azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the US have seatbelt laws?
Side: Yes - they save lives

No, not as long as I have the means with which to extricate myself and I do have that. I have an instrument made from steel that acts in three ways. It is an extra handle to be used when it's difficult to exit the vehicle, it is a windshield basher that will pop out your front or side window and it has a razor blade in it so that I can cut my seat belt if needs be. It cost me about 40 bucks online and it's quite impressive.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

weve been ignoring it pretty damn well so far so why stop i say let the ass crabs blow each other up
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

When good men do nothing, evil triumphs
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

The key word there is "good men".
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Where is the fault in standing for what is right?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

He means, what should Americans do, since he thinks we aren't good men. Notice the British don't do anything either.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Britain supports western strike in Syria
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

See, I am right. Britain won't do anything until America starts it.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

When you all aim for the same thing, does it matter who leads?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

It does when the British guy is claiming that Americans aren't good men, that's all.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Axmeister is from UK
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Yep, that's the British guy I am talking about. He was challenging your statement saying that Americans aren't good men. What is the problem here?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Check his profile. He is not British
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Since when are people from the UK not British?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

I was saying he is not from Great Britain. That is all.Now can we please stop arguing about nationalities when it is not the topic?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Now can we please stop arguing about nationalities when it is not the topic?Well, sorry. I was just trying to explain the comment from Axmeister.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Great Britain is part of the UK.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

But Great Britain isnt UKNow can we please stop arguing about nationalities of a member when it is not needed?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Not my fault, Axmeister started it.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Are you serious? Britain is definitely part of the UK.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Its a mistake.Sorry
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

We say that we're not going to be involved in any military conflict. That doesn't mean we'll be ignoring the situation, we shall just be seeking a more peaceful solution.It's wholly different to the speech made by the US state department a few days back, claiming that America isn't even intending to wait for the UN report before charging into Syria, it was only after the British Parliament stated that we couldn't be involved that Obama suddenly decides to consult Congress on the matter and try persuade the United Nations to approve of military action.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Thanks for pointing out that I was 100% correct.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

My original comment was that i don't believe that the United States can be described as a nation with "good" intentions.The recent argument of mine was just stating the current situation and that your claim of Britain doing nothing can lead to incorrect interpretations.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

My original comment was that i don't believe that the United States can be described as a nation with "good" intentions.Right, that's what I said.The recent argument of mine was just stating the current situation and that your claim of Britain doing nothing can lead to incorrect interpretations.No, being British seems to lead to incorrect interpretations.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

I think someone reminded him of Biden's quote in 2007. Biden said he would seek to impeach the President if he didn't seek congressional improval before going to war. I guess Obama didn't want his VP to look like a hypocrite lol.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

It's the same over here with Cameron. Before the Iraq War, Tony Blair made Parliament pass an Act saying that they approved of the military intervention, previously they would do this after any war to assess how appropriate the Prime Minister's actions were. Because Blair made it look as though Parliament supported his decision it enabled him to disperse the blame when the Iraq War started to become a scandal.I believe that David Cameron tried to follow a similar strategy and took a bill to the House of Commons to try get Parliamentary approval. However, his own Conservative Party were outnumbered by the Opposition and Coalition partner the Liberal Democrats (who had also opposed the Iraq War), thus the bill failed and Great Britain is now not going to be involved in any military conflict.Of course, our PM still speaks out that we should intervene alongside the US. But I'm not too sure many people are listening to him.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Just like the British people, the American people also oppose going to war... but for us, it seems like our government may not listen. Obama said the other day that this isn't even as important as Libya... then why does he want to go? To increase our deficit even more? He says that he has information and evidence that Assad has gassed his people and so on, but he won't share that information. Sounds like a load of BS to me. I'm thinking he has ulterior motives behind wanting to attack Syria.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

The U.S is the Firestar of the world, getting into situations we fail to belong in just to come out a hero. The U.S needs to learn that it does not rule the entire planet, and it should thereon focus on domestic issues such as debt, low education, and unemployment.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Yes, we should ignore it. It is not our place and if you can not tell already everyone basically hates us. Going into Syria would give them more reason to hate us. And maybe one day, it will give them reason to go to war with us.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Being hated for doing the right thing isnt something to be ashamed of
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

When it comes to world politics it is. Its a good way to be conquered.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Exactly the reason why the UN was created.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Yes, China and Russia told us that if we were involved they would retaliate. So we are basically causing World War 3 by getting involved. While we should wait for a less...hated country to take action, then just help them by giving supplies and such
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

What is there to fear when you know that you are doing the right thing?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

I just found out, Russia and China are now having second thoughts on staying as Assad's ally after he launched the Chemical bomb.Plenty of countries are supportive of Western strike, including Iraq.This isnt America's desire for war. This is now the whole world set to punish those who dare to cross the line
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

I don't understand why it is always the United States that has to get involved in every single global issue. One of George Washington's dying wishes was to not get involved in foreign affairs. We've pretty much done the opposite of this ever since, but just to be clear, since when was the US appointed the position of policing the entire world? Furthermore, who are we to impose our morality on others? When there is a threat against us, then by all means squash that threat. But it is not our job to tell other nations how to run their shows. Instead, we can simply voice our opinion and work to hurt the Syrian government in other ways (i.e. fiscally) while aiding any refugees from the country.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Until they start making war threats or showing signs that they want to brawl. Like FOR REAL.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

What are they going to do? Beg and plead for Murika to give them attention?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

They arent. The whole world simply wanted to punish Assad for going too war. You dont want to ignore the voice of the masses now would you?
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Yeah. It really isn't our place. For once we should stop throwing ourselves into situations that don't involve us. We don't have a ton of money and such to do this and we need to focus on us.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Britain and other allies has joined AmericaRussia and China are starting to widraw their alliance with Assad.Iraq is all supportive of American presence (even promising to pay for their stay) just to attack AssadThis isnt a battle by America. This is the whole world united to serve Justice
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

I think the U.S. shouldn't invade to Syria because it will worsen the situation and millions of people will suffer and die. Almost all important cities are under control of Asad. It's illogical to think that Asad's troops used chemical weapon because they have enough problems. It's clear that opposition used chemical weapon to provoke war and get supported from the outside of the country. If the U.S. will attack Syria there will be mess in a whole country and the war may spread to bordering countries. America will repeat it's mistakes which were done in the war with Iraq. America risks to create a new set of problems, enemies and losing more lives in a fight that can't be won by traditional way and also U.S has a huge debts, unemployment and crime rate is increasing. So it has it own problems to solve instead of loosing billions of dollars on this war it could help it's citizens.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Let them kill themselves, other wise the free world will be involved in every cotton picking civil war on the planet!
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Stay out! America gets involved too much with the affairs of other countries. Boots on the ground could then occur.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

No, but we have to stop fooling ourselves that we have to be the worlds morality and ethics watch dog
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

I concur. Policing the world is causing a phenomena called blowback and ruining our economy. Nuff said.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Yes, while I do not support Obama, we get into jams by saying we have a "red line" and don't cross it...then we are not prepared to do something when the red line is crossed...Well, WTF! We look like we have no spine...either there is or is not a red line. All I know is the line was crossed and now we look weak for not unleashing hell on Syria...
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Well said, but what about the exit strategy? .
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

Of course not. Ignoring the situation would make the country not only look weak, but we wouldn't be taken seriously for a long time. What the Syrian government did is directly opposite of what we stand for as a nation. And we have said before that if chemical weapons were used, we would step in. Sweeping it under the rug would just be a cowardly move, and would hold no beneficial value
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

The sad thing is that Syria actually had more justification for gassing their own people, then we have for going to war with them.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: No

The Syrian government had no right to use CHEMICAL weapons on civilians. And, in my opinion, we should not go through an all out war against them; violence wouldn't exactly help the issue.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

No they didn't, but they also used them on rebels. They're in a civil war and we're declaring war on them... so we're playing the offense. Assad, though he is corrupt and shouldn't be in power, was defending his own government... giving him more justification to gas his own people, than we have for going to war with him.“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”-Barack Obama, 2007The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to [war] without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment….The Constitution is clear. And so am I”-Joe Biden, in 2007.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

This debate is about whether or not our government should ignore the situation in Syria. Not about if we should go to war against them. You and other people are forgetting that to ignore something means to not take anything concerning the situation into consideration, as well as the fact that the government participates in other activities other than going to war. I'm not saying we should use violence, just that we should pay attention and keep an eye on what's going on. You said yourself that he is corrupt and shouldn't be in power. Isn't that even more of a reason to not ignore what's happening? The reason this situation is so controversial and serious is because the weapons were chemical, and there is a reason no one wants to use chemical weapons. And the fact is, yes, they were using it on rebels, who were a threat to his government, but what you have to realize is that CHILDREN were caught in the crossfire, innocent lives were taken as a result of his actions. And it was more than a thousand people who were killed. That's something you cannot ignore. And I'm not saying the President should make the decision himself. I just saying we should watch was happening, because if he would do that against his own civilians, what about what would happen if we HAD to go to war against them? If this included nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure most of the people up here would agree that the situation should be carefully monitored. But chemical weapons are just as deadly. And I'm still on the "NO" side, I didn't mean to press clarify.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

This debate is about whether or not our government should ignore the situation in Syria. Not about if we should go to war against them.If we don't ignore Syria, then we're going to war with them. You and other people are forgetting that to ignore something means to not take anything concerning the situation into consideration, as well as the fact that the government participates in other activities other than going to war.Have you not thought about the consequences this war might bring? If Israel wants to go to war with them, then so be it... but why should we intervene in a civil war that is not our's nor our ally's. Obama wants to do a "limited" attack on Syria, which won't happen. Boots will be put on the ground. We're already at war with Al Qaeda... and guess who is working with the rebels? Al Qaeda. Obama wants to arm these people. Guess who we gave guns to and trained back in the 80's? Osama Bin Laden. When we help our enemies, it comes back to bite us in the ass.The Middle East has been in a civil war for hundreds of years. It's ingrained into their brains.I'm not saying we should use violence, just that we should pay attention and keep an eye on what's going on.Is that what you meant by "we shouldn't ignore them"? Our news isn't going to stop covering the situation in Syria, if that's what you mean. Of course we're going to watch and see what happens... but we shouldn't act unless they become a major threat.The reason this situation is so controversial and serious is because the weapons were chemical, and there is a reason no one wants to use chemical weapons.The Syrian government didn't use the chemicals on us or our allies. What they did was wrong and hopefully the rebels kick there ass for it... but it's not our problem. And the fact is, yes, they were using it on rebels, who were a threat to his government, but what you have to realize is that CHILDREN were caught in the crossfire, innocent lives were taken as a result of his actions. I have a question... why take action now? Civilians and children have been getting killed over there for years. As a matter of fact, they've been getting killed all across the Middle East. How about Africa? Innocent people are being murdered everyday over there and we haven't done shit. Why are civilian lives more important in Syria?If we attack Syria, then Iran and Russia said they would get involved. That's not good. We're looking at a possible World War if we take action against Syria.
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Oh my fecking God, can you not read and understand my opinion? I do not want a war to happen and I am not supporting the decision to engage them through violence. What do you not understand. I JUST WANT THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT AND TO NOT PRETEND THAT THERE IS A CIVIL WAR HAPPENING IN SYRIA. Are you actually able to count your brain cells on one hand, because you seem to lack the intelligence to realize that I just want us to pay attention, that's all. And I'm not just talking about the media covering it, I'm also talking about the government examining the whole situation and where it's going to go from here. What do you not understand about the introduction of chemical weapons in this situation? IF THEY WILL USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE, THEN THEY WILL NOT HESITATE TO USE THEM ON US SHOULD WE GO TO WAR. If you're going to manage and protect a country, you have to use strategy. If you use strategy, the most basic rule is to always know your enemy. You asked "Why take action now", and this is the only good reason: just like the introduction of atomic weapons during World War II, the use of chemical weapons now means that now its become a real threat. Before, everyone was like "Let's not use them, because it will cause more harm and devastation than intended and is too extreme." What this man did was go past that fragile limit, and now we have to realize that if one man will, others will to. Therefore, monitoring the situation WITHOUT USING FORCE, is what my opinion is. Do you understand that? Did it sink past your thick skull? You saying that ignoring the situation is the best way to go is basically saying, "Hey, let's live in ignorance about what's happening in Syria, so if anything major does happen, we won't know about it."
Debate: Should the U.S. completely ignore the Syria situation?
Side: Yes

Oh my fecking God, can you not read and understand my opinion? I do not want a war to happen and I am not supporting the decision to engage them through violence. What do you not understand. I JUST WANT THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT AND TO NOT PRETEND THAT THERE IS A CIVIL WAR HAPPENING IN SYRIA.Yeah, I did read and understand your flip-floppy opinion... did you read mine? I addressed what you said. Has the government not been paying attention to them? Because the last time I checked, they were having a fucking congressional hearing over it!Are you actually able to count your brain cells on one hand, because you seem to lack the intelligence to realize that I just want us to pay attention, that's all.You're a kid... you must be, because your arguments are very childish. You don't have the slightest understanding of anything I said to you.And I'm not just talking about the media covering it, I'm also talking about the government examining the whole situation and where it's going to go from here.CONGRESS! Have you not been watching the news? What do you not understand about the introduction of chemical weapons in this situation? IF THEY WILL USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE, THEN THEY WILL NOT HESITATE TO USE THEM ON US SHOULD WE GO TO WAR.Keywords: IF WE GO TO WARSyria is in a civil war. They had only threatened to use chemical weapons on themselves... and that's what they did.If you're going to manage and protect a country, you have to use strategy. If you use strategy, the most basic rule is to always know your enemy.I would imagine that our intelligence agencies are focused on Syria right now... and probably have been for some years. You know how our government works, right?You asked "Why take action now", and this is the only good reason: just like the introduction of atomic weapons during World War II, the use of chemical weapons now means that now its become a real threat.Chemical weapons have been used before. They actually date back all the way to World War 1. Saddam Hussein used them in the 90's. What makes them a bigger threat now? What this man did was go past that fragile limit, and now we have to realize that if one man will, others will to.You don't have a solid opinion on this matter, do you?Therefore, monitoring the situation WITHOUT USING FORCE, is what my opinion is. Then why are you arguing with me? You clearly agree with my opinion.Do you understand that? Did it sink past your thick skull? You saying that ignoring the situation is the best way to go is basically saying, "Hey, let's live in ignorance about what's happening in Syria, so if anything major does happen, we won't know about it."This is hilarious! I hope you respond. You made yourself look like a total fool trying to prove me wrong, when in fact... you agree with me!I obviously didn't mean ignore as in "stop monitoring them". The government will monitor them for many more years to come. I mean ignore as in don't RETALIATE. Can you get that through your thick skull?