azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

I don't think you understand how it works.When invaders come, the locals say, "This is our land. Leave."Then the invaders say, "Where did you get it from?"And the locals say, "From our fore fathers and their forefathers before that."Then the invaders say, "Where did THEY get it from?"And the locals say, "They fought for it."Then the invaders say, "We'll fight you for it ;)"The white man won this land fair and square. If the illegals want it, they have to fight for it ;)
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

Hahahaha and where were you educated on this piece of fiction. Who did we fight? Who was here before us? Thanksgiving: Celebrating The Genocide Of Native Americanshttp://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/11/25/thanksgiving-celebrating-the-genocide-of-native-americans/Native AmericanGenocide Still HauntsUnited Stateshttp://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/ native-americans.html
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

Who did we fight? Who was here before us? You tell me. It's your culture. The white man never bothered to ask who you guys fought because it didn't matter. All that mattered was, "Winner takes all ;)"And so it is today. Winner takes all. ;)
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

Who supposedly this? No one. By the way no one was here before us! Just because someone says the ocean is purple doesn't mean it is. Keep living in your fantasy world. The point is is that the white man murdered his way to our land and now the descendants are whining about our brother natives crossing back into their own native lands that you stole from us. A thief doesn't have a right to complain about stolen property being rightfully taken back. ;)
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

I am NOT  complain about stolen property being rightfully taken back.I am saying that if they want it back, they'll have to fight for it ;)
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

I can agree with that. My main thing is when people try to say it was the right thing to murder the natives.
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

So are you OK with murdering the current natives in order to get the land back? ;)
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

For one they aren't Natives. @ I don't believe in MURDER but I do believe in self defense and defending what's yours and not letting injustice continue against our people including our brothers and sisters from south of U.S. border.
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

OK..., So you don't believe in murder.You believe in defending what's yours..., so you have to believe in the white man defending this land which is no longer yours.And the white man is no longer killing your people.The white man has laws for allowing legal immigrants into the country.Every country on the planet has laws for kicking illegals out.So..., what's the problem?
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

Just what are the benefits of living in the USA? Is it the ability to acquire debt or is it the American dream which is acquiring debt and dying.
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

Their social service is one little box of macaroni and crackers given once a month. I lived there for 4 yrs dodging grenades and bullets. Yeah I'm EDUCATED and EXPERIENCED on the subject of Mexico and ILLEGALS. They cannot use our social services! Buit it's bull that I as a NATIVE AMERICAN decendent of Crazy horse, my grandfather was a judge, I have an ancestor that fought in EVERY SINGLE U.S. WAR, and My other grandfather earned a purple heart in WW2 and I have to go to Mexico to dodge grenades and bullets and be extorted by mafia and police officers because I'm American! I have to live in fear that we will be taken at any given moment to be tortured, dipped in a barrel of acid, or be beheaded because my husband at age 15 was a Mexican soldier, and the mafia doesn't look kindly on that nor are they merciful. But I am not allowed to have MY HUSBAND of 8 yrs and the FATHER OF MY # CHILDREN live here in the U.S. because he fled from Mexico to get here to save his own life! This is what most "illegals" face. This country murders my ancestors, My great great grandmother escapes the trail of tears, and my children have to chose between being fatherless or dodging grenades and bullets... !!!! Colombus was the first Illegal Alien! I guess I'll just do what he did stick a flag in the ground make up whatever name I want and claim this land for myself and for whoever I want to benefit. haha look at the insanity of what we call legal! If I did that I would be insane to think that is legit! If we can have Colombus day in this country then we can make it possible for the brothers of us natives to be here.
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

Their social service is one little box of macaroni and crackers given once a month. I lived there for 4 yrs dodging grenades and bullets. Yeah I'm EDUCATED and EXPERIENCED on the subject of Mexico and ILLEGALS. They cannot use our social services! Buit it's bull that I as a NATIVE AMERICAN decendent of Crazy horse, my grandfather was a judge, I have an ancestor that fought in EVERY SINGLE U.S. WAR, and My other grandfather earned a purple heart in WW2 and I have to go to Mexico to dodge grenades and bullets and be extorted by mafia and police officers because I'm American! I have to live in fear that we will be taken at any given moment to be tortured, dipped in a barrel of acid, or be beheaded because my husband at age 15 was a Mexican soldier, and the mafia doesn't look kindly on that nor are they merciful. But I am not allowed to have MY HUSBAND of 8 yrs and the FATHER OF MY # CHILDREN live here in the U.S. because he fled from Mexico to get here to save his own life! This is what most "illegals" face. This country murders my ancestors, My great great grandmother escapes the trail of tears, and my children have to chose between being fatherless or dodging grenades and bullets... !!!! Colombus was the first Illegal Alien! I guess I'll just do what he did stick a flag in the ground make up whatever name I want and claim this land for myself and for whoever I want to benefit. haha look at the insanity of what we call legal! If I did that I would be insane to think that is legit! If we can have Colombus day in this country then we can make it possible for the brothers of us natives to be here. Oh by the way, my Illegal husband EMPLOYS over 20 U.S. citizens who couldn't find a job else where and my husband pays them BETTER than the other employers in this area for the same job.
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

Just wanted to point out a lot of the arguments on here are false. It seems a lot of the people who are arguing do not understand basic US immigration procedure and law.Some illegals actually pay taxes and have tax IDs even before Obama. SS and TIN are different IDs although if you have an SS, you don't need a TIN.Green cards are not given by foreign countries to show permanent resident status in the US.
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

I think that the USA is in dire need of multi-cultural-ism. I think that people who aren't contributing and trying, should be kicked out of the states.While you are at it, also kick out the homeless people and criminals (regardless of race).Also, while you are at it, get rid of Taylor Swift to send a message to Nazi lovers everywhere (even though she probably isn't racist.) Just do it because they like her.
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

There is one simple reason that ALL illegal immigrants should immediately be forced out of this Country, they have broken the LAW! They have broken Federal immigration laws, and they are therefore CRIMINALS!! They are FELONS, each and every single one of them period! They cut in line in front of hundreds of thousands of persons that are waiting to enter the US legally. We should find every person employing illegals-from factory workers, to gardeners, nanny's etc., and fine them. A jail term for larger employers MUST be at least one year in jail-NO EXCEPTIONS! Oh, as far as picking produce is concerned, there are plenty of machines available that can pick fruits and vegetables. The farmers simply find it more cost effective to hire illegals-no muss, no fuss. It costs more money to buy machines, and by the way-there are plenty of out of work Americans that will pick produce today-thank you Barak Obama and democrats! Can anyone say phoney STIMULIS and Hyper-Inflation. Every dumb*ss that voted for the Bamster is going to live to regret it! Ha, Ha, Ha. So you guys that are unemployed because your fearless leader...how's that hope and change working out for you?
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

first they are breaking the law, second we don't who is entering the country, they could be killers, child abusers x-cones or criminals of some kind. by letting them stay, its a statement that you can commit a crime and get a way with it in america, and yet you can be rewarded by getting citizenships and all kinds of benefits. we know that its not going to stop. we know that they are going to take advantage of our weak immigration laws and bring there Mom's and, Dad's, brothers and as many as they can to the US. they will all collect some kind of benefits. especially the alders, who never worked a day in there life and paid taxes they will come here and collect SSI benefits, Medicare and Medicaid. so please can anyone tell me how is that fare, they are robbing our kids social security money. how is that right??????!!!
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

Who is going to do the kicking; and how long before they get tired? I say we build a giant, mechanical leg that can punt them back over the border! No one get tired and it would be more fun. We could like aim it and assign different scores based on take off and landing and if they make it between the goal posts. Oh, and we can start with Obama's aunt ;)http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18622945/detail.html
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

But think about how much money the country could make if they stayed and we taxed them! Trillions!
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

Hmmm, not a bad idea. Now we have to get them better jobs so that we can tax them at a higher rate. What do you do for a living? Maybe we can start with your job ;)
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: No

I'm a tutor and I invest in currency. If the immigrants are smart enough to be tutors, why wouldn't we want them? If they invest, why wouldn't we want them?
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

I think idiots whom are in support of the decline of their country should be deported as well. We tried taxing them with a TIN number and what happens?They begin claiming the child tax credit and cost American tax payers billions of dollars last year!!!!
Debate: Should we kick illegal immigrants out of the USA?
Side: Yes

All those taxes are destroying this nation. We should deport the people taxing us. ;)
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

We are all humans(most of us). It is time to start thinking as a species instead of as nations. Otherwise, we shall never get off this rock and start colonizing other planets
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

We do think as a species and what the human species wants most is power and as long as humans want power there will never be a world government.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: Yes

I really like this thought. If we stop focusing our attention on attacking each other and actually work together. I think all the Continent's, Countries, and even States would benefit in such a greater way.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

I couldn't agree more
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

I think that one government would be the best idea, but it'd have to be carefully made. I think that there should be one person in charge of the world at large, then one person in charge of each "region," and subdivide it further. Having one government is the only way to achieve anything resembling world peace because it would make the feeling of "patriotism" irrelevant because there's only one government to be patriotic to. Sure, there would be problems, but there are problems in every government.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

Your notion of regions and subdivisions holds absolutely no water. Just look at the United States. The division between states and the nation as a whole is almost non-existent. If world government says so we all obey and there's no appealing, no complaining, no escaping.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

Sure, there's federal law, but there's also state law and local law, that's why we have state and local government, to make laws that appeal to a certain culture. "The division between states and the nation as a whole is almost non-existent."I'm just wondering, do you live in the US? The differences in culture between the North and South are HUGE (I would know, I've lived in both), the differences in culture between the East and West are HUGE, even a country as patriotic as the US has many, many different cultures, and while the division between individual states might not be significant, the divisions between regions of the country are."If world government says so we all obey and there's no appealing, no complaining, no escaping."That's only correct of the world government is a dictatorship. I'm talking about a democratic world government.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

You are right that today we identify first with our country, and second with our state, but that attitude has evolved over our nations history. Originally people considered themselves "Virginians" or "Pennsylvanians" as opposed to Americans. In fact, when using the United States of America, people would say: "The United States of America are..." as opposed to "The United States is..." which is what most people use today.I assume the same would happen with a world government. Groups would still associate with their own nation first. Differences in culture would probably slow any type of homogenation, however.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: federalism

Given many of the responses here, I think the question is slightly mis-worded. I doubt any of us prefer a unitary state, "one world" government to a government would respect regional, national and local distinctions and cultures. However, one can have a well-governed global political system by delegating authority on issues to the appropriate level. Over 40% of the world's citizens live in federal systems of this nature, in which multiple levels of governments check each other in their exercise of power. In the vast majority, there are local, provincial and national governments with direct ties and responsibility to the citizenry. Some have identified climate change, war and terrorism as issues for which borders are quite porous. i would also add infectious diseases as another. Each of these require government bureaucracies in each of the 192 nations on Earth today, through these issues could easily be delegated to empowered and democratically-checkes federal global system, reducing the burden on national taxpayers and infrastructures and allowing, as H.G. Wells suggested, "such a release and increase of human energy as to open a new phase in human history." If you want to learn more, visit http://www.wfm-igp.org, http://www.forumfed.org, or http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4946491723
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

I'd like to add the following arguments for a democratically elected and well-governed global system, in contrast to the present treaty-based system of solving global problems: "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties. Compacts of this kind exist among all civilized nations, subject to the usual vicissitudes of peace and war, of observance and non-observance, as the interests or passions of the contracting powers dictate. In the early part of the present century there was an epidemical rage in Europe for this species of compacts, from which the politicians of the times fondly hoped for benefits which were never realized. With a view to establishing the equilibrium of power and the peace of that part of the world, all the resources of negotiation were exhausted, and triple and quadruple alliances were formed; but they were scarcely formed before they were broken, giving an instructive but afflicting lesson to mankind, how little dependence is to be placed on treaties which have no other sanction than the obligations of good faith, and which oppose general considerations of peace and justice to the impulse of any immediate interest or passion....But if we are unwilling to be placed in this perilous situation; if we still will adhere to the design of a national government, or, which is the same thing, of a superintending power, under the direction of a common council, we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a league and a government; we must extend the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens, -- the only proper objects of government." -- Federalist #15
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

I wonder why opponents of a world government describe it with all negative characteristics they can imagine (eliminating diversity, all controlling, inescapable, in the hands of a very few). Of course, if we do that, a world government results in an awful concept. We humans (and non humans) face global challenges that put our very way of life (perhaps some day our lives) in peril, and it is difficult to see how we can overcome them without a new layer of global governance. But global governance can be democratic, federalist and according the the subsidiarity principle, transparent, and embodied with only those competencies that need global action and can't be solved at lower governance levels.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

I think we should. The article has convinced me. Globalization means that trouble in one place means trouble everywhere. Countries working together in an organized way will benefit us all. Countries operating autonomously will cause big problems, such as the recent financial crisis.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

It's sad that one article has convinced you so quickly. Your statement has no point. You haven't said anything that revolves around one world government. Countries currently work together in "organized" manners. Trying to blame autonomy for the recent financial crisis is ludicrous. The financial crisis is due, in a large part, to a loss of respect towards what money is and its representation. It all started when we assigned worth by replacement of items of "actual" worth to those of "said" worth. If you took all of which we consider of "monetary value" (eg. diamonds, gold, silver, etc) and put it together it wouldn't even come close to the world currencies that are flying around today. How is globalization/one world government going to solve that so called crisis?
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

Ok, so maybe the financial crisis was a bad example.Andsoccer had some better examples of why global regulation of some things would be good:"...you have nations like China who pollute incredible amounts and answer to no one, or like Zimbabwe where the government has allowed thousands of it's citizens to starve to death."
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

I like how no one wants to put the blame on the U.S. for anything. You go to countries like China and Zimbabwe as examples. Anyways, that has nothing to do with this rebuttal. One world government isn't going to answer that call. We're talking about efficiency. Can you really imagine the bureaucracy of one world government?! it would take centuries to get things done. Decentralized approach is more effective. It's better to have people/ other governments to keep each other in check than to have one big guy calling all the shots. It's just funny because with all your sides arguments, I see a trend. You guys are just supporting the U.N unintentionally. One world government wouldn't be very powerful but just enough for global regulation of some things.....sounds like the UN....
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

"I like how no one wants to put the blame on the U.S. for anything. You go to countries like China and Zimbabwe as examples."I have no problem blaming the U.S. The unjustified invasion of Iraq is another good example of something that a governing body could've prevented."Can you really imagine the bureaucracy of one world government?!"It would be no different from any other government."It's better to have people/ other governments to keep each other in check than to have one big guy calling all the shots."One big guy calling all the shots is a dictatorship. I'm obviously not advocating a global dictator, but something more like a democracy."You guys are just supporting the U.N unintentionally."No, we are supporting the U.N. intentionally. I'm thinking right now the best answer is to give a little more power to the U.N. I agree that the organization has it's problems, but those problems are not unfixable. I assume you are a libertarian. You think the best answer to everything is less government. The problem with that is when you take power away from government, you're taking power away from the people and giving it to whoever can muster the most force (i.e. corporations). To you I say the solution is not less government, the solution is better government.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: yes

Of course I agree with better government... Who wouldn't? Your assumption is wrong. Let me add...if you believe that the bureaucracy of one world government would be no different than our current government status, then why make one world government? And supporting the UN intentionally is fine and dandy but that isn't the debate that was created. That's why I pointed it out. No libertarian here. If I missed something let me know.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

Well, our current government isn't that bad. It may not be perfect, but we are certainly better off with it than without it, despite the bureaucracy. At the global level there is almost no regulation whatsoever. A global government would probably have similar imperfections, but would be a net win overall.And supporting the UN is related to the debate, because the UN is a form of world government, albeit a very weak one.
Debate: Should we move toward one world government?
Side: No

You make a very good point. There are just so many things to consider. It sounds nice, like marx does on paper, but in reality will it work? Think of one world currency, one world bank, etc, etc. It almost sounds too good to be true. If we were able to move into this direction it would have to happen in about 20 to 30 years. I feel that right now the world is moving to develop to a state where every country runs autonomously.