azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Trial and error till you get it right, but claiming something to be absolutely impossible without never really having tried it is just stupid.Yes trail and error works, but, when your playing with the fate of billions of people you don't exactly just go in there with the whole "its not gonna work, but eventually we'll get it" attitude.Not my problem you lack the necessary imagination and creativity to see how exactly.Im a rather skilled musician and artist, don't talk to be about creativity. Its not about imagination, just cause someone is unable to see your vision of a perfect world (whether it would be good or not) does not make them unimaginative, if anything you lack realism and are unable to understand that your vision is more of an ideology than an actual system.I don't need history to tell me what is right or wrong. I'd rather think myself.Your supposed to think freely, but, thinking freely does not mean totally ignoring history and reality, for instance, I can think that Meth won't hurt me but regardless of what I think it will, someone who simply shuns the evidence that Meth is bad for you is not a free thinker, there just ignorant.As a hobby...As you might be aware people also collect physical things as a hobby, like stones, candy wrappers, and so many other things.Are you trying to say that since it was a hobby that I was interested in and not a government planned class in a public school that it is somehow less valid?Currently, the one with money has the power. If there'd be no money it would be the one with the most brains (more or less).First off, how do you think people get money? There are a few spoiled brats, but for the most part if you want to obtain wealth you have to be smart or skilled. Secondly, it wouldn't be the one "with the most brains" it would be whoever is incharge, if your going to have a society with no money where all products are rationed your going to have some form of large government, the people who run it will be in power regardless of how smart or stupid they are.You call stupidity human nature?Stupidity is human nature, we are like any other creature, we screw up. No matter how much you make people "learn" about anything, human nature will always be there weather its for the better or worse. Survival is an instinct of human nature and most other behaviors in human nature are linked back to it, but that would be over simplifying it to say that we only care about survival.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

It's not playing, it's correcting ways. A huge difference. You would rather keep following current inferior and stupid ways instead of something much much more efficient and something that is better for everyone?No, I do not like our current system, however, eliminating money isn't superior, it would make trade much more complex and put humanity back into a survival situation. And you are in a sense playing with them, you would be forcing a system on billions of people that is mainly an ideaology.Musician and artist? Not exactly into "heavy" creativity... I'm more toward high fantasy and science fiction, so I've got to have a good grasp on reality.Heavy? You think because I am able to create music and art that I am unable to imagine other things? Currently it is an ideology because it does not exist outside the mind... yet. But it could if it were done and it will one day be done, assuming humanity takes its head out of the hole. That's not lacking realism, it's having more of it than you, clearly, as I can see alternative and better ways for it all to work. There's this what is right now and then there're the other possibilities.The hole humanities hole is in is currently the idea that mass collectivism and big government are the solution to our problems, a medium that makes trade much easier is not the problem.Doesn't matter if it comes from school or your own free time, it's rather worthless either way.Knowing about has happened isn't worthless and having an understanding of how humans work is not worthless.Or greedy and willing to do anything in your power to get what you want.Greed is an out of control lust for power, not someone simply trying to succeed.The rich people basically steal it, as they have far more than they will ever use (and I don't mean using it on worthless junk).So your saying that anyone who has made more or just has more is greedy and stole it? You understand that some will always do better than others and your not obligated to give away any excess you have made.Currently many people go for leading positions because of money. That means idiots find their way up there. In moneyless society those people would not want that position, they'd gain nothing from it.Wrong, most people take leading positions for the power, money is also a factor, but if you got rid of money do you honestly believe that corrupt people who only care about their well being would end up in charge or find a way to get control? People will always want power and people will always want to control others., eliminating money will stop their motives or them from achieving them.In that case I'd say making mistakes is human nature, not stupidity. Not all people are stupid, but all make mistakes. Being ignorant of something is not exactly being stupid, you make a mistake and you learn. Might as well say learning is human nature.Learning and mistakes are human nature, but mistakes will stupid at times and people will not always learn.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

In moneyless society there is no need for trade, you simply get what you need. Trade, swapping one thing with another, is not necessary.Heres things, your pushing the system back to the way a small group of survivors would have worked if they were stranded, they would all work and all get the same amount of everything. We are not currently in a survival situation, by eliminating trade not only are you ruining any sense of economy but your going to slow down human progress. It is an ideology that would work, meaning it would not be playing with them, it would be changing things, for the better.No no no, its an ideology that could work, not would work, if you want to help people go ahead im not stopping you but don't drag everyone else down with a utopian ideology.Trade is not necessary in the first place. There have been economic lowpoints and crisis's before, all because of money. With no money there literally could be no major economic declines (unless it's caused by some natural disaster and even that would not last long).Yeah, there would be no economic lowpoints because there would be almost no economy and you'd be acting like were in a survival situation.Overpricing products or services, paying low wages. Not all but a lot of them (most of them), enough to make an impact toward the worse.Just because you make a profit from a worker or product doesn't mean its over priced, and don't forget your free to stop buying that product or work somehwere else at anytime, no one is stopping you.And what is the point of keeping something you will never use (not talking about personal objects with personal value)? There is no point, other than greed of course. With no money this would not be an issue, it literally couldn't exist.Yes it would, do you have no understanding of how power and people work? There will always be a power and a way for people to get more and by human nature we will try to go for it, eliminating money would barley change anything when it comes to who has the power except take it away from the individual. Not giving away your excess is not greed, its called benefiting from your labor.There would be less greedy morons wanting to get to leading positions if there were no money.ITS. NOT. ABOUT. MONEY. Its about power, money can be used for power, most people in political positions take it for the power, not the money, you wouldn't change anything.There would also be no money to buy people off, to make others support them.Can still bribe someone with a product, luxury, sex, power or intimidation.All they would have would be their thoughts and opinions, and that's all they could use to influence people. Even if they managed to lie their way through... they have the power, then what? Start messing things up? People would notice...You are so niave about how people work...
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

People will overstock on goods because everyone thinks everyone else will overstock on goods, therefore leaving nothing left for them. Think about it, it only takes one asshole to walk into a grocery store and claim all the food for himself. So, to ensure each individual doesn't starve to death, everyone will over-consume as much as possible. Also, since we're talking about food, people will literally kill each other over who gets the most. The Russians 'solved' this problem via the gulags. That is, hard labour camps where food rations were scarce and you were more likely to die working than meet the end of your sentence. These camps acted as deterrents for theft so that people would be more content with their semi-starved lifestyle. After all, being underfed is better than hard labour + malnourishment. Of course the soviets also at least attempted to regulate distribution. If you let it be a free-for-all, people will starve to death en masse. It seems in addition to not understanding anything about economics, you also don't quite grasp the fact that human's don't want to die. Our kindness only exists to the extent that we can afford to be kind.Money can be one form of motivation, but any form of capital will do. My point was that if you separate labour from profit, people won't work as hard. Which they don't. If everything is free, then working hard has no impact on my ability to survive. I have no reason to do a good job. The whole, "I'll do my best because we're all in this together!" line of thinking has only ever worked on a small scale -- tribalism small. The fact of the matter is, get more than 200 people together and the human mind starts to view them as more of a number than a bunch of individuals. This only worked on a tribalism scale because everyone was accountable to everyone else. You didn't work, you didn't eat. That sort of policy is impossible to enforce on a large scale without letting the government control 80%+ of GDP (not that you know what GDP is...).Economic management? All right, who will manage everything and how will they manage it? this is your ideology, simply saying "someone else will solve these problems" isn't going to convince anyone of anything.Companies pay minimum wage because the government will shut them down if they don't. the people with the lowest human capital (at least look up that term for fuck sakes) will be the ones who fill these low-paying jobs. these people are typically teenagers who don't need to pay their own way. This way, they can build up work experience and increase their human capital until they can get better and better jobs. This process can't even get off the ground if they can't find a job period.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Police? What do they have to do with this? Everything is free, so what crime is there in taking as much as you want? Are you insinuating that there will be a legal limit to how much people can consume? If so, what will the limits be? How will they be decided? What will the punishment be for breaking one's limit?Resources aren't infinite (I'm actually a little embarrassed for our species that I ever had to explain that to someone). If the threat of everyone else using up a resource exists, people will over-consume to make sure they don't get left out.Russia was the actualization of your ideology. A money-free system. It's absolutely relevant. I stopped here. The rest of your arguments are non-sequiturs anyway. Look, I don't have all day to correct you on every major misunderstanding you have on life. There's simply too many. Learn to condense your arguments.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Police? What do they have to do with this? Everything is free, so what crime is there in taking as much as you want?If someone's action harm others, then currently, what will happen? Police comes in. If someone hoards things and thus harms others that person should be dealt with. I bet you are not talking about a few to several bag fulls, but many truck fulls and not because they are needed for something but because the person simply wants to hoard things.Are you insinuating that there will be a legal limit to how much people can consume?Not legal limit, just be reasonable and think what your action can do. Stocking things up just because you want to stock them up is just stupid and wrong.Stocking things up to use over many months without the need for renewal meanwhile would be okay. To have some supplies for "hard times", for example some weather-related things, would also be okay.Don't you know what frugal and reasonable mean?Resources aren't infiniteNo, they are finite. Perhaps if you include recycling they could be endless, in a sense. (I'm actually a little embarrassed I had to tell you this. Just kidding, not really embarrassed, just wondering how you could not have known that.)If the threat of everyone else using up a resource exists, people will over-consume to make sure they don't get left out.There would be no threat like that. Just because we exist means we are in threat, there are so many possibilities for a disaster to happen (a massive volcano, meteors, solar storm, etc.). Why aren't people already stocking things up? If they did things would end not by some external influence but from within and that is just stupid. I regard humanity as smarter than that.Russia was the actualization of your ideology. A money-free system. It's absolutely relevant.Russia has never been money-free. Money-free means no money at all. They had money and they used it. Meaning it is completely irrelevant.I stopped here. The rest of your arguments are non-sequiturs anyway. Look, I don't have all day to correct you on every major misunderstanding you have on life. There's simply too many. Learn to condense your arguments.Unlike you I don't have misunderstandings on life. As I've said a couple of times, I observe things as they really are. Learn to think unbiased and logically.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Seriously, you don't have to respond to every single sentence individually. Most of my sentences tie in together anyway. One well-written paragraph would have been enough here.If the difference between reasonable stocking and hoarding isn't rigidly defined, then people will be arrested on an inconsistent basis. I could buy 10 chickens and go home fine, then the next day my neighbour could try to buy 10 chickens and get arrested. What one officer find reasonable, another would find criminal. You can't leave this up in the air. I'm consistently amazed that you refuse to accept things would work out automatically if left up to market forces, yet are so unwarrantably accepting that things will just "work out" without market forces, the very reason why things work out at all in the first place.Recycling is your solution? I'm sure the poor would love eating recycled food. No, recycling is not enough. Without some sort of limit on what people can consume, a limit that must be rigidly defined, the people will over consume out of fear of others over-consuming. Recycling just isn't enough. Besides, are you going to make it a crime to not recycle? Otherwise, how could you make sure people recycle?Russia made every effort to be money-free. The government intended on being 100% of GDP, but only ended up at 80% GDP.That means 20% of GDP was in the private sector, despite the private sector being illegal. As it turns out, even the death-sentence threat of labour camps wasn't enough to stop people from using money. Russia also held the theory that man would change to be more altruistic. It didn't happen.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

eriously, you don't have to respond to every single sentence individually. Most of my sentences tie in together anyway. One well-written paragraph would have been enough here.I don't have to respond to anything. Either way, I didn't respond to each individually.I respond however I wish.If the difference between reasonable stocking and hoarding isn't rigidly defined, then people will be arrested on an inconsistent basis. I could buy 10 chickens and go home fine, then the next day my neighbour could try to buy 10 chickens and get arrested. What one officer find reasonable, another would find criminal. You can't leave this up in the air. I'm consistently amazed that you refuse to accept things would work out automatically if left up to market forces, yet are so unwarrantably accepting that things will just "work out" without market forces, the very reason why things work out at all in the first place.You aren't getting a single thing I'm saying. And you clearly lack imagination.Recycling is your solution? I'm sure the poor would love eating recycled food. No, recycling is not enough. Without some sort of limit on what people can consume, a limit that must be rigidly defined, the people will over consume out of fear of others over-consuming. Recycling just isn't enough. Besides, are you going to make it a crime to not recycle? Otherwise, how could you make sure people recycle?Apparently you aren't getting why I included new values, education, etc.Recycling? Just an example of how resources could not end, that's all I meant by it. Recycled food becomes dirt...Russia made every effort to be money-free. The government intended on being 100% of GDP, but only ended up at 80% GDP.That means 20% of GDP was in the private sector, despite the private sector being illegal. As it turns out, even the death-sentence threat of labour camps wasn't enough to stop people from using money. Russia also held the theory that man would change to be more altruistic. It didn't happen.Russia had issues anyway. If they had known how to make it work, how to do proceed correctly, they would have succeeded. The ones leading the whole mess were also too disinclined to let go all the power that money enabled. Most politicians only care about money, their personal welfare, and a sense power. I doubt it was different back then.Their society was money based, the people were raised with money, it was all they knew. Then one day, suddenly, came the decision to change things, without preparing the people, without informing them sufficiently (even if they had known what to exactly tell them, how to do it all). Back then people on average were also a lot stupider than they are now and that plays a huge role.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Oh, you can respond how ever you want? Well, respond to this; I'm limiting you to 2 paragraphs, maybe three if it's absolutely necessary. Any more than that will be ignored. Condense your arguments or don't make them. Like I've said, I simply don't have enough free time to correct you on everything you're wrong about.So I'm seeing that you've simply shrugged off my arguments about consumption and distribution. Point for con. Moving on.The USSR lasted for 71 years. Several generations of Russians only knew of life without money, so your argument here fails already. I will remind you that the USSR collapsed in 1991, not exactly long enough ago to blame it on the stupidity of our ancestors. Russia had issues, and those issues stemmed from the problems created by the very ideas you are putting forth here now. The only difference between them and you is they recognized these problems and at least tried to solve them while you choose to simply sit here with your hands over your ears pretending like these problems don't exist.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Oh, you can respond how ever you want? Well, respond to this; I'm limiting you to 2 paragraphs, maybe three if it's absolutely necessary. Any more than that will be ignored.This is as far as I read.You are so clearly narrow-minded and closed-minded. I'm not gonna deal with a biased idiot like yourself any further. No wonder why you are like that, your box seems to be very constricting.Respond as much as you like, I'll not read any of it.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Who do you think you're fooling? You're obviously just parroting my words here. I think you've more than proved your ignorance on the topic here. Hopefully you'll make an effort to educate yourself on the topic next time.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

I have to agree with him here. If there was no minimum wage it would be slavery!
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Why?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

I hate how it forces you to one side or the other. Idealistically, yes, it should be abolished. Thinking about it from this way is depressing though. You see, there are too many people alive right now. We simply do not need them all. For this reason there are people who are completely desperate and willing to work for less money than others. This competition of undermining eventually leads to people working for less than what is necessary to sustain life (see industrial period of United States). What it comes down to is that people are not worth the food they eat for big business. Ideologically, a person getting paid more than what they are worth seems unethical (if you subscribe to the idea of capitalism) but the cold truth is that individuals are not worth all that much in the grand scheme of things. We are replaceable cogs. The minimum wage forces companies to give people the minimum needed to sustain life and this allows the quality of life to improve for the working class which creates the satisfaction necessary to sustain a government to preside over the people. So, in practicality, the wage should exist (predicated on the idea that we believe society is worth sustaining).
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Minimum wage keeps value to jobs and so if the demand of a job is kept above a certain rate then there will be a good supply of jobs. If the minimum wage as reduced we would have an excess supply and the demand would go down. If the demand goes down the value goes down which means that there will be a reduced salary.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

The minimum wage can not be simply analyzed and be also accurately analyzed. Would we have the capital growth we have now without globalization, and the level of globalization without the minimum wage. Without the capital growth, what would be the average quality of life in developed countries, would there be more or less employed globally, etc. Also, how would the domestic market be, could a worker afford in any manner what he produces without minimum wage? If not, where would his products be sold? minimum wage could raise actualizable demand up high enough that there are actually more jobs. I could continue, but I hope these thoughts are enough to show that the subject isn't as simple as some would make it out to be.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

no way!!!! There are so many people out there who are not able to earn a single penny for days... so what should they do? roam around the streets begging.. and being cursed by everybody!This shouldn't be even debated upon! Minimum wages are so much important! just because you have a man living with you who earns.. doesn't mean everyone has someone like him!
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Lol. There's two sides to every debate, ma'an.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Excuse me.. I said this isn't even a topic for debate!! You have members in your family who can provide you with facilities.. doesn't mean everybody has such a person in the family!! Minimum wages are important!! P.S. Its ma'am.!