azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

o and a other thing, assassination is illegal. the times you may here of one happening is a crime and they are usually punished. what are CIA do in other countries is stage coups and the stuff to do things for them. the CIA rarely gets it's hands dirty in a fight they can have locals do for them.but then the commandos who we send like the green berets. well they are questionable.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

o and a other thing, assassination is illegal. the times you may here of one happening is a crime and they are usually punished. what are CIA do in other countries is stage coups and the stuff to do things for them. the CIA rarely gets it's hands dirty in a fight they can have locals do for them.but then the commandos who we send like the green berets. well they are questionable.Our government is large and very powerful, so it's to be expected that it has committed all sorts of internationally illegal acts, as well as atrocities and dealings with unethical figures.We have a history of installing and providing support to despots especially in South America. We could be called the incidental fathers of al Qaeda, since we trained and supported the men who formed it, we have attempted and carried out assassinations so many times that it's not even interesting. That it was made illegal by presidential order just means we support in more covert ways. We use drug money to fund the CIA. We have experimented on our own, innocent citizens with drugs designed as prototype truth serums.Anyway, I'm just saying that I don't trust those in power to be anything less than sneaky.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

o i am well a where of are meddling. especially the fact that we had the great idea of uniting all of the militant fanatic Muslims in the world and then organize them into a fight force and never thought they would bite back at the hand that feed them.but i still feel there is honesty and morality in the government, despite popularity of the media and stuff saying the government is trying to back stab you, i still think in most cases the paranoia we have of them is overplayed and that they for the most part, they don't have much to gain for turning on their country. or doing un ethical things
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

No. It's taxation. The principal function of the state is to guarantee the security of markets, without which modern economy cannot function. The state does this by enforcing all sorts of contracts through its legal system, and through the use of military and civilian force to defend personal and corporate property rights. As importantly, the state creates and maintains infrastructure required for the movement of goods and services. Even social services provided by the state are principally directed toward the creation of useful labor for production. Taxation is a point of connection between two mutually dependent systems.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

In and of itself, no. As long as taxes are not repressive and if the public is properly represented, taxation is does not constitute theft.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: no

This should have been covered in high school in an economics or government class.I guess funding public schools with stolen money is a bad idea.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

Depends, seeing as the government gives a "service" in return it's not theft. People receive services from firefighters, cops, ERs, parks, and roads in return for paying taxes.So it's more like making people buy some shit they may or may not want.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Yeah....if it was just cops, firefighters, roads, the armed forces ect...that would be great. Virtually everyone wants the basic services and protections that organized government has traditionally offered. The problem arises when it ends up being billions for other countries, billions for banks and car companies, billions for social programs, billions for people that are not even citizens of our country......It's actualy more like making people buy some of the shit that they want and a whole lotta shit that they dont' want or need.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

This anarchy libertarian tea-party bs is getting out of control. Will you all please crawl back in your holes? I realize having a black president has rallied the racists among you, and Faux is treating you like a legitimate movement, but you are a group of idiots who if you ever had power would destroy the country.Taxes are essential for any society. We pay taxes as part of a society, in return we get order. Theft is taking something, with nothing in return.That one likes to cry about taxes and pretend they are some cosmic victim, does not make taxes theft.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

Hey David! I haven't seen you since you shied away from our last debate but I'm glad to see you're still trying your hand at the political stuff. ;)"Taxes are essential for any society. We pay taxes as part of a society, in return we get order."No, we pay taxes so we don't end up living like some sort up sentient blow up doll trapped in a room full of sexually frustrated serial rapists with a fetish for silicone.Just because I wont shoot you in the kneecap so long as you give me $20 doesn't mean I've given you a well working leg to stand on. ;) "Theft is taking something, with nothing in return."Well, no corrections to make here. You clearly have the understanding on the topic of thievery as an elementary school student has on his classroom presentation of M-theory.A government cannot stand on force alone. It needs the majority of the people living in the area it claims to believe in its own righteousness or the country becomes impossible to control. The only way to do this is to convince the population that they gain more from paying the mandatory ransoms then they would get by just spending the money directly on what they want to spend it on. So, they throw just enough spare change at us to stop us from marching violently through the streets or worse, turn to some other government."That one likes to cry about taxes and pretend they are some cosmic victim, does not make taxes theft."Well with that logic I could rob a child of his lolly-pop and claim it's not technically theft so long as the kid cries about it. =/What makes taxation theft is that it's a mandatory payment punishable by death and/or imprisonment. It quite literally has nothing to do with whether I view myself as a "cosmic victim" (whatever the hell that is) or not.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

1. No really, I don't remember you. And if I didn't reply it is probably because you are boring and incapable of grasping the simple concept of things, like taxation apparently.2. It makes it cheaper by the example I gave you, roads, water, etc... that's where the "you couldn't afford it otherwise comes in." These are cheaper because they are not for profit. A business that needs to make a profit is more expensive.If roads for instance, were a for profit industry, then even with competition, the competition would still want to make a profit, and so it would be more expensive. This is why certain things need to be paid for through taxes in any society.2. Oh, I get it. You are the one who doesn't understand apparently, since you refuse to say how police would be paid for by individuals.3. Uh huh, and now I see why I ignored you. How ryu? How would people afford these things? Magical Leprachauns perhaps?4. No I don't. Why do you insist on comparing wits instead of answering the questions. I am pretty sure IQ wise I'm a lot smarter than you in fact.5. Yes, yes, I know Ryu, it's all a big conspiracy. Government meets in a dark room and plans it all out. Forget that we vote for our government, you're obviously correct. (that's sarcasm)6. I was talking about you and your crazy conspiracies and anti-government bs. I'm saying once the economy improves you and your ilk will go back to being ignored by society at large.7. No one has ever been executed for not paying taxes 1. and 2 this government you vote for supplies the lawyer for free when they do take you to court for not paying your fair share, and 3 because you insist on ad hominem attacks instead of explaining how this stuff would be paid for by the average 40k/ year income - you probably should kind of feel like a jerk.All you do is repeat "supply and demand, supply and demand" with no consideration for cost or how money would be collected for necessities, like roads, without a tax.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: No

1. You should be sure, and you're annoying me. This is likely why I began ignoring you last time whenever that was.2. Why do you continue with the attacks? Insulting me makes you no less incorrect.And for the rest. You still have not explained how you plan on paying for all this stuff individuals cannot afford without taxes. Toll booths on every block of every road? Perhaps we should go back to trading cows and chickens for medical service? I'm sure doctor's would love that. I want answers how you would pay for things without taxes.And none of what you have said changes the fact that not a state in the union has judged one be put to death for not paying taxes, or that taxes are theft.All you've shown is that you don't like taxes, have no idea how else anything would be paid for without them, you like to insult people for no apparent reason, and you think you're some kind of economic super genius.
Debate: Taxation is Legalized Theft
Side: yes

1. I annoy you? Why? Just because I'll debate you no matter how hopelessly futile getting such a simple message across to you is? What kind of debater would I be if I let a little thing like that deter me =pNeed I remind you, though, that you don't HAVE to debate me and you're free to stop talking to me anytime you like. 2. I tend to respond by sitting down and typing non-stop whatever comes into my mind until I can't think of anything else I need to say. It just so happens I don't think too highly of your grasp on economics. =/GAAAAAWWWWWWTry to understand, please, the idea that you don't NEED a tax base to provide any service. If there's money in it, other people will start up a business in order to get some of that money. If people want police protection, someone will start up a business supplying police protection. If people want hospitals, someone will open a practice. Sure, the first person to start up a business of it's kind will have high prices, but then this person sends a waving flag to all other entrepreneurs that there is money to be made in this business. Then the competition starts. Business begin lowering their prices in order to get more customers than the other businesses until an equilibrium is reached. You DON'T need government for currency either. There are even forms of currency other than the U.S. dollar in the U.S.A. right now (http://www.libertydollar.org/)"And none of what you have said changes the fact that not a state in the union has judged one be put to death for not paying taxes, or that taxes are theft."Hmm, so now the scope has shrunk from all of governments to union states, sure, OK.I haven't looked into if this has happened to anyone in the united state's history myself, so I'm going to assume you're right. All this proves is that people value their own lives more than their money. It still doesn't change the fact that if you outright refuse to pay, they will have to kill you (or at least imprison you for life) and it defiantly doesn't change the fact that taxation is theft.You're still having your money extracted forcefully. Sure, you can say you're willingly sending your money but if the only alternative to giving it to them is them taking it then it's not exactly voluntary, is it.Perhaps these things I'm talking to you about seem "super genius" to you, but ask around and anyone will tell you that basic supply and demand is just that; basic. So no, I don't like taxes much in the same way I don't like being forced to shoot myself in the foot as opposed to being shot in the foot. If state run monopolies really are the best way to get things done then you wouldn't need taxation because people would willingly give their money to this super organization as it clearly (sarcasm) does a better job at supplying all these services and making them affordable, than anyone else could.
Debate: Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree?
Side: Yes, I agree.

Despite the ever advancing technology and the changes it's bringing, I certainly believe there are more advantages to it. Consider the advancements in relation to the technology used by doctors? scientists and doctors are conducting many researches and discovering many ways to heal people and free them from their sicknesses, which would otherwise (without technology) potentially result in DEATH. Technology such as transport allows for quicker access to particular services in relation to one's needs and also saves a heap amount of money, improving one's financial wellbeing. Chat networks, for instance, they too are an advantage, improving individuals' wellbeing and confidence, despite the dramas created. Moreover, technology such as internet and e-mail is simply amazing. How can a business be run without e-mails? this contributes to and is an effective form of communication. There are many more examples, but I'm too tired to type. lol
Debate: Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree?
Side: No, I do not agree.

"Ever advancing technology and the changes it's bringing"Yes. There is advancing technology, but what does it bring? Well, here's a short list for you: 1) In the last 200 years we have damaged the world more than we had the 2000 years before that. There are all sorts of terrible things that we have recently done to our society via technology, and destroying the entire planet, which has lead to extinct species, through pollution is something that does not convince me that everything good that occurs outweighs the bad. 2) The nuclear bomb. The invention of the nuclear bomb has taken thousands upon thousands of lives and still has the potential to now. What is good about the invention of the bomb? Well, nothing. Nuclear power was discovered through a similar process, however there are also huge malefactors to that, too. Released radiation can be a huge problem for the people who live locally to the spill of it.3) The thalidomide drug. Of course there have been some more bad inventions on the side of war, but there have also been some bad medical inventions, such as the thalidomide drug. This drug, provided to release pain for mothers giving birth had a large negative effect on the babies they gave birth to. Just have a look at the link below.
Debate: Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree?
Side: Yes, I agree.

The nuclear bomb is the perfect example of misuse of technology. As shown in the use of nuclear reactors, nuclear technology has the potential to provide cheap energy for the world and reduce our dependence on hydrocarbons for power stations. The problem here isn't technology, but how the technology was employed. Admittedly, nuclear technology has yet to be perfected, as shown by the Chernobyl and Fujishiwa disasters. But accidents aside, one cannot deny that the use of nuclear technology has provided power to millions around the world. Technology has progressed far enough to ensure that nuclear technology can be used safely for power generation if no errors occur on the side of the operators and contractors. Regarding your example of the thalidomide drug, the use of this drug is an isolated incident and cannot be used to generalise the field of medicine. Are you trying to imply that this single accident and the cumulative deaths leading from the misuse of chemicals outweigh the millions of lives saved through the same field? Yes, doctors and scientists have made mistakes, but through the work put into the field of medicine over the centuries, the average human lifespan has now been increased drastically. Humans make mistakes and over the years, it is inevitable that some overeager scientists will accidentally promote the use of drugs such a thalidomide but it cannot be denied that others in the same field have saved millions of lives through appropriate use of technology.
Debate: Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree?
Side: No, I do not agree.

The good from technology does not outweigh the bad.After technology has been used for the intentional removal of human life, how can it have been? Nothing justifies the intentional loss of innocent human life and it never will. How can loss of life ever outweigh having a new computer? "Nuclear technology has the potential to provide cheap energy for the world"For the world. Does nuclear work with the purpose of helping the world? Whilst that may be the intention of it, sometimes nuclear reactors explode - and this causes loss of human life in colossal quantities. The ability to turn lights on in my home does not outweigh the fact that millions may die every day if there is an accident with a nuclear reactor. I would rather have no power than for everyone I know to die. -Another thing about nuclear reactors is that they use fossil fuels. Fossil fuels tend not to help the Earth, as they drain it of non-renewable resources. Draining the Earth of things that may place it in jeopardy in the near-future isn't great. "Your example of the thalidomide drug" Yes, you appear to have misunderstood. When I was talking about that I was not intending to abuse all medicine at all. I was merely explaining that bad things happen because of technology, and they can occur in all forms. They occur in the form of bombs, and they can occur in the form where sometimes (even when you try to help people) things happen when there was no intentional negative effects intended at all.
Debate: Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree?
Side: Yes, I agree.

You're comparing the loss of life from the existence and use of weapons to the benefits gained from a new computer. I'm comparing the possible lives saved through the existence of advanced technology. Not just a new computer, but the transport and mass production of food, the development of drugs, the advancements in the field of medicine all count as technology and these have most certainly saved lives. My point was that there are more lives saved than taken through technology. I think we'll reach a stalemate at this point, it's rather hard to even find evidence documenting the numbers. 'sometimes nuclear reactors explode - and this causes loss of human life in colossal quantities.' Yes, I completely agree with you. But I must also point out that sometimes, cars crash, trains crash and boats sink, taking tens of thousands of lives every year. Nuclear accidents take very little lives. Even if you factor in the diseased children(including those that may be born deformed) that die from radiation from a single accident, it is hyperbole to say that `millions may die'. Nuclear reactors are after all constructed to prevent the worst of the radiation from escaping and to limit the effect of an accident. If you were to check the causes of nuclear reactor accidents, you would find that most of the accidents were caused by human error or a construction contractors oversight. Most accidents with a few notable exceptions only affected workers within the nuclear reactor.Yes, I agree that nuclear reactors require dangerous and limited uranium to power, but when compared to the detriments of other power plants (with the exception of wind farms, which require specific conditions and solar plants, which require land area some countries do not have) , is far more efficient and has less effect on the environment.I have already addressed this point Quote : It cannot be denied that others in the same field have saved millions of lives through appropriate use of technology. Bad things happen because of technology, but do these bad things outweigh the good? Naturally, I cannot provide any statistics to substantiate my point. Technology isn't a bane. It is a saving grace from ignorance and scarcity. What is a bane, is mankind's nature to subjugate their counterparts through the abuse and use of technology for killing and wounding.
Debate: Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree?
Side: No, I do not agree.

There are bad things to all aspects of technology. If you mention that there are good aspects to the field of medicine you will find that many people protest against medicine itself using arguments such as how it is against nature to make someone live longer than when it has been decided it is their time to go (die). People die because of medicine every day, too. 100 American die every day because of medicine overdose, and I would not credit supplying a new way for people to kill themselves as a good thing. Would you? True, medicine does save the odd life, but everyone will die one day - so medicine will, and can, never win. "There are more lives saved than taken through technology" Have you ever heard of people going to war in the masses with just their fists? Even if you had, it doesn't matter. Throughout history there have been countless wars, ageing from before records began and laws were laid out for people. Technology of some form will have been used to take lives in these wars, and therefore it can safely be said that technology has taken billions of lives in the past. I doubt that technology has saved all of these lives? No, because those people are dead. It may seem hard to find evidence documenting these numbers and so we may meet some kind of stalemate when it comes to proof, but logically it appears more life has been lost due to technology. "Cars crash, trains crash, and boats sink, taking tens of thousands of lives"This is against you. You used this argument to point out that compared to nuclear reactors these things take a lot of lives, and the fact is that they do - both of these things do. It can be understood from this information that technology takes lots of lives in all kinds of sick ways, and nobody can doubt that. So, not only does technology take lots of lives, it does it in a sick way, doesn't it? "Technology isn't a bane. It is a saving grace from ignorance and scarcity. What is a bane, is mankind's nature to subjugate their counterparts through the abuse and use of technology for killing and wounding"The debate is about what technology means to society. The title is Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree? It is not Mankind uses technology in stupid ways. Is it their fault? Technology on it's own does neither good nor bad. It is how it is harnessed, used, and what it means to people when it is harnessed that defines how 'good' it is. Someone cannot die because of technology alone; technology is mostly inanimate. Someone can also not be saved by it. Technology itself doesn't mean anything. How it is harnessed does.
Debate: Technology brings more advantages than disadvantages to society. Do you agree?
Side: Yes, I agree.

I agree with the topic. Firstly, technology can help us with Globalization. This means that we can share informations quickly and efficiently. Countries separated by distance can also see and share informations all around the world. If we have relatives staying overseas, we can share our daily information with them easily too. It can help us to keep in touch together. Secondly, it can help us in Communication. With the help of information technology, communication has also become cheaper, quicker, and more efficient. We can now communicate with anyone around the globe by simply text messaging them or sending them an email for an almost instantaneous response. The internet has also opened up face to face direct communication from different parts of the world thanks to the helps of video conferencing. Lastly, Technology also helps us to find out more about the world. In Singapore, not all of the news around the world is printed on the newspapers. With technology, we can easily see news online.