azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Facebook good for people?
Side: No, Facebook isn't good

First off through, You have all these random people adding you and looking through your pictures... Even if your facebook is private they still can look through your pictures. And everyone is posting their numbers and where they are, that makes them easy targets for killers, stalkers, rapists,and creeps... So id think twice before you post something.... And also people talk crap about people on this site.... its stupid and ridiculous... but you have teens getting bullied all the time on social media.. So id think twice before letting your kids have a facebook twitter kik... etc.
Debate: Is Facebook good for people?
Side: No, Facebook isn't good

facebook is really bad when u start with it u get addicted u r always thinking abt what message might i have got u need to hide from ur parents and always go online u then start chatting with ur class mate boys and then feelings for him and this leads to destruction of ur life it might be good in terms of studies but people are always get more fastly addicted to bad things
Debate: Is Facebook good for people?
Side: No, Facebook isn't good

Facebook has too many stalkers and bullies that are out to harm members.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Obviously, one nation abolishing nuclear weapons is useless, but if there was a UN-mandated disarmament, perhaps we could be looking at something positive. I mean, does anyone disagree that nuclear weapons do more harm than good?
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

If we could somehow enforce a mutual disarmament, that would be great, but I don't see how we could. All it would take is one country building one in secret to ruin it. How could we know for sure no other country was working on one in some hidden underground bunker?Also, some people do argue that nuclear weapons do more good than harm. This is because if two countries have nuclear weapons, they basically can't go to war without wiping each other out. This is an effective way of enforcing peace. Obviously it's risky, but the presence of nukes is the biggest reason we haven't had any wars between major countries since WWII.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Obviously, an idealistic worldwide nuclear disarmament is nearly impossible. But, maybe, one day....But although your second argument is correct, I absolutely hate it. It signifies no respect for human life, whether it's civilian or military. It makes my skin crawl.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Regarding your second argument that nuclear weapons are the reason major powers have not gone to war.. don't you think that economic interdependency is enough of a factor for sustaining peace? This would make nuclear weapons unnecessary.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Not really. Economic damage is bad, but it can't wipe people off the face of the Earth the way nukes can. Nuclear devastation is straightforward and easy for people to understand. Economic devastation is much less tangible and as such is less likely to deter people. How many post-apocalyptic movies start with nuclear war? How many start with economic collapse?
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Sure, the damage created by a nuclear devastation is worse (enough to not want to have nukes around, but anyway..), but regarding deterrence, economic interdependency shouldn't be dismissed so easily. The reason why I think it is effective is because though economic damage wouldn't wipe people off the face of the earth, it would definetly wipe out the pockets of the powerful elites, and since they are the ones who are really in charge, they would make sure that peace is maintained in the places where they hold some economic interests. If corporations maintain their interests in only one country, they could care less what happens to other countries, but since investment is no longer limited to just one country but assets of one company can be found all over the planet, then a corporate power would find it in its best interest to deterr its home government from using nukes, or simply engaging in conflict. The assumption is that we live in a world where states are not the only players and where considerable power rests in the hands of corporations. And in this kind of world, loosing money less desirable than the loss of people's lives.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

That's an interesting argument, but I think you're greatly overestimating the power of corporations. In a democratic country, power ultimately lies with the people. The people create the state, and the state commands the military, which it can use to enforce the people's will over corporations. Sure large companies hold more sway than the average person -- they can manipulate people through advertising and manipulate corrupt officials through bribery. But they don't have more power than a big group of pissed off voters. It's overly cynical to say they are pulling the strings of government. Did industry elect Obama to push for global warming regulations?
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

I see your point regarding the democratic ideal of people affecting policy, however in the real world it is those who have power (aka money) who are able to exert the most influence. However this is another topic and we are straying away from the issue of whether or not nuclear weapons should be abolished. I say that we are constrained by our own mentality where we cannot conceive of other ways of enforcing peace. If peace is our goal, why can't we think of a framework of international law and international institutions that can enforce peace by other measures... for example economic measures such as embargoes, etc? Nuclear weapons just make this world more dangerous to live in. Leaders change and we cannot trust them to act in the best interest of humanity. Such is the case of North Korea. If we didn't have weapons in the first place, we would not have to worry about these issues.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Well I do agree that an international agency with the power to enforce peace would be the best thing. I actually created a debate along those lines. But that is way easier said than done. It seems almost impossible that all of the world's great nations would relinquish that much power. And it's a lot of power to give up. Whether this international agency enforces peace through military force or extreme economic isolation, it must have the power to devastate any country. Further it must have a widespread ability to monitor the activities of each nation to ensure that no one is developing WMDs in secret. And it must wield all this power without becoming totalitarian. A daunting task to say the least.I just don't see nukes going away any time soon.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

That is very irresponsible don't you think?If we could somehow enforce that nuclear weapons do more harm because basically wiping each other out is an effective way of peace obviously the nukes is the biggest wars, between WWII.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Nuclear weapons have never been used because all the major nations have them.When people like Mahmoud and Saddam are threatening to make nuclear weapons, it's hard to stop them when all we have a pea-shooters. Plus, many nations try to do it secretly. Imagine how fucked we'd all be if a nation created the only nuclear weapon (especially a lunatic like Kim Jong Il).
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should educate people

*correction: nuclear weapons have been used, twice. I've been to both Hiroshima and Nagazaki atomic bomb museums - it's not pretty.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

yeah, back when only America had it and no one knew what the hell it would do.Now, everyone has them and knows exactly what they're capable of. Creating M.A.D.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

What do you mean no one knew what the hell it would do? You think that is how the military designs weapons? You think they just throw some random shit together and then deploy? $2 billion were spent on the Manhattan Project. They calculated the exact amount of energy that would be released by the detonation of Fat Man and Little Boy. And they had done extensive tests to determine the damage that would be caused.The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible events in human and United States history and they were done to frighten the Soviet Union with our technological and military prowess.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

They didn't know what the results would be. Some even thought that it might blow a hole through the atmosphere.But they did it anyway.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

It's amazing how I provide a lot of actual information and you respond with a terrible argument like that based upon nothing.Sorry but they knew exactly what the results would be. Before Fat Man and Little Boy were even deployed a bomb with the same design as Fat Man was detonated in a test called Trinity in New Mexico. And even for this test they calculated the probability that the atmosphere would be incinerated as impossible.The Fat Man was not a test. We knew exactly what it would do. And we had a very good prediction of the damage it would cause. Please stop debating things you clearly don't know anything about.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Actually, the incineration of the atmosphere was considered ALMOST impossible, but many scientists were still scared about it happening. Plus, they also felt it likely that the entire state of New Mexico would be destroyed.Yeah, I forgot to say that it was the test where they thought the destruction would destroy the atmosphere. but they still weren't sure what would happen. and the effects afterward, they had no idea when they dropped it on Nagasaki. They figured there would be some fallout, but nothing like what ended up happening.And they never even tested their initial bomb, Little Boy, which they just went with because they were pretty sure it would explode.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

As long as you aren't trying to justify the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saying that we underestimated or did not fully understand the effects of the bombs, I am fine.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

We understood that there would be massive death, of course... that was the point.Japan wasn't going to surrender if just SOME people died.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

But with those two it could be argued that they actually were the lesser evil because their presence was able to bring the war to an end. It was unfortunate that 200,000 innocent people died, but at the same time if they had not been dropped then the United States would have had to invade Japan which could have caused even more deaths.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

A land invasion would have caused more deaths to American soldiers, but not to innocent Japanese civilians. Deliberately targeting and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because they were born in the wrong country is morally repugnant. If you were Japanese you would not be justifying the war crimes of Truman. If America had not won the war Truman would have been tried for war crimes. But whichever country wins wars faces no punishment for its actions and they are usually glorified or justified by the country's citizens.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 370,000 dead. In addition, millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were expected.According to the mass majority of figures done casualties would have been much larger on BOTH SIDES if we had invaded instead. So... the bombings saved millions of more lives than an invasion would have.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Nuclear weapons should be abolished due to it's destructive power and the aftermath of it. I think that the only way to enforce it is to have an international agreement where:1. all existing nuclear powers (eg. US, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom...) be destroyed. No exceptions.2. Any country resisting to sign or impose such an international law to be completely isolated in every way possible, including diplomatic, trade/economical/financial, military or even foreign aid. That way, citizens of those countries will see for themselves that it will not be tolerated and they themselves will overthrow their own leaders because no one is going to tolerate being isolated from the world. Some might say that countries such as US, Russia, China, France & United Kingdom should be an exclusion, but that only gives other countries to do the same. Otherwise, it is a double standard. At the same time, it shows will from all the countries that everyone is willing to sacrifice something so that these terrible weapons do not get in the hands of egoistical idiots who will not think twice about pulling the trigger.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

But North Korea is already isolated in the way you state, they are self sufficient and do not care for their population, and they probably have plans to make more nuclear weapons in secret. What if all other nations totally abolished nukes except for them, and maybe some other countries who could have possibly lied about ending their nuclear programs? They could threaten any country they please, and even if we or another country invaded and took over it successfully, their nuclear weapons could have already been launched, wiping out millions of miles of cities, killing countless innocent lives, not to mention the radiation poisoning that would leave the entire areas affected deadly and toxic for hundreds of years. Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil at this point, unfortunately.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Why do we need to keep things that hinder the survival of our own species? All kinds of weapons should be abolished.... there is no moral ground to defend them.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Sometimes we need to kill off parts of our species in order to guarantee that we will be able to pass along our own genes. As a human being I wish to one day pass my genes down, in order to do that I must guarantee that I will be able to live long enough to raise a child. If another nation were to attack my country then there is a good chance that I would have to go fight and risk my life in order to guarantee that one day I will be able to carry out my wish to reproduce. With a nuclear weapon I am able to increase my own chances of survival whereas without one I stand a good chance of dying. So to answer your question, it is a natural instinct to want the species to survive, but if one must kill others in order to guarantee the survival of their own genes then so be it. To say that all weapons should be abolished is quite a silly thing to say. Without weapons how will we protect ourselves from those species that can kill us easily if they want to? A man with a rifle vs a bear is a match-up in which the man has the advantage. However, if you take away the rifle then there is no question as to who would win. So wouldn't that mean that the man not having a rifle to defend himself hinders the survival of our own species?Then there is the idea that without weapons how will we possibly survive due to lack of food? Without weapons we cannot hunt and therefor must resort to scavenging or eating only fruit and veggies. That kind of diet might be able to work for a certain amount of time, but in the long run it will cause problems for the body because of lack of proper nutrition. So isn't being able to provide a proper diet for one's family a moral enough arguement for having weapons?
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should educate people

Kill parts of our species in order to pass on our own genes? Your comment has traces of Richard Dawkins's selfish gene theory, where the perpetuation of genes is more important than that of species. I like the theory very much, because it explains much of evolution, but as Dawkins said himself, human beings have transcended our simple natural instincts and now we use our rational brains for more than finding ways to reproduce successfully. We dedicate our lives to various things, such as art, science, entertainment, happiness... If your goal in life is to reproduce, fine, but let me break the news for you: most of us have abandoned the caveman mindset a long time ago. Your argument of assuring the perpetuation of your own genes could be used not only to defend atomic bombs, but also to support a guy who kills another one at a bar because they were both hitting on the same woman. Sorry, we don't live by jungle's rules anymore...An atomic bomb not only kills "enemies", but it also destroys nature, and the radioactivity stays there for a very long time. Imagine if these things start being used in wars, carelessly! I'm pretty sure your dear genes wouldn't stay here for long. Seriously, why to do this to our planet? We need it!Also, your argument that weapons are necessary in order to protect us from other species and guarantee food just doesn't make sense in the technological world we have today. Most people have never faced a bear in their lives, and those who live in places where bears are present have found out that prevention is far better than just killing bears as they show up.We have amazing brains, we should use them! Not only to understand the nature of bears, but also the nature of our so called "enemies". Coexisting in peace is better for everyone.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Considering the international reaction to the recent events of n.Korea's nuclear testing. These weapons have brought nothing in this world but pain,sorrow, and negativity. Surely, you all can agree that the bombings in japan hurt that nation not physically only, but emotionally as a nation. It made them lose everything, and even their pride as a nation of the pacific. Also, going back onto my point about the current situation. All the weapons do is make the tension between nations alot more dangerous. these weapons could fall into the wrong hands and cause the worst events imaginable. With these weapons in existance, the human race has the firepower and the ability to destroy itself which has never happened in the history of mankind. Therefore, i strongly believe that we need to not only abolish these weapons, but destroy everyone and create an international task force (such as the FBI, etc.) against the use of these weapons.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

There's no doubt in my mind we should abolish nuclear weapons but one thing comes to mind. We'd need to police th world and if we cannot engage them is nuclear disarmement talks, how will we know what they're using the components of nuclear energy for. This would take a tremendous effort on the world's behalf to assure every country is a clean country!
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

Yes, if we could convince EVERY country with nukes to abolish them as well. They do too much damage, I believe the radical idea that we should kill as few civillians in war as possible. We would probably destroy half the world's population if we got into another world war now....
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

In an ideal world, I would agree that nuclear weapons should be abolished, but I feel for jessald's first argument about practicality and his latter argument about using nuclear weapons has a M.A.D.-style security system.The one thing I would like to have said in this debate is that my fear is not necessarily that states would acquire these weapons, but rather that individuals or proxy powers would. The threat is growing and it is made more dangerous by the fact that many of these individuals are motivated by an ideology that precludes them from the fear of a M.A.D. scenario. If we did support international disarmament, the consensus nonproliferation goals would be met and the proliferation of nuclear weapons would slow, but the possibility described above could not be avoided, contained, or adequately prevented by pro-disarmament powers.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

YEs we have to abolish nuclear weapon Bcz we can see the result of n- weapon on japan about 2,50,000 people was died in this.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

We have plenty of other large bombs that we can use if needed. Nukes only contribute to fear and hysteria for the countries that don't possess them. One day, someone somewhere will possess a nuclear weapon and use it as a bargaining chip. This will most likely lead to another world war and chaos will follow. Just my prediction anyways.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

I believe that nuclear weapons should be abolished. Nuclear weapons have created fear and terror among Man. Nuclear weapons also causes harm to our Earth that we live in. Earth is our home. We have to protect it. Let's us don't use nuclear weapons and save our Earth from destruction.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

i think we should. Because, even if we were attacked by a nuclear attack, we would have almost no way of stopping the nukes. If we were attacked, we could only launch off our nukes in return. If one nuke was launched, the rest of the world might get paranoid and launch off there own too. By the end of the day the first nuke was launched the whole human race would be mostly extinct. An system to shoot down nukes would be more effective because having nukes doesnt make people not want to have nukes. Even if we were attacked with a nuke if we had that system we could shoot it down and stop it.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should abolish

I say for all nations to abolish nuclear weapons before the world gets destroyed.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

I'd love it if every nation abolished ALL forms of warfare. But the truth is that nuclear weapons can be a very good way of protecting the free world. Korea and Iran don't use the nuclear weapons the (might) have because they know that is they do, their countries would get annihilated by the hundreds of nukes we have. And even if we were able to abolish them, do you really think North Korea and Iran, for examples, would follow suit? No! They would surely attack us!
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

Thepyg and Mkiced said everything I was going to say. There was a debate almost just like this a few months back.
Debate: Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Side: We should not abolish

we cant abolish nuclear weapons. If a super power like America or england abolishes nuclear weapons we would have to abolish nuclear every thing because if someone works at a nuclear plant they could find a way to make a weapon.