azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

not in my opinion. I firmly disagree with God's decision to create and allow evil, pain, and suffering.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

So you don't think the God of the Bible is just?
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Because you feel you know better than God?
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

I have the right to my belief. .
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

If you don't believe that God is a omnibenevolent being then you don't believe in God because God has to be omnibenevolent - every decision he makes MUST be good because he is God. If you don't think what he does is all good then you don't believe he is God.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

I disagree. .
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

Then you believe that God isn't entirely benevolent. This is completely inconsistent with Christian belief. I thought you were a Christian? :S
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: Yes

I do struggle with my image of God for personal reasons due to being abused and stuff, but every so often, I am reminded of the things that are good and I thank God. I do talk to a therapist about this stuff, and I will see him on Tuesday, so that would be a good time to clear the air.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

I think it's a shitty way to punish someone who doesn't believe in him. That's like me brutally torturing someone who doesn't believe I'm an astronaut, when I really am.
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

No. Not even my worst enemy on here deserves that. .
Debate: Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Side: No

There is no Hell. Hell only exists in horror movies. It would be best if people never doted on such a place.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

How does one become rich? Employment and delegation, lucky ass lottery ticket, collusion and embezzlement maybe... but nevertheless, one becomes rich with only the resources of others. No one rich individual can say they are rich purely by their own merit. If that were the case, they'd also be living in an enclosed economic system in which they are the richest, poorest, and smelliest of all persons involved.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

but nevertheless, one becomes rich with only the resources of others.Resources given through mutual exchange. Everyone, by using the system, is giving as much as they take. There's no way to prove or disprove otherwise. To automatically assume that there's some kind of obligation that a successful individual owes to the unsuccessful individuals is to say that somehow you have a way of telling who's a thief or a lucky bastard or a hoarder.No one owes anything to anyone unless an agreement had been made. Your parents give you most of the things growing up, so maybe it's nice to give back when they get older, but the country has given you what you payed for in taxes, the employees have given you what you payed for in wages, and the consumers have given you what you payed for in goods and services. There is no obligation for a generic rich person, they have given enough.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Now I don't fully agree with the debate, and I'd like to make that clear, but I do believe that to an extent, an employer will and should offer at least nominal health care of some sort to their employees, out of the self interest and mutual need of both involved parties. Now if that employer wants to offer full health care, I'm fuckin' down. My current employer REQUIRES medical insurance to work, and in doing so they kinda swindle you into their own health company. Luckily it's cheap as fuck! But the point being is that an employer should help their lower-downs, because they are the floor board of their business after all. Now those that don't want to get jobs also don't want to make back taxes and it's their own fault. But of those that can't get a job and are trying, I do feel sorry for them. It does suck and I do believe in social programs that assist them. Now how we determine whom deserves what assistance when is a whole other plateau of shit.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

but I do believe that to an extent, an employer will and should offer at least nominal health care of some sort to their employees, out of the self interest and mutual need of both involved parties.It's often cheaper to lower someone's wage and give them health benefits instead because health insurance companies can offer cheap alternatives to premium health insurance when companies ask for it.Basically, the idea is that a dollar will be removed from your salary for a "dollar's" worth of healthcare. I use quotation marks because it's often not a true dollar's worth, usually a few cents less.My current employer REQUIRES medical insurance to work, and in doing so they kinda swindle you into their own health company. Luckily it's cheap as fuck!My point. It's usually advantageous for companies, especially with tax incentives. This does not mean, however, that the employee is benefiting. In many cases, the employee is actually being screwed.But the point being is that an employer should help their lower-downs, because they are the floor board of their business after all.They're helping them by offering a job and a salary. Replacing a percentage of that salary for health benefits isn't "better," and can, in many ways, be worse. Often times, health benefits are more supportive towards insurance companies than the consumers. It does suck and I do believe in social programs that assist them. Now how we determine whom deserves what assistance when is a whole other plateau of shit.Private charity can and does do a much better job than social programs in assisting those who NEED it. As well, the only things limiting charities these days are taxes and regulations that make starting up a charity so expensive in the first place. Consider how for-profit charities are taxed, while non-profit charities are just expensive and often times corrupted.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

I'd also like to reference systems where the "mutual benefit" is merely a "I need you sorta, you need me, I hold the cards, here take the shit end of the deal and don't complain" situations, i.e. being stuck in a shitty underpaying job. The employee takes it because he/she needs it, the employer hires because they need grunt work, and anyone can really take the cake for them. There is no advancement in these jobs and there is no motivation for the employer to ever give these employees a leg up. Those jobs also don't look too well on resumes and don't necessarily promise a better job. The fallacy that you can just leave and get a better job where you are treated better is untrue, now more so than ever. NOT TO SAY THEY DESERVE ANY EXTRA HELP,,,, well yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

There is a story about one man how he became a millioner.First he took one apple and made from it juice and sold that.Than he took 2 apple and again made from them juice and sold .After some time his grandma died and left him inheritance.......
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

If a person really works hard he will get a good result from it....I mean all poor people work hard working from day till night for earning money so in the result they will get what they deserve
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Rich people have the obligation to help poor.I don't earn enough money to bennefit from the lower tax rates that someone whos income is ten times that of mine.Yet I earn too much to not pay tax or even low tax.If the middle has to pay the highest taxes then the least the rich can do is help the poor
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Given that the rich and poor are living in the same country, yes, to a degree. I think everyone has an obligation to help everyone achieve basic, minimum human rights, or right to life. Things like food and water and not having to choose between fixing a life-threatening illness and being in debt for the rest of your life. Liberalism seems to be pushing for everyone to be equal, to start on a level playing field, but this seems highly unrealistic to me. We can't realistically get everyone through a four year university by taxing the upper and middle classes, for example. That's an area where some people will have the benefit of a college education, and others wont. But everyone should have the benefit of their health and well being when trying to make a living for themselves, and lots and lots of people are born into situations where they don't have that benefit, and that's where the obligation steps in.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Everyone has a moral obligation to help those that need help, that could be helped, that are in a worse position than yourself.If you can end anothers suffering with very little loss or effort on your own part, how can you call yourself a good person if you do not?
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Don't you think it's important to draw a line somewhere, though? Suffering is an unavoidable (and in part, good) aspect of being a human being, and we could all use a little help in bettering ourselves or our socioeconomic status. And with the exception of 2 people on the planet, nobody doesn't have someone richer (to draw from) and poorer (to help) than themselves. It seems unless we find somewhere to draw the line (i.e. okay, you have food, water, housing, and job, and health care, time to stop living off government cheese) it seems we would be stuck in a never ending cycle of people funneling their money down and then demanding more money from on high.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Morally? No. Practically? Of course.It's also important to note that you can be a good person without devoting all of your money & time & other resources to helping other people - but would you deny that you would be a better person if you gave it all away?And yes, in terms of socioeconomic relationships in society, you could definitely do more harm than good by being a 'good' person - just as you could do harm by not killing someone (while you use the less extreme example of true economic egalitarianism being bad for economic growth). But that doesn't mean that killing someone is morally correct.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

I think rich people should help poor people.They will not loose anything if they will spend money for charity
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Yes. Unless they don't care about the welfare of, well, everyone.But seriously, you have all that money and you just keep it dormant and unused? What is the point of having something you will never use while someone else could use it? It is just stupid. Give as many excuses as you want or desire, it won't change the reality that you're an idiot if you have far more than you will ever need and don't share it or give it as an aid to those who don't have enough or lack it almost completely. Money promotes what? Greed. Is greed good? No.Resources that are readily available but aren't in use, aren't in circulation or are kept away from it for some time, slow down human progress.You've ever heard and seen people struggling to get funds for something? Like building a new school or acquiring anything necessary? But can't because they do not have the money while there are literally billions and even trillions(?) lying in wait, unused. And here goes again that money is negative to human progress... compared to what could be.They don't have the obligation but they're stupid and greedy fucks if they don't help.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

I think, yes. How do people become rich? Through the labor of poor people. For example the owner of big company is rich only because of fact that enormous number of people work on him. They give him something and he must return them something too. I don't mean only salary, it must be bigger and deeper, it must be really HELP. Help with things that they need for example medicine, clothes, domestic tools and etc.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

I believe there is always an obligation for people to help those they can, but that does not mean that they HAVE to. it's a personal, moral choice.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

EVERYONE SHOULD BE RICH. basic minimum income 1 million dollars loaned into existence by the federal reserve like they do for private banks. Inflation can be illegal.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

No, the rich do not have the responsibility to help the poor, but if they want to manage the problem and prevent riots, they will help the poor.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

If they want to manage the problem and prevent riots, they will help the poor.This is the reality.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

No, the rich do not have the responsibility to help the poor, but if they want to manage the problem and prevent riots, they will help the poor.^^^That.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

No, rich people don't have the obligation of helping the poor, is it moral right, maybe. The only way to help the poor is free markets, yet extreme hatred of free markets is spreading.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Free Markets have to be balanced with welfare of the majority. I don't think their bad I think they're completely neutral, but people can and do exploit them for personal gain. Personal gain at the cost to the majority. The poor need to be helped because it benefits society, that should be the driving force behind any form of help.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

The poor get help because it benefits big government.It is impossible to balance free markets with welfare because any government intervention is not free market, then it is a regulated market.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

In a truely libertarian society the poor would be left to fend for themselfs, even Ron Paul (Big fan btw) would be shocked. Total free market puts control of the goverment in the hands of the rich. Goverments would be who ever was the best financed, who in turn would be the one who gave the lowest taxes to the wealthest people. So goverment itself would need to be regulated but by doing this you are also regulating the market as you are stoping the free market from financing goverment.If you believe only big goverment benefits from helping the poor then at what point do you suggest assistance is removed, food stamps, mediaid, ambulace service, education?Again I'm not against free market, I just don't trust the people who run it.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

In a free market, how would the rich control society if they have no use of legal force?All markets are voluntary, so nobody runs a free market except consumers.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Yeah I'm pretty sure that allowing wage slavery and disallowing people basic rights if they can't afford them will make them happier.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

This a joke, right. Slavery was not the byproduct of the free market or free peopke. It was the edict of government law.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Just to clarify if people benefit its because of the free marketbut if they lose out its because of goverment regulation?So it was the free market that put an end to slavery? Generaly considered to be a good thingAnd goverment regulation that led to banking crisis? Generally considered to be a bad thing
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

All you have to do to see the effect of a free market on quality of living and wages is look to the countries who have little to no laws regarding wages. China, India, African nations etc, all have vast quantities of people who are wage slaves, that is, they must devote their entire lives to working in poor conditions just to survive, because competition is not a reliable way to keep wages reasonable.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

People in India, China and African nations are so poor not because the lack of minimum wage laws, which if enacted would cause more poverty, they are poor because their lack of high productivity due to little savings invested in capital goods in addition, they are robbed of their income from the government, which prevents them from saving and investing.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

As some other users have said, legally they have an obligation through welfare institutions. Morally? No. Their money is theirs because they earned it, and no one else is ENTITLED to it. However, if they don't invest some of their money in job-creating ventures and/or donate to charity many people (including myself) would view them as selfish.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

I hate disputing this because I don't totaly disagree with you. But as they pay less tax than the rest of us morally they should be obliged.If Warren Buffet pays less tax than his cleaning lady, well then surely he's in a better position to help them then she is.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Less tax?You mean a smaller tax percentage.If he pays 5% of 100000000and she pays 15% of 100000, then that 15% is a LOT less money, despite it being a higher percentage.However, I still don't really support that. Rich people can afford to pay more, and so perhaps they should.But eh, I don't really like taxes at all.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

But eh, I don't really like taxes at all.Should be rather dumb if someone did. Unless that someone is a politician.A way too large percentage goes to military, another large percentage goes to the politicians' pockets, and another large percentage is wasted on pointless crap no one needs. Not much left from all that. Greed for the win, eh? Sounds bad but that's exactly what's going on.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Sure, Warren Buffet IS in a better position to help than his cleaning lady theoretically. But the reason you gave for why he's morally obliged defeats your argument. You claim that the wealthy pay less tax than the rest of the country, but that's dead wrong (although it's true that tax rates on the rich are slowly falling). As of a couple years ago, the wealthiest 20% of Americans pay almost 70% of all taxes; the poorest 20% pay less than 1%.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

THE RICH SHOULD JUST SIT AT THEIR BIG DESK COUNTING ALL THE MONEY FROM OTHERS SWEAT AND BLOOD LAUGHING HARDER AND FUCKING THOSE STUPID DUMB ASSES OVER WITH MONEY AND POWER .
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

I say no they do not have the obligation to. If other people wanted what they had they would learn to work harder. I am not a rich person and I would accept any donations from the rich but it does not mean they HAVE to help us. They worked hard for it or they got it from there parents or they just happened to be lucky enough to find a winning lottery ticket. I am a hard working person and it pays off.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

They are not obligated to help the poor, however, if they choose to voluntarily help the poor they have my support.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

In doing so within the framework of the original system they do nothing about the circumstances that produced the problem. The worst slaveholder was the one who treated his slaves kindly. There is no point in prolonging the misery of the poor therefore prolonging a system which creates such a gap between the rich and the poor.In only voluntarily helping the poor they do not have my support. In addition to that they need to work towards a socialist handout to everyone that ensures no one is left at the mercy of another to fill their needs in light of the unjust system that would punish them for the act of stealing to fulfill their needs.In the case I described stealing is necessary to protect life. If you propose otherwise you have not given the nature of rights very comprehensive thought as a libertarian. One of the most universal statements about rights is that stealing to protect life is fine because the right to life is stronger. Society needs to reflect that in order to reflect rights. What I propose you don't do is try to be "so dark so edgy" by making up your propositions about rights while reading Atlas Shrugged.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

I cant believe I read this, but claiming theft as protecting life truly defines the ignorance of the socialist where it holds irrational logic and contortion of the libertarian philosophy. The right to property defines as a mans inherent right to earn income where he chooses to save, invest or consume 100% of his earnings without theft. Man has the choice of starvation if not for charity.The right to life is not monetary, but the right to the wellness of his body as well as to pursue his self interests.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

I don't think thats quiet what he saying, but more, in the interest of staying alive through sustenance, theft is acceptable if no other option is available.better to steal than to die.I think thats what he means, otherwise I have no F@#kin' idea what he means.  It's a type of socialism but socialism is a very broad label. This sounds more like a type of collectivism.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: Yes

Man has the choice of starvation if not for charity.Yes, I believe we have established that your philosophy is totally bad-ass. Dark and edgy indeed.contortion of the libertarian philosophyIn that case I only referred to the philosophy to poke fun.Non-coercively acquired wealth is subject to the components of luck and merit. They define how much each individual can amass wealth and are the reasons why wealth gets distributed unequally.Merit composes of genes, the environment and hard work. Only one of those is a decision and that decision is based on the other two components. Merit is luck. It is not a real decision so it is not moral in nature.Consensuality does not answer the question: What to belongs to whom? Luck and merit are incorrect basis for justification of distribution. The only one that survives is: Wealth ought to distributed such that the poorest of society benefit the most.
Debate: Do rich people have the obligation to help poor?
Side: No

Yes, I believe we have established that your philosophy is totally bad-ass. Dark and edgy indeed.Wrong, man must work for his fruits of labor, not merely be entitled by breathing. Libertarian is not dark and edgy, it is light and soft. It would take care of those in need on voluntary basis. I enjoy giving to charities, just not forced.