azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

1. Redbull can be very very damaging to your body if you drink it in large amounts2. Redbull tastes like shit3. Make your kids drink real energy drinks, that give real energy and tastes amazing .. what's it called?? Ah yeah.. JUICE!!!!
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: allow

Redbull can be very very damaging to your body if you drink it in large amountsOh no, too much of something can kill. We better stop eating food all together since overeating can cause health problems as well.Make your kids drink real energy drinks, that give real energy and tastes amazing .. what's it called?? Ah yeah.. JUICE!!!!Going off the first statement you should know. Juice has acids and natural sugars in them that in too high quantities can cause issues with your stomach acid. Also the acid in the juice itself destroys enamel.I hope you don't take this tone offensively I'm just pointing out the flaw with this kind of thinking.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

How is your thinking flawless when you argued that too much of anything can kill and use it to dispute juices whereby too high in quantities cause various issues. You are not defending anything but point out too much of anything is not good.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: allow

That is sort of the thing that was wrong with my argument.I stated that too much of energy drinks can be very damaging, but too much of anything can be damaging, thus is my argument invalid.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: allow

I didn't say my thinking is flawless it doesn't take a flawless thought process to know a flawed one.If too much juice is bad don't allow children too have too much juice. Yet they can have a little juice because by it'self it's not that bad. The same goes for energy drinks. Too much of that stuff is bad, but a little bit here and then is not so bad.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

But you don't follow the center of this subject. It's the question SHOULD PARENTS ALLOW THEIR CHILDREN TO DRINK ENERGY DRINKS?I think that parents shouldnt allow their children to drink it. Parents in this way children get used to something unhealthy.It's another thing that children are drinking these drinks without parental permission and without the knowledge of parents,but it is not the subject of these debate.They give their children bad habits.Childrens from birth must be directed in the right way.Show them the right things.Most children also know that energy drinks are bad for health but they drink them for trying something new because the majority of their bevy drink the same or of another reasons.Many children these allowing of their parents understood in different ways.They think if their parents allow them to drink these drink,they would certainly allow them to try alcohol.For this reason I think that parents shouldn't allow to their children to drink it.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: allow

Parents in this way children get used to something unhealthy.What the parents need to do is limit their children's consumption of these products. Using your argument, children get used to being unhealthy, one could also say parent's shouldn't let their children eat meat. Since, as your arguments dictates, the children get used to the meat. What a responsible parent will be able to do though, in both cases, is monitor how much meat, and how many energy drinks, their child is consuming.They give their children bad habits.Smoking is a bad habit.Cutting yourself is a bad habit.Enjoying a sugary drink every now and then is not a bad habit. If you can regulate it it's an acceptable lifestyle. It's like with candy, should parents never let their children have candy because that's also a habit that if done too frequently can be bad.Childrens from birth must be directed in the right way.I won't get into the moral issues with that, but I will say what I've been reiterating since I began replying. It's not so bad to enjoy something a little unhealthy every now and then.Most children also know that energy drinks are bad for health but they drink them for trying something new because the majority of their bevy drink the same or of another reasons.If that is the case that has nothing to do with the parent. It's the parent's fault for not discovering and nipping it in the bud, but it;s not like the parent allowed their child to have energy drinks.They think if their parents allow them to drink these drink,they would certainly allow them to try alcohol.That's assuming every kid wants to drink alcohol. Again, though that problem can be corrected by the right parental guidance. If they teach the children that these are sometimes drinks, and that they should ask them before they can have them, the kids won't feel tempted to drink alcohol without asking.What I'm getting at is this, it's okay to enjoy a snack, or sugary drink every now and then if you can regulate it. To assume that every kid will become an addict and go sneak around their parents to get it even though they said no is kind of unfair to the kids. You're counting them out before even giving them a chance.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: allow

Point taken, but I still think people should stay away from energy drinks. They have a serious large amount of calories, and the people I usually see drinking energy drinks are the one's who already eat too much. So add the energy drink and BAM.. diabetes.Juice has about a quarter of calories that energy drinks have, and the juice doesn't contain stuff that can be addictive like aspartame. Aspartame is in red bull, and it is the stuff that makes some people addicted to those drinks.Of course there is stuff that aren't that healthy in juice too, but if I am not too wrong juice does more good than bad, whilst redbull does more bad than good.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: allow

I agree, I don't drink energy drinks (monsters, red bulls, four loko) too often, they make me feel bad a little while after they 'energy' kicks in.As for the end point which does worse damage, I also agree with you, I'm just being my pessimistic self saying that anything can be dangerous in vast quantities.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

I think that parents shouldn't allow to their children to drink enrgy drinks because thus they give them support in drink energy drinks and later alcohol
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

I saw a news story that more kids are being brought into the emergency room after drinking energy drinks. I think it was because drinking energy drinks has been causing high blood pressure and things like that.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

Red bull and other drinks have bad effects in one's health , it can cause anxiety and diabetes . http://www.ehow.com/list5844792side-red-bull-energy-drink.html
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

They shouldn't allow because drinking red bull or other energy drinks can harmful their children health and they will be at risk.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

No. I heard a story about kids dying from having too much. Caffeine should only be used for medical reasons.
Debate: should parents allow their children to drink red bull or other energy drinks ?
Side: shuld'nt allow

NO! it's not recommended or not really have to... these drinks are alcoholic and contains even more chemicals that can be risky to one's health. Even drinking wine is not advisable even it is healthy for them as, I knew that after I have seens effectivity of drinking dessert wine that I got from http://www.berriedinchocolate.com/.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

As someone in a nation with universal health care, the best part is simply knowing that more or less no matter how bad you fuck up, you have a safety net (in most cases) to stop your minor injury costing you $10000. Yes it may raise taxes, and cause a bit larger of a back log, but the peace of mind knowing that if you screw up an hurt yourself, you (probably) won't have a huge bill at the end of it.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

My wife, being uninsured, just recently had trouble passing a kidney stone. The whole endeavor lasted nearly a month, comprised of three hospital visits and two emergency visits, and a few outpatient x-rays. All my wife received in this time was a stint, and the stone passed by itself at the latter point of this time period. By keeping us waiting and readmitting us time after time, theses hospitals were able to bring to fruition about $32,000 of debt, (including outpatient xrays). Yeah I'm totally okay with universal health care. The prices they charge are fucking ridiculous for what they actually do. Oh, and maybe if education wasn't so expensive, medical degrees would be easier to obtain, and doctors wouldn't charge you out the asshole. Just a thought.......
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

1. If you didn't have insurance, that's your fault.2. Education costs so much because of government loans and pell grants. When most kids get out of high school they say "the tuition is to high, ill sit this year out, maybe come back next year" and then someone says "well, since you have no credit, you can get a loan from the government" and then this guarantee's that colleges will get the overpriced fee they charge without really having to compete.Get rid of government intervention in college loans and more people will start deciding not to go to college right after high school or even at all, and when that happens, colleges will be forced lower their prices.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Insurance if not provided by an employer is fucking expensive. Whether or not we purchase health insurance is the difference between whether or not we can afford an apartment together. Yeah it's pretty easy to say shit when you have the money, but don't act like you have any idea what it is like to be where we are at.-I think you'll find the cost of college is parallel to their useless spending on facilities that provide, say, washing machine automated text services, fantastic foods, and let's not forget FOOTBALL and all other sports which are all the means to prestige.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

Insurance if not provided by an employer is fucking expensive. Whether or not we purchase health insurance is the difference between whether or not we can afford an apartment together. Yeah it's pretty easy to say shit when you have the money, but don't act like you have any idea what it is like to be where we are at.If you cant pay for, then you don't get it unless there is a charity for it. You see, resources have value, if you do not have the value to pay for these resources and no one is willing to donate them to you, then you don't get them.I think you'll find the cost of college is parallel to their useless spending on facilities that provide, say, washing machine automated text services, fantastic foods, and let's not forget FOOTBALL and all other sports which are all the means to prestige.It doesn't add up. If they weren't guaranteed government loans they would be forced to lower their prices. And if you go to college, unless you majored in sports, you should be focused on your major, not football.I don't maybe its because I prefer to mosh rather than play with balls, but I don't see football worthy of taking up half the budget.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

If you cant pay for, then you don't get it unless there is a charity for it. You see, resources have value, if you do not have the value to pay for these resources and no one is willing to donate them to you, then you don't get them.The thing is, most people in the world (and in America) don't want to live in a society where how much money you make determines if you or your children lives or dies. Even if that means we have make a personal sacrifice in our own lives (money or personal freedoms), so be it. I WANT part of my hard earned money (self employed so about 30% of it) to go to help someone who needs life saving medicine. It's a pretty easy choice. Shiny new Mercedes in my drive driveway, or helping to pay for a little girls Cancer treatments. Little girl wins every time in my book.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

You really don't know how insurance works in this country, do you? It's not always the fault of the person for not having insurance... but you don't know this.No, education doesn't cost more because of pell grants! Are you KIDDING me? Wow.Go away.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

You really don't know how insurance works in this country, do you? It's not always the fault of the person for not having insurance... but you don't know this.If you choose not to get insurance that's your fault, end of story.No, education doesn't cost more because of pell grants! Are you KIDDING me? Wow."No, it doesn't" very convincing argument...
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

i) According to The Children’s Defense Fund, every 42 seconds a child is born in the U.S. without healthcare.ii) There is nothing for these kids to do if their parents cannot afford good health care.iii) 450,000 babies are born prematurely each year in the U.S., it is very expensive to keep these baby’s alive, and if the family doesn’t health care it can be extremely disastrous (by Larry McGraph).iv) It is not fair if a poor four-year-old girl cannot get the surgery she needs just because her parents, who have made mistakes, cannot afford it. v) If a kid inherits a lot of money from his parents and is able to buy very good health care this shows that America doesn’t care as much about its poor population. It sets up a caste system where people who have more money live longer and people who are poorer live shorter lives. vi) This sets a huge inequality where the spoiled city brat is not sick a day in his life while the poor country boy gets polio. vii) What if a man cannot make a lot of money because of a disease he has, and then passes the disease down to his son who doesn’t inherit a lot of money so he can’t fix the disease either? The viscous cycle then goes on and on with no hope of escape.viii) What universal health care does is it evens the playing field. It tells the poor city boy who lives in one room apartment with five brothers and sisters that his life is not unimportant compared to the rich suburban boy. It tells the poor little girl whose parents are jobless that she too will be cared for, that her life still matters even though she is poor. And it lets the father struggling with bills that can't afford much because of his rare disease, know that if it gets worse someone is there to take care of him- so he can in turn take care of his family. Universal health care gives the poorest, down-on-their luck person the same natural right of life.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Yes. People have the right to good healthcare. :)
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Universal HealthCare would be great for the United States. People would never have to worry about medical bills ever again.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

The question of whether the United States should have universal health care is a complex and debated topic. Universal health care refers to a healthcare system where every resident of a country has access to medical services, regardless of their income or social status.Advocates of universal health care argue that it can provide several benefits:Equitable access: It ensures that everyone, regardless of their financial situation, can receive necessary medical treatment.Cost containment: A well-designed universal healthcare system may lead to lower overall healthcare costs by streamlining administrative processes and negotiating lower prices for medications and services.Preventive care: By providing access to regular check-ups and preventive care, it may help detect and address health issues early, leading to better health outcomes and potentially lower long-term costs.Improved public health: With more people having access to healthcare, it could lead to healthier communities and reduced spread of infectious diseases. For more Medical Supplies Online visit this website
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Of course we should. We pay for fire and police, right? Why would you NOT care about yours or your neighbor's health, but instead care more about their house catching on fire or crime to them? People are stupid to say "no".
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

Universal health care is an oxymoron because it only leads to high costs with little to no care. Plus, if the government pays for your health, then it can certainly control all decisions of life, which means more bureaucrats.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Yeah prayerfails fails to to provide any kind of decent argument. I would love to see some evidence that the government would provide "little to no care" and "control all decisions of life". Im guessing these statements are just based on your preconceived notions which are hurting your ability to use objective thinking on important issues.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

With little to no care is fairly self explanatory considering government only has limited resources, so it must choose between who gets care and who doesn't where a small minority are paying for the bulk at large.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Where are you getting your information? It does not make any sense. People pay in to the system, so the government absolutely has the resources. It does not need to choose who does and does not get care any more than any other system?
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

dude have you ever been to a hospital that had government funded healthcare? they honestly dont give a shit about you
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Bullshit most of EU countries has national heath care programs. They are very effective and on higher level that extremely expensive private medical health care available in US.US heath care system is ranked 37.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

Private health care is expensive only because of government intervention in mandates. If private care was left alone, it would be significantly cheaper due to competition.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

The problem with private care is they cherry pick their ideal customer and everyone else either can't get insurance at all (preexisting condition) or has to pay much much more (old). The free market has had a long long time to do the right thing. People are tired of waiting.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

The free market has never existed in the health care industry whether service or insurance, so we only see what plans fail created by the central planners only for them to call for more plans as seen with Obamacare, and when fails, the planners will be back at again.Insurance was never met to cover everything under the sun.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Can you provide some unbiased links to information about how government intervention has caused the problems in the health insurance industry?What "under the sun" illness are you OK with not being covered for?
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

What "under the sun" illness are you OK with not being covered for?Proving care for illness is what health care is about, contraceptives and preventive pregnancy is not health care. Insurance is protecting from the uncertainty in life, and pregnancy is not uncertain, women get pregnant every day.Can you provide some unbiased links to information about how government intervention has caused the problems in the health insurance industry?About 20 or so articles detailing how government health care will destroy it. The best article is Government Medical Insurance by Murray Rothbard.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Contraceptives seem like a good preventative measure? The health care costs of having a baby are huge. Its like any other preventive care that is provided. Pregnancy certainly is uncertain just like any other illness. I'm not sure what point your making with women get pregnant every day? Women get cancer every day so...?Your link is from an extremely right leaning source. If all you read is stuff from hard right leaning sources, your not getting the full picture. The right is right, the left is left. Truth is somewhere in the middle.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

If contraceptives are preventive, it is not health care, health care is only for the uncertainty in life like cancer. Preventive care is avoiding health care costs by limiting the uncertainty in life.Pregnancy is not an uncertainty, it happens everyday by people choosing to have sex, some even plan for pregnancy fertilization, cancer is uncertain, nobody chooses to get sick, this is what insurance provides, protection. The costs associated with pregnancy are controllable by safe sex or abstinence.Those are not extremely right leaning. Mises Institute is not a policy think tank, it is merely a educational entity for liberty. Wrong, the truth is never in the middle, it is in liberty, left, right and middle implies the use of government force.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: No

Why should Pre-existing conditions be covered? That's like having a totaled car, then getting car insurance and demand that they pay for it. The free-market has no had enough time, it was not that long after we started using modern medicine that all these mandates came into play.
Debate: Should the United States have universal health care?
Side: Yes

Pre-existing conditions need to be covered because if you loose your health insurance, want to change jobs (loose your employer provided insurance) or just want to dump the crappy insurance you have, you need to be able to walk in the door, with all your conditions, and get new insurance. People are (were) held captive right now because they cant change insurance providers.I agree that you can't wait until your sick to get insurance which is why the government will mandate that you buy insurance and pay in to the system when your healthy. It's too bad private insurance never got together and did something like this. The reason being is its almost impossible to organize something like that between so many competing companies, and its not the best way to do it if your trying to provide the biggest returns to your investors.