azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

The tiny cells takes the shape of a tiny person fairly rapidly.Tell me, when do you see a person/baby in this picture?At what point does the tiny lump of cells qualify as a person?How about when it has a full brain, looks like a baby, and reacts to stimuli?If killing a person is wrong, isn't it of massive importance to determine when a person is a person?Aye... but is killing a person always wrong?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

A tiny of lump of cells is not a person. It is the seed of what may become a person.So you judge a person's humanness by the amount of cells they have? What if my arm get's amputated? Am I less of a person? After all you're totes a fat sack of cells. Probably still growing.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

There is a big difference what things are and what they might be...
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

No. I believe that life begins at birth. .
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Human, yes. Person, no. The definition of a person is a human being regarded as an individual. maybe not a fertilised egg, but a foetus, is definitely connected and 100% dependent on their mother. The foetus is not an individual, so therefore not a person.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

actually...according to law, and our corrupt way of life...the word "person" has a lot more meaning then most know.a corporation is considered a "person" that also pertains to your name being in all capital letters on your drivers license, utility bills, etc. when you agree to being that "person" AKA corporation...you are in fact giving up your rights as FREE HUMAN BEINGthink im bullshitting? do some research on the subject
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

no...would you say an egg is a chicken?or how about a garage full of mechanical parts, would that be a car?is a tadpole a frog?is a bill a law?is breakfast a pile of shit?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

would you say an egg is a chicken?Yes, I would.or how about a garage full of mechanical parts, would that be a car?If the garage is a car and the mechanical parts are the components of the car.It could also be two vehicles.is a tadpole a frog?it's a frog that is still developing.is a bill a law?Even after it's been passed it is still a bill.is breakfast a pile of shit?Sometimes.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

An egg is an egg. We buy unfertilized eggs, that will never become chickens.I could have supported your car argument better. If the parts are just in the garage they are no different than the gametes, but if they come together, as the gametes have to become a fetus, then it has now become a car, albeit an undeveloped car.I could have supported this one better as well. A tadpole is a stage in a frog's life.With this one are you insisting that since a law is still a bill, that a person is still a fetus?I liked this last one.I didn't actually quote because they were ordered and it seemed like we would be at an understanding of which line I was referring to without it.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

I wasn't insisting anything.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Well then what was the point of even stating that a law is still a bill? In that instance your statement would have only made sense if you were insisting that a human is still a fetus.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

I'd explain, but the explanation would only confuse you.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

Try me. :D
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

no no no no no.................................................
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

yes yes yes yes yes...........................................................
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

would you say an egg is a chicken?Yesa garage full of mechanical parts, would that be a car?Nois a tadpole a frog?Yesis a bill a law?Nois breakfast a pile of shit?No
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

No, it could be a chicken.This was a joke, you see because eggs come from chickens.Anyway speaking seriously, my answer is no. I think of it like this, if you can't survive on your own, you have no person hood, no rights, no anything. You are little more than perhaps, a tumor (to put it crudely).
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

The value for life depends upon the opinions of every individual but using the rules of biology, science has agreed upon that a fetus is no different from a human. The only difference is the fact that many are inventing lies to dehumanize it.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

Is it lies if it is true statements that are used to lead to a false conclusion?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

That's funny because if you inspect the two you'll see that a fetus is very different than a human. A human would be to a frog as a fetus would be to a tadpole. It will become one in the future, but as it stands it's a different creature, and it's still developing. It has special characteristics unique to it, that humans don't have, and vice versa.Honestly, how odd would it look if a person was walking down the street with an umbilical chord still attached, and his body unable to ingest food without it?What if a fetus was sitting in the placenta ingesting it through the mouth?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

A human would be to a frog as a fetus would be to a tadpole. It will become one in the future, but as it stands it's a different creature,If it isnt a human, then what is it?"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."-Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of ColoradoIt has special characteristics unique to it, that humans don't haveA fetus has the shares the same DNA of its parents and it follows the characteristics that allows it to be defined as a living creatureLiving things are made of cells.Living things obtain and use energy. Living things grow and develop.Living things reproduce.Living things respond to their environment. Living things adapt to their environment.Honestly, how odd would it look if a person was walking down the street with an umbilical chord still attached, and his body unable to ingest food without itIt would be as weird as someone who still depends on his parents for survival or be as weird as a patient who relies on insulin for proper digestion.What if a fetus was sitting in the placenta ingesting it through the mouth?Are you saying that a human is defined by the way he eats?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

I won't quote, I'll just go in order.From the top.It's a human fetus.So does a tumor, but we won't be vying to save those any time soon.SkippedI'm saying a fetus is defined by it's inability to survive without the mother. The mother only that is, to say that it can't be removed and kept alive another way, or by another lady's womb. It's still apart of the female in question, it's not yet a person.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

It's a human fetus.Science says that it's a humanSo does a tumor, but we won't be vying to save those any time soon.A tumor is not a living creature. Not even close to having any intelligenceI'm saying a fetus is defined by it's inability to survive without the motherSo does every single child.It's still apart of the female in question, it's not yet a person.It has been decided in the rules of biology that an offspring has already been created right at the moment fertilization took place. Your statement is nothing more than an opinion
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Science says it's a human fetus.A tumor is growing, and has a lot in common with a fetus in the early stages of development.If you would have quoted me correctly you would understand why this does not relate to a child. If a child is taken from it's mother, it can go to the local grocery store with a sob story, and eat, without actually needing his mother, a fetus can do no such thing.If it's an off spring why is it attached? It has not yet sprung off, and if it were removed early it would die.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

No it does notA tumor does not reproduce, it does not respond to the environment and it does not adapt. It is a disorder in the body cells.So once again, are you judging a persons worth by their ability to eat?Using puns as an argument is not an intelligent thing. The rules of science states that there is no exceptions in the definition of offspring and mere opinions can change nothing.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

I will admit I'm surprised to read that. I still wouldn't call it a person because it's a human. It's still a human in the fetal stage of it's life.It is a growing disorder in the body of the cells.I am not judging the child by it's ability to eat, i am judging it by it's ability to survive, and it just so happens eating is one of the things you must do to survive. You are misunderstanding my analogy. If you remove a fetus, it stops growing and it dies. A living child is still growing and won't just die because it's not inside a house.I am not using a pun, I am exampling that the word off spring is reserved for a child. A child that is no longer attached to the mother.Ultimately this doesn't change my view over the question do I think a fertilized egg is a person. A fertilized egg is two merging gametes. A fetus is a human in it's quickly developing stage, but it is not a person.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

I still wouldn't call it a person because it's a human.You admitted that its a human but you still wont accept its existence because it is young? Quite a close-minded statement, dont you think?It is a growing disorder in the body of the cells.And so? It does not have all the 5 requirements to be considered alive and does not even have any future.I am not judging the child by it's ability to eat, i am judging it by it's ability to surviveYeah sure and where does it says that being a person is to be self sufficient? You just gave me your personal opinion about life. But in the end, it is logic and rational thinking that will dictate the answer. Science has already gave you the answer. I wonder how long will your denial last.Ultimately this doesn't change my viewWhat a surprise.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

I said human fetus, you're misquoting me again.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

That changed nothing
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

It is the fetus of a human, not a human, that changes what your dispute was based upon.As for why my view hasn't been changed it's because you have not proven that a fetus is a person, you've only attempted to prove it is human. Person-hood and simply being a human are different.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

Thats amounts to nothing more than a well masked denial.Simply put, the personhood of any creature depends on how many people supports its life. Once, animals have no rights, slaves are merchandise and Jews are pests. Today, a fetus is not a human.The definition of being person changes for every generation. History has taught us that Democracy isnt justice. Is this really where you base your definition of a human? Voice of the masses?Logic and rational thinking has already dictated that a fetus is no different from us, all the rest are plain denials
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Actually logic and rational reasoning have brought me to the conclusion that anything that can't live on it's own isn't a person. It has nothing to do with the masses. if a bill was passed today stating fetuses are now people, I'd still consider it a silly law.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

Every child cannot live on its own, the disabled and the elderly.If they are not a person, then what are they?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Do you mean because someone has to feed them? Well guess what. You can't feed a fetus. If it's not in the ooze that's forming what will make it a person it's dying. Me right now. I am not eating, but I am not dying, i am in a stable state. Elderly people who can't move on their own, need someone to feed them, have "the shakes" are still in a more stable state than an underdeveloped fetus.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

So basically, you are indeed judging a person solely by his ability to eat.From where did you get this logic? Personal opinions?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Not eat, survive. I don't understand how you don't understand what I'm writing pretty clearly.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

Judging by your definition of survival, newborn babies, mentally disabled people, bed-ridden folks and the elderly are not human.Quit it. Personal preferences are not facts
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Wrong, an elderly person that isn't eating is still surviving. When they run out of energy they will start dying. That is different than a fetus, that is just dying if it's not in it's ooze. I'm repeating myself now, you're a fool if you seriously think this is referencing "food" again.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

Wrong, an elderly person that isn't eating is still surviving. When they run out of energy they will start dyingHow is that different from a fetus?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

I'm repeating myself once again. A fetus is without energy of it's own. it's not stable, it's not like a fetus can just live in a jar being fed occasionally. it's dying if it's not growing in the mother.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

So is Stephen Hawkings and the rest of the bed ridden patients. Without their life support, they will die.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

Hey, how come I didn't get a response?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

A fertilized egg does not have a personality and cannot feel... it's literally just a mass of cells.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: yes

And so are everyone of us, onceDont you find it funny that those who allows abortion have already been born?
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

We don't have ethical duties to rocks, a piece of hair or a fertilized egg for the same reason: they're not sentient. They have no desires or preferences of their own. Therefore nothing about their nature warrants ethical consideration. There's also an enormous practical difference between a sentient being and something you could hardly see with your bare eyes.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

it is as person as a bacteria .
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Of course not. A zygote has no brain activity whatsoever. Pregnancy does not even begin until implantation when the organism sheds the zona pellicuda and implants, usually in the womans uterus.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

No. Definitely a turtle.
Debate: Do you think a fertilized egg is a person?
Side: no

Not yet! It will be a person in the near future. I'm looking at the reality of the situation.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

For safety reasons, yes I think all bicycle riders should wear helmets. But I don't think they should have to wear helmets.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

The point is that people that have studied the issue, very often conclude that the protective effect of the helmets modelled after those used by racing cyclist, do not help very much, except to prevent rashes on the top third of the head. If you read the references pointed to by posters here you can see references to lots of studies and reviews of studies. Those studies and reviews support the view that helmet efficiency is limited. Nobody on the "Aye -side" has provided any references to studies concluding otherwise. As for the "A helmet saved my life" argument, have a look here : www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html as a starter. I know that this information can seem counter-intuitive. I myself had to delwe into the material with an open but sceptical mind for half a year before I became more or less convinced that focusing on helmets is doing cycling and public health a great disservice. I am glad to see that you are opposed to compulsion. The problem is though, that there is a very slippery slope in this. As soon as helmet wearing has passed, say 70% we will see greatly increased pressure for banning cycling without helmets. This is in fact the professed goal in some jurisdictions. [ Paraphrase : As soon as we get higher wearing rats we will ban cycling without helmets." ]Also the more people were helmets the easier it will be to "blame the victim" in collisions with cars. "Ah . He was not wearing a helmet, so we will forget about the driver being drunk, speeding, texting (on a mobile phone) while driving etc, and reduce the compensation to the cyclist for negligence" In fact this is already happening. All because of a terrible misunderstanding about who is responsible for the hurt , and about the "magical powers" of helmets.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

Downvoting a well-written argument just because you disagree is very childish and you should be ashamed of yourself. And I know it was you because I checked your reward points and it says that you downvoted 3 arguments.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Sorry about that. I'm a newbee in this forum, and I did not know. However I did not down-vote because I disliked the conclusions. Rather because I though the use of "arguments" was close to dim-witted and reflected a lack of will to take in the arguments on both sides.Also I must add that I have refrained from voting up some posts that are marked with the conclusion that I agree with ( No they shouldn't ), because I did not find the arguments to be be clear or bring the debate further.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

A cousin of mine fell off of his bicycle. His helmet broke, but he was uninjured. What would have happened to him if he hadn't been wearing a helmet?
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

No number of statistics matter. The point is that helmets can help prevent some injuries, right? That alone should make people want to wear them. Besides, isn't it better safe than sorry? As far as I know, helmets don't harm people and they take only 2 seconds out of your life to put on and snap shut.""blame the victim" in collisions with cars....."Although people will say "Oh, he wasn't wearing a helmet and it could have saved his life. Yada yada yada...", this does not mean they will ignore the fact that the driver was "being drunk, speeding, texting". I mean, there are organizations against drunk driving (like MADD) and there are laws against all three, not to mention various school assemblies to warn against them as well.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

While avoiding a debate over whether statistics matter or not (it doesn't seem to matter to some what the experience of others who have worn helmets has been) I'll address an assumption that simply wearing a helmet reduces the chances of injuries.There is the issue of of risk compensation. There was a scientific study where children ran an obstacle course with and without a helmet and wrist guards. With them, risk-taking behaviour (falling, tripping and bumping into things) increased by 48-60%.There have also been many other studies on the same point showing that by reducing a risk in one area, other risks are taken that eliminate the benefit and leave a person worse off.If helmets do reduce head injury it would be disingenuous not to wear them when not riding a bicycle. After all, isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

That link was really interesting. I posted an argument in favour of wearing helmets but you have introduced some intriguing observations to me. I'd have to say that has put me on the fence with this.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

My 9 year old grandson was hit by a car this week while riding his bike! My daughter ALWAYS makes him wear his helmet and he hates it because none of the other kids have to. Scientific evidence be damned this time because he was hit head on by an idiot driver...his helmet saved his life! What would have been a tragedy turned out to be a blessing as he escaped unscathed but hysterical as the woman simply drove off!
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Kuklapolitan, I find your point "scientific evidence be dammed" more than a little troubling. It's important to have a proper understanding at just what a helmet can and cannot do.It's important to understand a bicycle helmet is meant to mitigate injury from a simple fall and not to protect in impacts with motor vehicles. If you want to understand more about what a helmet can or cannot do, please read the link. It is written by the director of the UK's premier helmet testing facility.In my Province, which has an all ages mandatory helmet law, cyclists continue to die at the same as they did before everybody started to wear helmets, only now, they continue to die with helmets on.The fact that your grandson survived his collision is hardly attributable to the helmet he wore. Cyclists most often survive such collisions even while not wearing helmets. They often die in them wearing helmets too. Take the time to try to understand why this is so.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

I truly understand your point BfromBC and agree with it altogether. I am not arguing the stats on this one. I simply told a true story as it pertained to the opening of this debate. Yet, I must also believe that in a minor accident which, upon further information accumulated, that his helmet may have protected him from a bit of side damage when he fell to the ground after landing on his feet! He did hit his head yet there was no injury at that site, He was lucky BFBC. Sometimes no matter what precautions one takes it doesn't seem to matter.