phones/laptops/tablets/etc. Despite that, most people do know where to draw the line and will not exhibit this anti-social behaviour when with people that they know, and only are on their devices when alone/with strangers.
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: For

Would you rather talk to Charmaine or stare at a phone and chat with her.
Debate: S2-06 Social Media has Made Us Less Social. Do you agree? (Classroom Lesson)
Side: Against

This is out of the point. Sean, please be more constructive