azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Bicycle users should not wear helmets if they wear them for the wrong reasons.o If they think helmets will protect them like magic hats, then they are likely to take more chanceso If they wear helmets because they think it would be "madness" to cycle without one, then they probably have an exaggerated view of the dangers of cycling. ( In addition to the inflated opinion on the efficiency of helmets. ) See the sites referred to above.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

So you think they should wear them in case where they see the helmet being useful for what it's meant to do then?
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Yes I would consider giving people the advice to wear a helmet if there was very good evidence that it would be beneficial overall to the individual cyclists. But there is not. I and many others that have read up on helmets, say that if it makes it more likely that you cycle, and you feel comfortable with the helmet, by all means wear it. You should take great care not to trust the helmet with your life, though. It will not save you. As for general advice "to society" on helmets, that will bring into the equation several other factors like:o Would general usage of helmets be beneficial on a societal level ?o Would not general helmet usage for cyclists but not for car-drivers or joggers or people walking stairs or drinking give a false signal about where dangers lie ?o Could it not be that focussing on helmets would to a large extent detract from other measures and behavioural change and awareness building ( not least among motorists ) that are way more powerful in improving crash statistics.o One of the best ways to improve safety and health s cycling. Cyclist live longer and become healthier than those that do not. For many, helmets or a push to wear them detracts from the desire or convenience or freedom or fun of one of the most healthy activities you can undertake. o On a closely related note : One of the best proven ways to reduce casualties in city traffic is to get people out of their cars and onto bikes. The more bikes, the more drivers become aware of them. And lets not forget that much less danger stems from a cyclist than from a car driver. All statistics attest to that fact, as well as elementary physics.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Helmets give a false sense of safety. The human skull is naturally far more effective in protecting the brain. Any impact hard enough to cause serious damage to a head, is strong enough to make the helmet useless anyway...The types of injury a helmet is effective for are superficial, sure a bloody head sucks, but we're made to take more than that.I think that if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet, they shouldn't have to.I mean really, back off big bro.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

As a New Zealand cyclist and scientist who has watched and studied the effect of the mandatory law in New Zealand the answer can be nothing but that such laws are a terrible idea.The law in NZ, as in other places they have been tried, is a total health and safety disaster. While we could spend time discussing the reasons behind this that is quite an involved debate, so let's just summarize: the laws have failed and nobody has come up with anyway to make them work.We still have a law in NZ not because it works, even Government officials responsible for it will off the record (and even occasionally on) admit the failure, but because those same Government officials currently deem the political cost of admitting the failure as too high. Some indicate that in future maybe it will go, when the political cost is deemed low enough. Meanwhile of course the NZ public continue to suffer from its failure (it is as I said a health and safety disaster), but it does allow other countries such as Norway to look at our failure (they decided we increased risk by 14%) and decide not to impose such a disaster on their population, i.e. we abuse our cyclists (especially the kids) so you don't have to. Strange, unjustifiable, but true :-(
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Helmets should be optional, many feel that they dont want to wear a helmet and so there shoudnt be a rule to force them, those who do wear a helmet often have a misconception over the level of protection they will provide, overall the helmet will protect your head if you fall off, but in a crash with a car the helmet will often crumple, unless it is a full head one. It should be down to the individual as not wearing a helmet wont place anyone else in danger unlike not wearing a seat belt as you could be in the back and hit the front seat where someone is sat.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

We've a few places where helmets have been made compulsory, so the easy way to see if it's actually worth doing is look there to see what has actually happened in those places, rather than assume what might happen elsewhere.And what we see is no cost benefit and no reduction in serious injury rates for cyclists but a reduction in cycle numbers (which suggests more polluting, congesting journeys in lieu). That's what actually happens, so voting yes, however well meaning, is a public health own-goal.We need to stop assuming what we want to happen and would be nice if it did happen, and look at what does happen. And the real-world record of cycle helmets for road-going cyclists getting from A to B is they are no real help, but do put people off a remarkably healthy way to get around.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

They don't do much during collisions. Helmets just mess up your hair more than anything. :p
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

Fact is they do protect you against head injury, would you ride a motorcycle without a helmet then?
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

but the question is, is the protection provided substantial enough to provide meaningful protection?If helmets only prevent provide minimal protection against superficial injury, in events that are a rare occurrence, is it worth spending $50 (or more) for an item that costs less than $5 to produce?http://www.bhsi.org/helmcost.htm
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Bicycle helmets and motorcycle helmets are not directly comparable. But they too have their flaws. A new model has developed that is designed to reduce the risk of rotational injuries to the brain. Cycling and travel by motorcycle are not comparable either.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

This is a silly non-argument. Can't you do better than this??
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

I live in California and I'm pretty much in accordance with the current laws. If you're under 18, helmets are required. For everyone else, it's up to you, but you still need a full set of reflectors set in every direction, and headlights that shine 300ft in front of you, and taillights. I know because I've been harassed enough by police for not having but one tail light... no reflectors or headlights, and I almost always do my long rides (~40-50mi) at night. I've wrecked only a few times out of the hundreds of miles I've ridden, and it was usually when I was doing around 12mph or less, and every time I just flew off of the bike, did a roll, and jumped back on to make sure nothing was broken on the bike... and I'd ride away. Scrapped arms, tore up jeans, maybe a shoe would come untied, but I've never been in a predicament where my head was at risk of being injured at all.  Don't get me wrong though, I think that helmets are imperative in certain situations, but most people (that I know) don't put themselves at risk enough to say that they should all wear helmets.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

I never wore a helmet and I survived. But my kids wear a helmet. Now.... where's that debate about parents being hypocrites ;)
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

"Now.... where's that debate about parents being hypocrites"You are proving the point that bike riders should wear helmets. If it's good enough for your kids, then it's good enough for other people's kids too.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Well...., they are teenagers now so I really don't care if they wear a helmet. I actually encourage them not to. Maybe when they get to be normal human beings again I'll actually force them to wear helmets again ;)
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

Yes I believe the helmet has a chance of protecting my head in some scenario. It also do not hinder the sport of cycling for me so I don't intent on stopping wearing it.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Nobody is telling you or anybody else to stop wearing a helmet. :-) That is not what the question is about. It is about whether helmet wearing should be generally advised, on the grounds of the supposed (and discredited) efficiency of "normal" helmets in reducing serious injury. And it could also be interpreted as a question on whether people should be forced to wear helmets. The way the discussion is going however, it is natural to discuss whether helmets statistically offer any protection that warrants the focus and attention helmet wearing receives. I repeat : Nobody here has been telling people to stop wearing helmets. However the false reasons that have been given for the so called necessity of helmets is being pointed out.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

i don't think that bicyclists should necessarily wear a helmet. the risk involving this sport is not too much as compared to the others. More over, if you try different things you get an incredible pleasure.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Where is the evidence that supports any correlation that bicycle riders or skateboards should wear helmets? Any studies.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

Wearing a helmet should not a government enforcement law, it is a personal responsibility. However, it is smart to hear helmets, but nobody should be forced to wear a helmet.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

no they shouldn't there is no need for them to wear helmets because helmets don't do any help even when it comes to safety reasons they protect your head but not so much that you won't feel it one bit
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

you should always wear a helmet when your riding because it is against the law not to and plus it lowers the fraction on the skull
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

No. I don't think a helmet is really necessary. People are way too concerned. It's like they tell their kids, "Make sure you wear your inch thick piece of foam padding in case a semi nails you at 70 mph." I really doubt that most people wear helmets anyway...
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

Without a helmet, falling from a bicycle and landing on your hand assures you at LEAST a concussion. With a helmet, you often walk away without any head trauma.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: Yes they should

Make sure you wear your inch thick piece of foam padding in case a semi nails you at 70 mph."More like Make sure you wear your inch thick piece of foam padding so you don't crack your skull open if you fall off the bike.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

i long board ever summer... i was hit by a car once not very hard but enough for me to be sent home and sleep off the pain. i was not wearing a helmet at the time. cause its really unlikely for me to just fall over. walking i should wear a helmet cause I'm a clumsy beast. but I'm still against helmets. the reasons for helmets are cause they protect you hair and brain. in some cases helmets are more harmful then useful. saying its saves lives is like me throwing thousands of floating in the ocean and saying eh I'm saving lives here when a person falls in the water and cant swim they can grab a floaty. well chances are 100% of those floaties aren't going to be by him when he falls. so he drowns. we have the capability to make the helmets safer but if you look at a cheap low profile biking helmet it does nothing but choke you. if helmets where free then encourage them but there not and they ain't changing anytime soon so why bother if your only going to go from a to b and use your brain to safe your brain you'll avoid almost all potential accidents.
Debate: Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
Side: No they shouldnt

I don't think it should be mandatory that a bicyclist wear a helmet.
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

Yes deaf people should be treated equally as hearing people. I bet most of you guys know that most of hearing people are discriminating against deaf people for ages so enough is enough. No excuse for hearing people to say deaf people shouldn't be treated equally. Deaf people can do anything, they are just like you people. Use your fucking brain and try thinking harder. Hearing people need to stop discriminating, stereotyping, misjudging or making assumptions or thinking deaf people can't do anything or is as dumb as mentally challenged people or whatever the fuck you think. Speaking of truth, not all deaf people are bad or dumb or mentally challenged or ill or death. By equally we are saying that neither of us is better. There is nothing equal about the equal treatment of unequals. Deaf people can do anything except hear it's not the end of the world. Deaf people learn English for communicating with hearing people. Most of deaf people can talk and read lips. What about hearing people? Not many hearing people are willing to learn American Sign Language for deaf people. There need more hearing people learn American Sign Language so they can communicate with deaf people. I think it would be fair. We all need learn how cooperative communication contributes to better relationships at home and at work and prevents unnecessary conflict.
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! Hearing people need to realize that this is not their world. Cheers to you!!!
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: No

Mr. Deafman, you are not doing a favor for Deaf people. You have foul language in your posting. You also made generalization that hearing people always discriminate, stereotype, or misjudge Deaf people. That is not true. There are hearing people who respect and care about Deaf people. The matter should not about Hearing or Deaf as that only segregates us all further. The matter should be about treating everyone with respect and compassion. Respect and compassion must be mutual, too. If Deaf people want Hearing people to respect and care about them, they should offer the same attitude toward the Hearing people.Regarding learning English, talking and reading lips, some Deaf people successfully achieve these skills, some do not. Same with Hearing people, some can write English well and understand ASL well, some cannot. All depends on family background and schooling experiences. Yes, Hearing people need to learn more ASL to communicate with Deaf people, but the same logic goes for Deaf people. Deaf people need to learn English well too. "When in Rome, do what Romans do". After all, English is the official language in the U.S. Whether Deaf or Hearing; European, Asian or African; etc. when you live in a country, you must adapt to how that country functions. An official language facilitates the mutual connection for ALL cultural groups within a country. Some Deaf people do not understand this view and insist that they do not care about using proper English. That view of "I don't care about using English right because I am Deaf" does not help Deaf people, instead hurting their chances to succeed in jobs, universities, etc. Because ASL is a gestural, pictorial, spatial language with no written form, and because ASL glossing is only a tool to translate ASL into English, ASL cannot be reflected on paper. If Deaf people insist that they only learn ASL and ignore English (or whatever official written language of the country they live in), they will never be able to read printed materials properly, and that will hurt their accessibility to information. I have learned from several deaf teachers. I respect them dearly. I never think about their deafness. I regard them simply as "teachers". One of those teachers can write excellent English, and I could tell she can read well in English too. Does her excellent capacity in English make her any "less deaf" or "less Deaf"? No, she is still deaf and still part of the Deaf culture. She still uses ASL and teaches ASL. However, her excellency in English has opened her ability to enjoy literature and enhanced her life experiences. And the students, some deaf, some hearing, admire her even more. See, the point here? It is not about English v. ASL, it is about achieving the scholastic abilities....
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

Deaf people should be treated equally as hearing people because they are entitled to the same rights as hearing people do and if some of these rights are not met, then it may result in a violation of their constitutional rights. Also, there are other alternatives available to communicate with them.
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

As a hearing friend of many deaf persons, I believe without a doubt that the non-hearing and hearing are equal. Although the deaf may have a "handicap" that may require additional treatment, I believe that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) should universally cover these handicaps.There is nothing that a hearing person can do that a deaf person cannot.
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

Why wouldn't we treat them equally? I think they want to be like everyone else.
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

My cousin is 'deaf'. However, when she wears hearing aids, she can hear perfectly and other than that, she is completely normal and fine. A wonderful little bright, happy, dancing 8-year-old. So yes, if it's not a disability and they don't NEED special treatment or different treatment, then of course they should be treated equally. If it's not equal, it better not be degrading or worse. If anything, when needed, it should be a HELPFUL difference.
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: Yes

True, the main word is EQUALITY. Deafness is indeed a disability, from medical viewpoint, but not a disability from cultural view point. If a person is born deaf or has become deaf, the main thing is to find ways to help that person function well, live independently, and integrate successfully into the mainstream society. "Help" does not mean degrading pity; rather "help" means respect, love and be there for one another - as human beings. For example, "I know you have difficulty in physical capacity of hearing, let me use mine to compensate what you lack so that you can EQUALLY access information and function in life". Or for example, "You cannot hear. It is not your fault. You are not less than I am. However, let me interpret for you...let me use my ears for both you and me".
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

As a deaf person, I believe that deaf people should be treated equally as hearing people. Just because they're deaf doesn't mean they're of any less value than hearing people. I also find it sad to see that these jobs that deaf people can do most often go to the hearing people. WHY? Deaf people have needs just as the hearing people do. Deafness is what sets these two groups of people apart. I think that like the hearing people, deaf people should be treated equally when it comes to employment that they can do as well as other things. I have no idea why some hearing people have a really hard time grasping the concept that yes, deaf people have needs and yes, they have rights. Deaf people need to take care of their needs just like the hearing people do. Why are they not letting us do exactly that?
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: Yes

Very nice posting. The sad truth is people are often afraid of what they perceive as "being different". Unless hearing people come into daily contact with deaf people, the misunderstanding will persist. The solution is to integrate more deaf people into the mainstream society, instead of keeping deaf people separately in Deaf Residential Schools or within certain Deaf communities only. The more contact the hearing people have with deaf people, the more understanding they will become. Before I started learning ASL, and before I had a chance to learn from a deaf teacher, I had not known what to expect of such learning experience. However, I am very lucky, I am learning from an excellent deaf teacher, and I realize that she is no different than any of us. Well, yes, she cannot hear and has a tad of difficulty in speaking, but besides those physical conditions, she is just exactly the same as any of us. She has feelings, love, desires, enjoyment and bad temper moments too. (smile). So, I think if society integrates deaf and hearing people together, and Deaf communities open themselves up to the Hearing communities, mutual understanding will take place...
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

of course how whould you fill if you were deaf and every one treated you different
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

of course their just the same as every one else i mean i would fell bad if people were treating me different just because i was deaf
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

Well, duh. It's a deaf person's dream to be treated as an equal to the norm. But in reality, it doesn't seem like it'll ever really exist for a disabled to be equal to society. Can a blind person ever be treated like a seeing person? Probably not. The disabled get too much unwanted pity and we reach a point where we're like, "fine, whatever." And then we take advantage of what we can (like Social security) because it seems like even if we didn't bother and we tried to be an equal to others, it just doesn't happen.
Debate: Do You Think Deaf People Should Be Treated Equally As Hearing People
Side: yes

Without a doubt, YES! We may, indeed, have to be a bit more tolerant of people who are deaf, mute and sightless. Even though they have a handicap they do well when trained in ASL. While many hearing people do not know ASL the people closest to them will and there is always pencil and paper to write things down. We must not put them down because of their handicap...we must lift them up and make life a bit easier for them. And why not? They need us and we need them! They are our parents, our siblings, our extended family, friends and another human being in need of a fair shot at life. It's not a hard thing to do...to be humane and human.