azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

I like how you've become more radical with your ideas :) Most great ideas are radical, but there's a downside: You have to be prepared to defend it from those who don't like radical ideas. You'll also need to refine this idea to make it workable and more convincing. Something like this might work better: Keep abortions legal and well regulated but make it expensive, effectively imposing a monetary fine on unwanted pregnancies, a jail term may be considered to further deter unwanted pregnancies. Over time, this program will be just like the introduction of seatbelts in cars, people will no longer need to be reminded to avoid unwanted pregnancies, effectively eliminating abortions.
Debate: Abortion
Side: Promote a Better Solution

Okay, agreed then, finally.One question: If abortions are made more expensive, then what happens to pregnant women at the time? Or pecome impregnated a few nights before? Are they fined the full amount? There could be problems there if they were...
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

It's easy to manage that by introducing a time delay so the law will take effect 24 months from its introduction. This is done all the times to allow people and the industry to prepare and adjust to any new laws. .24 months should allow 12 months for a government campaign to make the public aware of the new law before they decide to engage in sexual activities that may result in a pregnancy. After that you still have a 3-month buffer if you're not yet aware of the new law, the remaining 9 months is so that people who became pregnant during this campaign period is not disadvantaged if they're still not yet aware of the new law. All this can be left to the trusty government bureaucratic systems to hash out, that's their job, and they're good at it :)
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

Destroying a fetus is like destroying a part of yourself. One's genes, blood and cells are within the body of a their fetus, yet they undergo an abortion and prevent a human life from being lived. A fetus does not deserve to be denied life, because the fetal stage is probably is the stage of life where we are morally the most neutral. We cannot think for ourselves, nor can we comprehend good or bad. On this basis, infants are also considered innocent. Why deny life to something that does not deserve such a fate?
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

Have you ever considered the people who think abortion is okay have been born? Just a thought.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

It's wrong to kill a child just because you don't want to raise it. You knew the risk when you chose to have sex. As for rape cases, your right to choose was stolen from you, but that does not give you the right to take away someones right to live. There is always adoption if you don't want to raise your child. And yes it's a child. Just because it's smaller and less developed does not make it any less of a child. Just like a child being smaller and less developed than an adult does not make it any less human.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_face_of_abortion.html now tell me if you think they're human
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

tigma associated with contraceptives. Pharmacies and the government should advocate the use of condoms or birth control pills as a way to enjoy sex without any unwanted consequences.Abortion means denying the opportunity of life to what would've been a someone. We cannot continue with this madness.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

There is always adoption if you don't want to raise your child. And yes it's a child. Just because it's smaller and less developed does not make it any less of a child. Just like a child being smaller and less developed than an adult does not make it any less human.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

A baby is a baby the moment the sperm meets the egg. Even though the heartbeat does not start until later, it's still a baby in my eyes.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

"A baby is a baby the moment the sperm meets the egg. Even though the heartbeat does not start until later, it's still a baby in my eyes."You should be more careful of beliefs like this, because they are a double-edged sword.To clarify, when you believe in something as absurd as that, you are also arguing that a baby (as in, the life which has exited the womb) is equal to a single ball of cytoplasm in value and respectability.In other words, you define the concept of "baby" to be so wide that the word no longer engenders feelings of protection to fetuses, or even zygotes, but instead spills over the image of an incomplete, mass of of cells with no self-awareness onto post-birth babies.All of a sudden a baby is a mass of tissues and a brain with no true self awareness, all because you thought it sentimental to attach its name onto a mass of an obvious pre-life.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

If it is not considered life when the egg is fertilized and is starting to grow, the when does it become a life. Where is the line between a incomplete mass of cells and a life. If a woman miscarries is she wrong to fell like she lost her child. Oh, and since when does self-awareness determine life, a man in a coma is still human.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

If it is not considered life when the egg is fertilized and is starting to grow, the when does it become a life. Where is the line between a incomplete mass of cells and a life.The best line I can determine is when an offspring becomes self-aware, it is considered a life worth protecting. Since it may be that even an infant isn't fully self-aware, we could set the line to when the fetus has a sufficiently developed brain. These are all measurable to some extent. These are also both good arguments for when a fetus should be protected because they can be defended rationally.If a woman miscarries is she wrong to fell like she lost her child.No. It is a reasonable reaction upon losing a potential life.Oh, and since when does self-awareness determine life, a man in a coma is still human.A man in an early coma may regain consciousness. A man who is in a permanent coma is just an empty shell, the only rational argument that could be made for keeping that shell alive is if the brain damage could be repaired feasibly in the future. Otherwise, it is only sentimentality that is making people keep the shell alive.Edit:By the way, I'm matter-of-fact about these things because I have no emotional attachment to the subject. I am not trying to treat this subject flippantly, if it seems that way.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

its a baby in your eyes but are you having an abortion? i don't think so so its not your opinion they need to be worried about.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

well if you found out you were pregnant, would you consider it a baby?
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

yes i would consider it a baby. but then you get into other details like i wouldnt want the baby if i couldn't give it a good life. and i couldn't handle giving my baby up so i would get an abortion.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

You couldn't handle giving your baby to someone who could give it a good life you would kill it??? People should be held accountable for their actions. If you can't handle a baby, don't have sex.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-LIFE

You couldn't handle giving up a baby, so you'll kill it?That doesn't make sense. Please review your argument.
Debate: Abortion
Side: PRO-CHOICE

no i wouldn't consider it a baby. i dont consider it a baby until it is living and breathing on its own.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

I think that we should take away guns since it creates easily creates an opportunity to kill someone. Another thing that I think that we should take away from other countries such as Japan, is that it is not that easy to get a gun, there are multiple tests that you have to go through and background checks just to get your license, in which most people in japan don't even bother to get a gun anymore. In which should be the case for most of us, another thing that I might add is that since the crime rate is so low in japan that most police officers don't even carry guns anymore.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

I would say the claim that guns easily create an opportunity to kill someone holds some truth, but they can be quite pricey, and for the most part, one has to go through a background check. If someone wants to kill someone, they have the means regardless and taking away guns is not going to eliminate those people from society nor their urges. The thing that differentiates the United States and Japan is that Japan is an island thus it is easier to smuggle things in than that of a landlocked country like America where the southern border has many crossings where many things could be smuggled in. Also the culture surrounding guns in Japan is vastly different than America's.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

I understand your input, but looking at this way, a gun can easily kill multiple people at once. If we look at school shootings, many have died because of guns and that's because they easily have access to it and they could easily kill multiple people and in most cases guns are always associated with crime. Why? Because it's literally the easiest way to kill somebody. No one should have access to such a dangerous weapon and the sole purpose of a gun is to what?, end a person's life. And even if Japan's culture is vastly different than America's, it's important that we see that they have very low crime rates concerning guns and we should once again, follow their steps on acquiring a gun harder.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Cars create an easy opportunity to kill someone. I also don't think that Japan is a comparable example because they have no bordering countries, and so all black markets are internal or need to come through seaports.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

There are many factors that lead me to believe that the United States would benefit from stricter gun control laws. The first being that when the 2nd amendment was written into the bill of rights in 1791, our fore fathers never imagined our country to have a world dominating military, country wide police force and standard laws like we do. The 2nd amendment was actually created because "The amendment’s primary justification was to prevent the United States from needing a standing army"(Washington Post). Considering the fact that we do have appointed people to protect us in these situations, I would imagine our founding fathers would no longer require citizens to bear arms. Another aspect to consider when we propose more gun control is that in many states in our country, it is very easy to get access to a gun. In this instance, people who are not capable of handling such a serious weapon are then capable of inflicting mass violence and death in a very short amount of time. Proposing stricter gun control laws and practices is not to say that no US citizen can own a gun.The idea is that if you wish to own a gun, you would go through proper tests and learning to be responsible enough and sound minded enough to own one. Many countries who had adopted stricter gun control laws have benefitted greatly such as Japan where they "seldom have more than 10 shooting deaths a year in a population of 127 million people"(Insider). For these reasons, I feel that stricter gun control laws can and MUST be enacted so we can finally see a decline in mass shootings and gun violence across the country. References https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-nearly-eliminated-in-countries-what-us-can-learn-2017-11 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

I have to agree with you on your well thought out points here. I think that making the background checks and other checks more thorough would be a great action step in reducing uneducated and bad people from getting guns. I agree with you as well that an outright ban would never work.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Meant to be opponent of gun control Meant to be opponent of gun control Meant to be opponent of gun control Meant to be opponent of gun control
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

I think that making the background checks and other checks more thorough would be a great action step in reducing uneducated and bad people from getting guns.Are you literally 12 years old? YOU are one of the uneducated people!!!!!!How exactly do you enforce a law which says only "good people" can buy guns? You are INSANE!!! Every single person in the entire UNITED STATES OF AMERICA who has EVER DONE ANYTHING BAD once had a clean criminal record sheet with zero convictions, and could walk into any store to purchase a gun!!!!!
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

I can tell that all you know how to do is constantly refresh this site and wait for your next chance to write some troll comments. You seem to be more concerned with my age than even understanding my argument so you can go back to the cave which you came from and keep your ad hominem bologna to yourself. I would write more but I do not wish to waste my time arguing with someone that has the mental capacity of a tomato.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

I can tell that all you know how to do is constantly refresh this site and wait for your next chance to write some troll comments.I can tell that you don't have any legitimate refutation to the points I made. I know that because instead of addressing them, you immediately label them "troll comments" as if that somehow absolves you of all responsibility to hold your own ground.The fact of the matter is that you can't pre-emptively guess who is going to commit crime. Legalising guns puts them straight into the hands of people with bad intentions.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

I really like what you have stated. It does not make sense to go along with an amendment that was put in act hundreds of years ago, there should be some updates.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

With that kind of logic what other amendments should we change because they are old? I do not think that the age matters as much as the context of the amendment. Without the second amendment, the first amendment cannot be maintained as it could be taken away within an instant by the right corrupt and devious official. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/opinion/2018/04/13/our-first-amendment-rights-dependent-second-amendment/516193002/
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

More gun control has proven to work, take a look at New Zealand for example, their laws worked in reducing crime. Or closer to the states, the State with the weakest gun control laws, Mississipi, has the highest gun crime rating. Compared to California which has the most strict gun laws has one of the lowest gun crime rates. The statistics are overwhelming in this favor and prove it works. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-violence-statistics/#national-rising-violence
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crimeIt’s weird how some people actually think guns are bad for society when it’s so obvious only a fool would dispute the fact the more guns in society the less crime in that society and the more peaceful it is ......I actually think the world is jealous of the US because it’s the 121st least peaceful country in the world and those in more peaceful countries are really envious that their countries cannot be as violent .......
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Hey Jody, personally I find your argument very interesting but let me tell you why "fools" think guns are bad for society. Gun powder was specifically made to attack opponents as far back as the 9th century. Through out wars, firearms were made to attack opponents, hunt animals and to kill. However, fire arms have killed thousands of civilians in the United States and the death toll from active shooters has risen since 2017 which had 39,773 deaths by gun-related injuries according to the CDC. The United States has the most firearms per capita resulting in ranking the highest in homicide by firearm rates among the world's most developed nations according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Guns have done enough harm to innocent and fortunate lives in America.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Hi Milly , I honestly think when one has to place armed guards in schools and places of education one has to accept that they are living in a very dysfunctional society. I was doing some research into guns in the US and the type for sale and one site had as a promotional “com on” a photo of Rambo brandishing a gun , the glorification and constant promotion of guns as being “manly “ and constantly promoting them as a necessity for any man to protect himself and his family is a direct sales pitch appealing to this much loved wild west frontiers man image of fending of the enemies and the elements in an untamed country Are guns proggresive or regressive for a society ?If they are regressive they have little or no part in society , I live in a gun free society even the cops mostly don’t carry guns , do you think gun accidents or deaths would go up or down if guns were introduced in my society ? I think we all know the answer
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Looking to Switzerland, which has the third-highest ratio of civilian firearms per 100 residents (46), outdone by only the US (89) and Yemen (55), we can see that it is possible to have a society filled with guns and yet not have massive shooting sprees occur. The difference between the US and Switzerland is that they have immense training when it comes to guns and almost every boy has some training when it comes to firearms and their safety. I feel that if the United States did a better job of teaching people about firearms, we could have a similar effect that was shown with the Swiss people. Banning guns only gives the criminals the advantage as they do not care about gun laws and would get a gun on the black market. Banning guns would have the effect of punishing those that follow the laws instead of harming the lawless criminals that commit crime.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2#in-addition-to-the-militias-arms-the-country-has-about-2-million-privately-owned-guns-a-figure-that-has-been-plummeting-over-the-past-decade-6
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Looking to SwitzerlandAhahaha! Good one bro. Let's look at the places where there aren't problems instead of the place where there is a problem. Looking to the United States, which has the slackest gun laws in the developed world and the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world:-The gun homicide rate in the United States is 25 times higher than in other high-income nationsA person is killed with a gun in the United States every 15 minutesThe United States has a rate of 6.61 gun suicides per every 100,000 people—eight times higher than the gun suicide rates of other developed nationshttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ guns-crime/news/2019/11/20/477218/gun-violence-america-state-state-analysis/ But you want to talk about Switzerland, right pal? 😂🤦‍♂️
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

The whole point of bringing up Switzerland is that they are an example of a society with a prevalent gun culture, and they show that more guns does not always coincide with more violence. We have a people problem in America. Mental health is pushed aside and unstable people can do some really bad things. The gun is the tool with which these bad people inflict pain, but getting rid of their tool does not take away their desire to kill. We have to fix the root of the problem, not just address the symptom as that would give time for the problem to increase.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

The whole point of bringing up SwitzerlandThe whole point of you bringing up Switzerland is so that you can purposefully deflect the argument to the only country on Earth where there isn't a strong relationship between gun ownership and violence. It's pathetic. The Swiss are obviously mature and stable enough to resist the urge to shoot each other. Americans are obviously not.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Look at you conceding that the problem is culture and not guns! The same principle applies in the US. In rural areas where legal gun ownership is relatively high, violent crime is relatively low. But to keep with your point, let's not look at those areas where there aren't a problem. Let's look at those pockets of very high gun crime. They are all in major cities with the highest measures of gun control the Constitution allows. They have been under Democrat control for decades.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

If you think it is as simple as the Swiss are mature and Americans are not then I really do not think this discourse will lead to anything productive.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Hey Jody, personally I find your argument very interesting but let me tell you why "fools" think guns are bad for society.I'm sorry if we tar you all with the same brush Milly. I understand that isn't fair.It's just that you have so many people over there who defend this stupidity using every distortion of logic imaginable.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

I agree with the fact that America needs more control on weapons. People who are not fit to own one can get one very easily, without having strict background checks. At the same time I believe that yes we should still follow the second amendment but there should be some updates on it. When the amendment was created it was 1791. Back then they had much different weapons that could not match anything we have now especially with semi-automatic weapons. This shows that we need some more control and can not do it the same way that was done hundreds of years ago.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

I agree that the times have changed but I would say that the threat to liberty is still the same. The 2nd amendment came about in order to protect our first amendment rights. Without this, the latter will fail. I agree that fully automatic guns should be banned, which they are with some exceptions as of now. When you say semi-automatic weapons do you mean that or are you meaning fully automatic? I am asking being pistols are semi-automatic and right now it is near impossible to get an automatic weapon in the US.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Hey anto27,Interesting point you are making. I think we are on the same boat on some things. I also feel that background checks should be researched more intensively and that requirements to own a gun should be updated to prevent people who are not fit to own guns. However I do see a huge pattern of most mass shootings happening with the use of illegally obtained guns. So in this case I feel like guns will always be obtained illegally regardless of these restrictions.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

It's no longer 1789, it is 2021 and people have taken advantage of owning firearms for their personal use by killing people, killing animals, killing themselves, or causing injuries. The CDC shows there was 14,386 homicides by firearms, 23,079 people lost their battle to suicide using firearms, and 480 people were unintentionally killed by firearms in 2019.Gun safety laws are put in place to keep civilians protected, to reduce gun violence, and crimes but the statistics show that gun laws in America are not living up to those expectations by allowing society to easily own a firearm meant to kill a target in various states. What do you think?