azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Ninja

Ninjas are the winners because they are sneaky! pirates look stupid and they steal things from us!
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Pirate

ninjas have no action, because they are sneaky. pirates on the other hand go all at it.
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Ninja

ninja!......pirate...ninja!...pirate...ninja=super sneaky awsomeness with MAD SKILLS pirates=gross
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Ninja

nnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnjjjjjjjjjjjjjaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Ninja

ninjassssssssssssssssssss= yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Ninja

NINJASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Pirate

Troll Much???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Ninja

NINJAS DONT LET THERE WEAPONS DEFINE THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Ninja

NINJAS ARE THE WEAPON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Pirate

Shut up molly
Debate: Pirates vs Ninjas
Side: Ninja

Ninjas.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

Well, I like to be manhandled by women so I'm picking this side ;)
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah wrong debatehahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

Jake, i think this is indeed the debate he wanted to post that comment in.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

Yeah, I know. That's why I thought it was so funny. ..............................
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

I like how this is the top argument for the Republican side.Joe Cavalry: the face of the Republican party.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

"Joe Cavalry: the face of the Republican party."Just like Joe the Plumber. Wait a minute...
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

Well, I tend to side with Republicans of course. :) I think the biggest qualm with Democrats is that they are so ready to abort babies but won't execute guilty murderers or wage war against an evil nation. Now, I've already discussed this before, so I'm not debating about that right now- get me another time. But Republicans tend to believe, at least the good old conservatives especially :), that abortion is wrong because it's innocent life being lost. The other cases are guilty life being lost. Just my opinion. You asked for the most sound logic and ideas, and this was a specific case in which Republicans have sounder logic. So stick that in your back pocket.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

"abort babies"Not babies, clumps of cells. After a fetus becomes viable, it is illegal to abort, unless the fetus threatens the health of the mother."won't execute guilty murderers"The death penalty is a bad idea for practical reasons:1) It costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to keep them in prison for life. (source)2) If new evidence turns up that exonerates the criminal, you can release him from prison, but you can't undo an execution."wage war against an evil nation"The cost of the war in Iraq has been massive. Almost a trillion dollars (and counting), thousands of American lives (and counting), over one million dead Iraqis. Saddam Hussein was not a good guy but at some point you have to draw a line and say policing the world is just not worth the price."so I'm not debating about that right now- get me another time"Oh come on, you can't drop inflammatory nonsense like this and expect it to go unopposed.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

Oh it's on like Donkey Kong. :)The only circumstance where abortion is logical and ethical is when the fetus threatens the mother's health with an ectopic pregnancy, a cancerous uterus, etc. I also feel some cases of rape could call for very early abortions. However, life begins at conception. At this point, the zygote, still a single cell, has the same number of chromosomes as a developed human being and carries on the same life processes found in every living organism.Although it may be more costly to execute a prisoner, I see the death penalty as a way to rid society of those not worthy to belong in it. The death penalty should not be used lightly, of course, as if we lived in the Middle Ages, but should be used only on criminals guilty of first degree murder or crimes as evil as this. The way I see it, people guilty of first degree murder thought about their actions beforehand and planned to murder others prior to the incident. It is not a freak accident or a crime of passion- these people are inherently evil and have no respect to life. And with the advent of DNA technology, the number of people wrongfully accused of a crime has dwindled. There will never be a foolproof justice system, but we are closer than we ever have been.I think if you compare Iraq now to how it was in 2001, the nation is much better off. They no longer live under an evil dictator, they finally have freedom and democratic elections (government of the people!), and the economy there is improving to stability. So we have done a lot of good there. "Almost a trillion dollars" I agree that's a lot of money, but at least it wasn't spent in vain."thousands of American lives" This is nothing. I feel a sense of honor for each soldier who is serving now, who has served, and who has died for this country. I salute them and I think they are the greatest Americans, but compare this to any other major war in American history, and it is smaller than many individual battles! In wars of the past (not Vietnam), people didn't complain about numbers of dead soldiers, they praised these men (and now women) for their dedication and honor! And every war in our history has been greater, casualty-wise, than the Iraq war. The problem is that the media goes on air and says "This many people died this week in Iraq," which is constantly exaggerating the war. We are not dying that much over there."over one million dead Iraqis" This is truly sad, but think about how many of these people were on the other side of the war to begin with. Also, think about how many people would have lived in terror or died because of Saddam Hussein. I think one million dead Iraqis is better than an entire nation terrorized constantly by their leader or dying from radical Muslims.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

"life begins at conception."This is absolutely not true. The reason human life is precious is that we are capable of thought and feeling. A clump of cells is not capable of this. It is only alive in the strict biological sense, the same way a plant is alive. Would you argue that it's immoral to kill a plant? This is the same thing."I see the death penalty as a way to rid society of those not worthy to belong in it"Life imprisonment removes evil doers from society just as effectively, and it does so in a more pragmatic manner. Your argument is thus invalid."if you compare Iraq now to how it was in 2001, the nation is much better off."Yes, obviously they're better off with a Democracy. I'm arguing that the price was too great. Do you really appreciate the enormity of one million lives lost? How many would it take for you to draw the line? A billion? A trillion?That fact is Saddam Hussein never posed a clear and present danger to the United States and thus the war in Iraq was unjustified.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

"It is only alive in the strict biological sense"Just like somebody in a coma, right? Aborting a baby can be compared to killing a comatose patient, but in a completely inhumane way only because his or her mother doesn't want him or her anymore. Now, indirect euthanasia is okay, as in removing any machines from the patient, but murdering the comatose is unethical, just like abortion."removes evil doers from society just as effectively"Prison can be like a paradise for some of these criminals. So removing the death penalty could cause an surge of crimes because people don't have three square meals a day and a shower and bed. Regardless of this, keeping these murderers alive in prison always leaves the chance of parole, if available, or a prison break, which would be rare but still possible. I see the death penalty as the biggest deterrent for murder- kill and be killed. If the death penalty were removed, I'm sure people wouldn't hesitate to murder based on consequences because this would lead to a consequence of meals, showers, and beds, as opposed to death."How many would it take for you to draw the line?"There is no line to be drawn- only comparisons to be made and scenarios to be though about. Scenarios meaning thinking about what the world or region would be like without the war ever have existed. Yes, one million people is a lot of people, but did they die in vain? Was it really that big of a loss in comparison to any war of human history?
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

"Just like somebody in a coma, right?"Hmm, interesting comparison. But here's the difference:People in comas still have brain activity; there's stuff going on upstairs. This is what differentiates a comatose state from a vegetative state. (coma info) Embryos have no brain. Your comparison falls flat."surge of crimes because people don't have three square meals"Your portrait of masses of homeless bums murdering people in order to live it up in prison is just silly, and you know it. Spending the rest of your life in a six foot box is nearly as bad a fate as a humane death. More importantly, people who murder do so because they have a screw loose. The prospect of a humane death is not going to deter an insane person."leaves the chance of parole"If we're talking about an offense serious enough to consider the death penalty, then obviously we're talking life without parole. "a prison break"No one has ever escaped one of our maximum security prisons. (source)But now that I think about it, why are we even debating this issue here? This is not an issue that divides Democrats and Republicans. Most people favor the death penalty, regardless of party. (source)Your final argument about Iraq just makes no sense to me at all. Scenarios to think about? Here's a scenario: We left Iraq alone. Saddam eventually falls out of power and is swept into the dustbin of history, like all petty dictators. Iraq eventually develops Democracy on its own, much like the rest of the world has. We as a country are fiscally sound due to not having wasted a ton of money. An inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided. Doesn't that sound like a better outcome to you?
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

So you're inferring that it's okay to "murder" a fetus that has not yet experienced brain activity but will and at the same time, it's not okay to "murder" a comatose patient that has already experienced brain activity and never will again. I'm referring to brain activity as thoughts and feelings, not motor functions and bodily functions. Even so, a baby has its first brain activity as early as 8 weeks, along with a heartbeat! I still believe life begins at conception and that all unnecessary abortion is wrong, but I can at least tolerate an abortion up to, but not including, this milestone. I can't stand how there are abortions after this point just because of viability.Of course, parole and prison breaks were hypothetical situations I derived to prove a point that the death penalty is permanent, which is a good thing. But since Democrats agree with the death penalty, let's leave it at that. :)"Here's a scenario: We left Iraq alone. Saddam eventually falls out of power and is swept into the dustbin of history, like all petty dictators. Iraq eventually develops Democracy on its own, much like the rest of the world has. We as a country are fiscally sound due to not having wasted a ton of money. An inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided. Doesn't that sound like a better outcome to you?"That outcome sounds amazing and I wish it were that simple, but how long would we have to wait for Saddam Hussein to die and stop killing his own people? And what if he had a son who took his place and was just as evil? I'm sure in a nation like Iraq, there would have been plenty of people willing to take Hussein's place after he died and would have been just as evil or even more evil. So an "inconceivable amount of pain and suffering have been avoided"..... by Americans. The same can be said about the Holocaust. If we never got involved, it's no big deal for us, but it we did get involved. Yes, Japan attacked us first, but we really had no other reason to invade Europe other than stopping the Nazis and helping the allies.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

"it's not okay to "murder" a comatose patient that has already experienced brain activity and never will again"Um... no. Do you not understand what the word "comatose" means? A comatose person, even as they lie there, is actively having brain activity. They are thinking thoughts and feeling feelings. Therefore killing them is wrong. I think what your thinking of as "comatose" is actually persistent vegetative state. This is when everything but basic motor functions are gone and will never come back. In this case I would say killing that hollow shell of a person is acceptable for the same reason killing an embryo is acceptable."I can at least tolerate an abortion up to, but not including, this milestone"Good. I'm glad to see you moving toward a more sensible position.The way I see it, there's a spectrum wherein a fetus goes from 0% human being to 100% human being over the course of a pregnancy. The fetus accumulates "moral weight" as it moves along this spectrum. By that I mean killing it becomes "more wrong" the further along it is. Determining the point at which to draw the line is an extremely difficult question.Back to Iraq. You seem to be avoiding the fact that violence in the area before we invaded was nowhere near what it was after-word. Saddam killed what, maybe 100 people in a year? Compare that to the 1,000,000 that died as a result of our actions and it's clear we did the wrong thing. You seem to think the end justifies any means. I strongly disagree. If the price of achieving a goal is too high than it should not be pursued, regardless of how noble our intent.And how in the world can you compare Saddam and Iraq to Hitler and Nazi Germany? The scale between the two is absurdly different. Preventing the extermination of 10 million people obviously justifies the cost of full scale war. Preventing the deaths of a few hundred obviously does not. There are petty dictators all over the world who maintain power by murdering their opposition. Should we spend trillions of dollars nation building in Africa and South America as well? Obviously not. We can't afford it. Countries need to establish Democracy on their own. Sure we should push them in the right direction, but a full scale invasion is just madness.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

Very good jessald, you saved me a lot of time.I would have added in the Iraq part of the debate, that Saddam hated Al-Queda, and would never had allowed them to take a foot hold there, now it's their recruiting hot spot. I don't think we'll fully appreciate the irony of that for a decade or so.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

"In this case I would say killing that hollow shell of a person is acceptable for the same reason killing an embryo is acceptable."Well then we are never going to agree on this issue. :) Because I am opposed to the direct killing of either, unless necessary.Once again, 1 million is a huge number, but I truly believe it is nothing in comparison to what it could have been and what there has been in wars of the past. "Countries need to establish Democracy on their own."If it were that simple, then yes, let them run wild and eventually tame themselves. It doesn't even matter if a nation has a democracy or a monarchy or a dictatorship to me, as long as the government does not oppress its people or abuse its power (or terrorize the world).
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

"Well then we are never going to agree on this issue. :) Because I am opposed to the direct killing of either, unless necessary."Why? You haven't justified your stance that destroying something that is incapable of thought or emotion is wrong. I think we should be able to agree that it's acceptable."Once again, 1 million is a huge number, but I truly believe it is nothing in comparison to what it could have been and what there has been in wars of the past."Excellent logic! I'll explain to the man I'm about to murder that his death is not such a big deal because millions of people died in World War 2.I'm glad we can agree that it's better for countries to achieve stability mostly on their own.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

Because it WILL BE a fully functional human being, granted there is no miscarriage nor mental or physical dysfunction. It is not the same as a gamete, which may or may not become a zygote and will die without another gamete being joined. As soon as that sperm cell goes inside of that egg and forms the first few cells of a fetus, it is destined to be a baby. It is technically alive, according to science, and there is no way you cannot consider it a human being. What else would it be? Does is gradually change its species and eventually morph into a human? No, it starts as a human and develops to become more and more recognizable.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

An embryo is not a human, it is a potential human. But let's avoid semantics.Let me ask you a more fundamental question, just so I can see where you're coming from: Why is it wrong to kill?
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

I believe it is wrong to take innocent or defenseless life. Typically, that would be for God to decide and I don't think we have the right to take away the life of another without a consequence. But let's just say God didn't exist, for the argument's sake. Even then, most people would feel bad for killing another, especially when he or she didn't deserve it and/or couldn't protect him or herself. I believe this is the basis of all of our morals: would you feel guilty or bad for doing that? The only time killing another human being is justified is when it will benefit society as a whole. This is where capital punishment enters the picture (take a life, lose your own). As for wars, I would LOVE to see a world in complete peace, but there are evil people out there and the only way to stop them sometimes is by fighting them and their armies."An embryo is not a human, it is a potential human."Saying it is a potential human means that it may become a human and it may not, but it all depends on actions and factors, etc. An embryo WILL develop into a fully-formed human being, who may be missing a body part unfortunately, unless it is miscarried (or aborted).
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

I would say it's wrong to kill because people have a capacity to enjoy life. This enjoyment of life is the most fundamental source of what we call "good." An embryo has no capacity to enjoy life, therefore destroying it is acceptable.You're telling me that we shouldn't kill because it makes us feel bad? I don't like that answer. What if killing didn't make us feel bad? Would it then be ok? Also, I wouldn't feel bad at all about destroying an embryo, for reasons I've explained.And no, "potential" doesn't mean "maybe", it means "not yet."
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

Okay, maybe that wasn't the best answer. Honestly, I've never thought about why the things I believe are wrong are in fact wrong. They just all seem wrong and I'm sure most people feel the same way about their own morals, but I've been thinking about this more throughout the day... We do the right thing because we don't want to cause pain. And when we do want to cause pain in others, it's out of spite and we may feel bad about that later on. Our morals revolve around the Golden Rule, "Do onto others what you would have them do onto you." If you don't want somebody to do something to you, then don't do it to them.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

These things seem wrong to you because of the strong values you have been raised with. Our society and especially our parents shape our ideas about right and wrong. Closer inspection, however, can reveal that these values don't always have a logical foundation."We do the right thing because we don't want to cause pain."This sounds reasonable to me. But, of course, embryos are incapable of feeling pain.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Republicans

"This sounds reasonable to me. But, of course, embryos are incapable of feeling pain."I have to strongly disagree with this. An embryo can feel pain as early as eight weeks, when it first develops brain activity and a heartbeat. And even before this, the mother can feel pain by realizing that she just gave up her own flesh and blood. I've heard stories of would-be mothers feeling extreme guilt or sadness from aborting a baby at any point during the pregnancy.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

After eight weeks it's not called any embryo, it's called a fetus. I'm arguing there's definitely nothing wrong with destroying it before then.I think I could convince you to push the line back further, but let's leave it there for now.If a woman feels guilty about aborting an embryo it's just because of bullshit morals beaten into her head. Regret could come from not having a kid when she had the chance, but not from committing murder.
Debate: Political Party - which has the most sound logic and ideas?
Side: Democrats

You seem to be under the impression in the abortion part of the debate, that making it illegal would stop it.Even if one does for some reason believe that life begins upon conception (they would be wrong) even then, making it illegal would not stop a single one. Abortions have been going on since before recorded history. Before it could be done in a safe and starile environment, it was done in basements.You would revert to this brutal time in history, even knowing no lives would be saved, even knowing several more mothers would die,all on the basis of some imagined moral ground?The debate is about logic, not emotional self-righteousness,which is why democrats will continue to win these kinds of debates.