azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: yes

Those who do not support stem cell research condemn what they do not fully understand. today, stem cells are being taken less from embryos of those who voluntarily allow it and are being genetically created in a petri dish (man-made). People need to know that the world population is on the rise and is increasing rapidly. For this reason, demand for superior pharmaceutical technology and advancement to keep up with the heavy population is increasing rapidly. Please realize that cancer can be reversed, and diseases that have been labeled incurable can finally be cured with this massive reform in medicine and science. Some incurable diseases include diabetes, heart disease, auto immune diseases such as Parkinson's, end-stage kidney disease, liver failure, cancer, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease. Stem cells can regenerate the human body in a way that the human body could never as amazing as it is. People will not have to donate organs as much with stem cells because stem cells can replace damaged or dying organs that can't possibly be saved with any measure of treatment or surgery. Now, i am a Christian an i do not believe in abortion nor do i believe in embryonic stem cells. Science is working it's way around embryonic stem cells so that is in not a curse but a blessing. i don't think that god would condemn such an advancement in medicine that can cure diseases that nothing else can cure, and make peoples lives better, more comfortable and less painful mentally and physically. The world is already screwed up enough... We need to try to fix and clean up what we can. think about this very, very carefully. Think about whats at stake.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

The moral arguments are ethnocentric and non-secular, they have no merit insofar as government policy is concerned. Stem cell research could advance medicine. I do think that there are limits to the advancement both technological and ethical, but we should keep pushing the frontiers.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

I think some diseases will find a cure through stem cell research.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Stem cell research—yes. Embryonic stem cell research—no. Why do people never mention this distinction when they ask a question like this? Stem cells can come from almost every type of tissue. Most stem cell research doesn't involve using embryonic tissue.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Why does the distinction matter? Embryos are just a lump of 150 cells. There's no soul in there.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Yes, because it will advance our society
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Stem Cell Research, just like Space Exploration, impacts humanity not just the economy. All of the world's nations should be involved in these issues.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Big pharma doesn't want you to be cured. They profit by treating your symptoms. Religion is a smoke-screen. Follow the money.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

It has numerous benefits to the health of our society, and it can be obtained without harming anything, even an unborn child.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

The potential of stem cells offers so much for humanity that not funding it is bordering on criminal. Religion is supposed to be separate from state and thus the government has no right to deny funding stem cells because of religious views. It is the job of the government to protect its citizens and thus the US gov has an obligation to fund stem cells so that it can protect and help its citizens.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

No, you're all wrong. When someone gets an abortion, we shouldn't say a thing. Just let that small clump of tissue, with the potential to give someone's life true value again, be tossed into a biowaste container and later be incinerated. Let the weak die, whether it be a fetus or a fully developed, but diseased, human./sarcasm
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Sarcasm or not, that's a blatant appeal to emotion. Abortion is not the topic. We're talking about whether taxpayers should be forced to fund research for it by the government.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Someone slap me for appealing to human emotion. After all, I am only human... and this is only a humanitarian issue that people don't want to be responsible for.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Well if you want to debate properly, you'll steer clear of logical fallacies.Feelings aren't facts, and emotions aren't proof.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Feelings are fact and emotions are proof.They certainly are "proof" of something. Stab me, you will see the look of discontent on my face. Feelings are, I believe, most critical in this argument.  Why are we specifically talking about Stem Cell Research and nothing else, in this debate? There is obviously a lot of people who do not agree with the studies, so why aren't they? Why is it that we only talk about Stem Cell Research and not something like Medical tests ran in state penitentiaries and more-so using people on death row?  It's all about the feelings here. The only reason you disagree with this sort of research and not the ones that deal with the treatment of rats, is because it feels different. No person can justly or rightfully claim that a human life is more valuable than a rat's life, or that a prison inmate should not be treated as a law abiding citizen of the state that condemned the other for his action. This argument has everything to do with beliefs, feelings, and morals/ethics (which is obviously just as baseless as feelings and emotions as morals proceed from these very things).
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Wrong, simpleton.The only reason I disagree with this is the reason I stated in my original statement of opposition: Taking, by force, funds from taxpayers to supplement private profit is not only wrong, but an offense to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and teh sovereignty of its people.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

If you follow the Constitution then you already know that you don't need to pay these taxes. Also, if you're arguing against this research, make it clear that you're not only arguing against this one particular program, but the rest as well. That info changes the argument. Also, I am not a ton, nor am I simple.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Yes. I don't ever want my genes to die off.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

yes, carefully and with constraints. For instance, we don't want a scenario manifesting which financially rewards those with 'just so' genetic lineages - this would create a market with tricky moral consequences.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

yes because the damn ass baby's dead get over it and what else can u use them for just throwing them away is just a waste go ahead and use them they dont have souls or anything there dead get over it.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Like jwitter, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to subsidize private corporations. If they want to research stem cells, let 'em. Heck, if they want to research dog poop, let 'em. But don't expect the tax payers to foot the bill for it.Everyone is talking about how promising it is. Well, that nice. But in the end this sort of research is a gamble. That's why the pharmaceutical companies want the government to pay for it. Because they know that no matter how promising it is, it could take years or even decades for something marketable to come out of it (if ever). There are more pressing issues for the government to support.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

So true. Why does the government have to fund something that is so "promising." Did they have to fund the creation of the automobile, the airplane, the personal computer? You would think that private corporations would be swarming for a piece of the pie that will one day "make the lame walk," but that's not happening. Instead what you're seeing is people begging government to spend billions of taxpayer's dollars on an emerging science that is untested and largely theoretical, because nobody else is willing to take the risk just yet. People have to understand that unless the government or a corporation really wants it, like they really wanted the atom bomb, then like all scientific advances, it will take time.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

The government most definitely did (and still does) fund advances in the automobile, aeronautic, and computer industries, as well as many other areas of pharmaceutical research. It's not about corporate profit; it's about benefit to the country as a whole. The most revolutionary scientific advances are most often utilized by the military before the public gets hold of them. Stem cell research also falls into that realm. One of the biggest focuses of current military medical research is regenerative medicine. This is one area where stem cell research shows promise. So in a nutshell, yes, the government, at the very least, funded the advancement of those technologies, and, yes, the government wants to utilize stem cell research. It's called an investment. Investments are sometimes risky.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

You need to read up on the history of aviation and the history of computers.And probably the history of atomic energy and space exploration. You think CERN was built for corporate purposes? You think we build telescopes in space to prop up the bottom line?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

First of all, it may be true that government had a part in the development aviation and computers. My point was that these were such promising inventions that government was not (or would not have been) needed to bring it to the consumer.Additionally, I never said that atomic energy or space exploration served corporate purposes. I never even mentioned either one. What I said was that in the midst of a world wide war, the government had the will power to go from a minimal amount of research into the atom to a fully functioning atomic bomb in a matter of a few years. This was an incredible demonstration of the power and efficiency of government when the right motivation is present.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

We are funding research for nanotechnology aren't we? What's the difference? They are both at the bleeding edge of medical science and innovation.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

hmm, yes, it is very risky, but indeed all scientific research is risky. Think of the Large Hadron Collider, immense resource drain and potential apocalypse scenarios, but yet we persist, because the possibilities are boundless.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

I'm all for stem cell research, but I don't think that the government should spend the money in research just so a company can come along and make huge profits.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

You do realize that a huge number of modern convinces where funded by the government, whether through the space program or the military. Things like ball point pens, microwaves, radios to some extent, satellite dishes, and medical imaging were either invented or extended by government funded research and later marketed by private corporations. (Yes I know my source cited is from NASA's children's site. It was the first thing on google that supported my case. But there are many, many more resources to support this argument.)Government funding is a huge key to scientific developments many technologies that we now take for granted would never have been developed had it not been or government grants. Funding of science is one of the few areas of government spending that need to be expanded rather than reduced.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

I do realize that, but I appreciate you bringing it into the argument. Just because the government has done something in the past does not justify the continuation of the practice. The Three-Fifths Compromise goes back to the founding of the US, well beyond the practice of Federal funding of the sciences. I'm totally against bring back the Three-Fifths Compromise.I take exception to your argument that government funding is key to scientific development. Capitalism has had more influence than Federal sponsorship. Also, which technologies do you suppose would "never have been developed"?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

If it's government funded, then corporations wouldn't have as stringent a control over the results as the pharmaceutical industry. One reason why medication is so expensive these days is because pharmaceutical corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars just on R&Dfor a new drug. After testing and making modifications to pass FDA standards, the costs of producing and marketing the drug are huge. If stem cell research were privatized, treatments given based on the findings would be very expensive - more so than if the government covered R&Dcosts. And if health insurance companies were to not cover stem cell-based treatments, those in the middle and lower socioeconomic classes would likely not be able to afford them.Either way, companies will make profits off stem cell technology, but the cost of treatments would probably be far greater than if the government subsidized the research. Of course, with the Iraq war and our mountainous deficit, the chances of the government funding this already controversial prospect are slim, and the large number of citizens against additional domestic spending won't likely take this lying down.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Where have you been living in a banana tree...???The reason drugs are so expensive is because they can charge the American public what they want because they have lobbyists in their pockets...pharmaceuticals are poison, anyway. More people die from pharmaceuticals every year than people die from street drugs! PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!Sharon~The Baby Boomer Queen~babyboomeradvuisor club
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Because there's no profit to humanity if a human is saved, right?You know, it's not just about curing brain disorders, or re-growing limbs naturally. A stem cell is like a seed that you can use to grow just about anything on any body. Human embryos aren't even the only place to get these, but there are so many humans aborted that... we are essentially throwing away recourses, with TAXES.In the fiscal year 1987, the most recent year for which figures are available, the Federal Government paid for 322 abortions at a cost of $160000... Government paid for abortions, but we cannot take the aborted or wasted material and use it to cure diseases, because that's just not what the government should be doing.Why is assisted suicide illegal? Huge Profit? Why are we paying taxes for schools in the south that teach religion? Huge Profit?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Wasted material Brad?? You were almost making sense until your obvious disregard and lack of respect for a growing human life surfaced...wow.If you want people (over 90% of the human population surveyed are of faith) to understand your argument, then you need to be respectful their beliefs as well. You said, "Because there's no profit to humanity if a human is saved, right?" That is hypocritical because ES destroys human life and so does abortion...hmmm.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Taxpayers should never be forced to fund any non-essential, non-infrastructure related, extra-constitutional endeavors. Good of humanity or not. There are people who will be glad to fund it of their own free will because of their belief in it and the ability to profit from it.Taking our money by force in order to funnel money to corporations for the next big breakthrough is unacceptable. Unless it's going to be free to everyone when it's available (which with most new technologies, is the way its sold [see the TV]), we don't owe any investment money to anybody.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

The world isn't big enough to support that opinion from everyone.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

How's that?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

It is disingenuous to throw around the term "extra-constitutional" if your version of the Constitution is in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's version (not to mention Congress, the White House, the legal community, and the country at large.)Government is formed to promote the general welfare of the country. Research with the potential to save millions of lives certainly falls under general welfare.A billion dollars in research would equal less than three dollars in taxes per American. Is three dollars really worth more to you than millions of lives saved?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

The general welfare. That means assuring the basic necessities of life are available to everyone regardless of class, age, race, etc.While health is a basic necessity, access to the most cutting-edge, experimental medicine and techniques is not.First, you have to prove that it will, as you say, "save a million lives". Which is all nice optimism, but still no more than hypothetical rhetoric.Given this, there is no reason we should throw money at this any more than the government is responsible for the R&Dof any other pharmaceutical under the guise of its purported social benefits.Governments job is to even the playing field and stay out of the way.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

The proper question is "how much benefit can we draw from stem cell research?" However, your argument is that government should absolutely never fund scientific research. Therefore, it has to withstand scrutiny to whatever exagerated numbers I put up. What if stem cells could save half the lives in the world? Would you still be against funding it?It is a very dangerous proposition to say that government should only protect rights, because who gets to say what a rights is? You for instance, seem to be saying that a person has a right to x amount of healthcare, but not y amount of healthcare. Why should you get to say what is a right and what isn't, instead of letting the voters decide that?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Why do you want my money to push your science. Don't get me wrong, I love science, I am an atheist. Just don't steal my money for your studies. If you care about this issue you and your friends can collect some money and donate your own money. Otherwise when you say you care about the issue, you care just enough to use my money, but clearly not enough for you to use your own money or effort.On the other hand, I may one day give money to stem cell research, but I don't trust the government to handle the money. I have a feeling most of the money will land in the hand of bureaucrats. That's what usually happens when the government is put in charge of something like this.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Government interference is wrong

Greater stem-cell research would come from competition between private corporations, so no. Plus, why should anyone pay for something they do NOT support?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

While in no way should the government stop scientists from conducting any and all types of research, funding for stem cell research is wrong not only because it forces some taxpayers to act against their own morals, but because it skews the activity of the brightest minds towards stem cells, when other fields may be more promising and or interesting. Stem cell research would be funded by private organizations anyway, since there are numerous charities devoted to cancer and health. There are far fewer charities devoted to theoretical physics, for reasons which I do not quite understand.Some of my friends have been arguing over at Argumentum, so I'm more likely to respond there (link below).
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: STOP THE DEBATE

Just to be clear:There are 3 different types of stem cells; embryonic, adult and induced pluripotent stem cells. All originally come from humans.1. Adult stem cells (ASC) [are often referred to as REPAIR stem cells because they are the body's natural healing cells ] have been used in bone marrow transplants for 40 years. They can currently treat 130+ diseases. They produce virtually zero side effects. The are originally derived from many locations in the human body including blood, umbilical cords, bone marrow, fat, nose, breast milk, menstruation, placenta and many other places. There are about 1,300 clinical trials that prove the safety and efficacy of adult stem cells.2. Embryonic stem cells (ESC) can currently treat zero diseases. They are associated with a lot of problems (tumors, rejection, controversy, etc). They are originally derived from embryos. There are no completed embryonic clinical trials.3. Induced pluripotent stem cells (IPsc) are fairly new. They have many of the same problems as embryonic (cysts, tumors, rejection…). They come from regular adult cells like skin cells that are then transformed (regressed to an embryonic state) by scientists into stem cells.For an extensive explanation on the differences between stem cells, go here: http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/stem-cells-101/ To see if ADULT stem cell treatments work for diabetes, heart disease, cerebral palsy, amputation, stroke and multiple sclerosis, go here: http://repairstemcell.wordpress.com/2009/10/10/do-stem-cell-treatments-work/ For FREE Stem Cell Patient Advocacy, go here: http://RepairStemCells.orgNow, ask the question again and we'll see what people really think! :)
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: STOP THE DEBATE

why should tax payer pay for something that probably will not work
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

It is a matter of how you value human life and your morals. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that an embryo is a growing human, but since it is just in the growing stages it is okay to kill it? That is close to "lets call an unborn baby a fetus so that we can feel all better about ourselves we we destroy IT and do not have to have any guilt." Wrapping it up in a scientific terms does not help the argument of destroying life in its growing stage...Stem cell research is just plain wrong and does not help humanity, but takes the humanity out of us.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Another waste of money on something that is not all that promising
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Honestly i think No.Yes it would save Alot of Lives, but why distroy one?I mean C'mon, Baby lives?Thats important. This gornment is Wrong, these scientist are wrong.Just imagine You losing a chiold?It hurst huh?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

Wow you really must have no heart if you think about killing a life form, even if it is not fully human yet