azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Actually I agree with the right to terminate a pregnancy. for birth defects, life of the mother, and rape. After all, I am pro choice; you chose to reproduce when you have sex. If you didn't chose to have sex in the first place you missed the opportunity.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

You are not prochoice when you put conditions on a womans right to choose.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Typical liberal oversimplification. Do you people ever think before you speak. So if you are ok with a 12 year old having a partial birth abortion without parental consent?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Ad hom attacks do not a logical argument make, Im a libertarian, and the one carrying the fetus has the right to choose, honey pie.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Where is the statistic from ?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

The full report is here http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

This is called B.A.D (Biased, Agenda-Driven) cooked data linking each to other. Common from religious weirdos. No actual statistic just linking to random stuff. Not uncommon, but quite funny if you know what are you reading :D
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Not in the USA...................................................................................................
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Awesome. If your government tells you to be a Muslim, you will comply. After all, seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

My government?I act according to what my government recognizes as right and wrong. I might very well disregard the dictates of someone else's government, but my actions are bound to be in full compliance with the government I recognize as my own.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

That is crap. Obedience to authority dictating your life is not a virtue. People have rights. Freedom of belief is a right.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

It would be nice if you actually refuted my position, rather than basically saying "That is crap", throwing up a couple of straw-men, then down-voting me. Down-voting me, just because you disagree with me, isn't helpful.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

I upvoted ye to make up for the downvote. .
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

It would be nice if you avoided the fallacy fallacy. You have two options: separation of religion and state which is the ONLY way to ensure freedom of belief which is a right, or a theocracy which is the ultimate civil rights violation, but in NO way can you imagine to have both. The government has no right to dictate religion, and religion has no right to dictate government. If the government tried to force religion on me against my will, I would fight them because 1. I am not property. and 2. I have the right to freedom of belief. This is what I call a natural right. Whether atheist, agnostic, deist, or some form of theists, you have to admit that some right just exist. If you have a problem with that, YOU are the problem, honey buns, now go read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

It would be nice if you avoided the fallacy fallacy.The texts between us to this point show the truth of that matter, clearly enough IMOYou have two options: separation of religion and state which is the ONLY way to ensure freedom of belief which is a right, or a theocracy which is the ultimate civil rights violation, but in NO way can you imagine to have both.You suppose I should just take your word that these are the only two options huh?The government has no right to dictate religion, and religion has no right to dictate government.The point is that both have the ability, and exercise it regularly as they have always. What if the government adopted a "secular philosophy" and enforced it? This ostensibly wouldn't violate the separation of church and state clause, because we aren't talking about religion, we're talking about philosophies and ideologies ~~SarcasmSeparation of church and state is as impossible as separation of political factions and state. If the government tried to force religion on me against my will, I would fight them because 1. I am not property. and 2. I have the right to freedom of belief. This is what I call a natural right. Whether atheist, agnostic, deist, or some form of theists, you have to admit that some right just exist. If you have a problem with that, YOU are the problem, honey buns, now go read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.I don't object to anything here (except perhaps the last little jab meant to be insulting), just note it doesn't addresses "Is separation of church and state a myth?".
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

I wanna stick to the debate subject. Its fine if you dont likw me, but I suggest you read through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and maybe the Constiution if you are an American. It shows that people have rights that the government has to respect. The people are the true government. The politicans are paid by our tax dolloars, so we should have a say in what happens.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Do I have youir permission to post a "Sitara versus Atypican debate: is the separation of religion and state a myth"?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Such a decree would violate the free exercise clause. You can have laws based on religion without violating the constitution.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

I agree. I was just showing the implications of a theocracy. .
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

There is a lot of "middle ground" between a country where the government forces the people to follow a certain religion, and your ideal country where a overwhelming religious majority is unable to have their way on debatable moral issues... Just because it happens to be a religious position.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Of course both scenarios reek of tyranny.....................
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

you cons know a lot about tyranny: you oppose a women's right to choose, you oppose my right to marry the one I love, you police the world, kill Iraqis over lies, have a perpetual war with Afghanistan, it was a conservative who first passed the Patriot Act, Allen West a conservative voted yes on the National Defense Authorization Act and got no flack from you cons, Im missing something: where is the liberty in all of that and before you bring up Obama, he can kiss my ass too.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Don't be mad at Obama, he is trying his best to run foreign policy like he said in his campaigns, but as soon as he got in the big boy chair he started to realize his opinions don't really work in the real world. Funny how anyone who looks into the people at gitmo for more than five minutes winds up wanting to keep the darn thing open huh.Let me just point out a little bit of hypocrisy in what you are saying. In the same breath you criticized the pro life agenda and the war in Afghanistan. Tell me, what are the odds of an Afghani woman being able to get an abortion, more or less basic medical care, when the US pulls out and Taliban warlords take over? Your criticizing a war on the Taliban who's trademark is their epically sadistic treatment of women.Libertarians in the Republican party don't like the idea of patriot act powers in the hands of a fascist progressive. Doing things like using drones to spy on farms for the EPA. Allen West is a great american, and the only US politician, who actually recognizes the obvious dangers of islam. NDAA is just a routine piece of legislation that lets the president keep trying to keep the country safe. I would vote for it every time until a president started abusing it.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

I dont support Obama. Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. I am not a hypocrite for opposing the Afghan and Iraqi wars. The wars are based on lies. Im not sadistic at all for opposing a perpetual war. Nice Alinsky tactics you have their, sweety.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.  Of course you do, when did I say otherwise? And when you make the free decision to reproduce, and your body contains another person's body whom your actions created, you can go ahead and show that person the same respect by not killing him or her.9-11 was not a lie. The WMD's were not a lie (syria just happens to have a ton of nerve gas now.... Hmmm). And the classic "yellow cake" report wasn't from our intelligence agency.I never said you are sadistic, you just blindly parrot the liberal agenda with the best of intentions while failing to recognize the principals are in conflict with each other.Please try to convince me how the world would be a better place with Saddam alive, Bin Ladin alive, and the Taliban still in power?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

I never said you are sadistic, you just blindly parrot the liberal agenda with the best of intentions while failing to recognize the principals are in conflict with each other. No I dont. Im moderate on guns and very conservative on taxes. i support the Fair Tax, not the progressive taxation crap offered by many globalist idiots like Obama. I am antivaccine. I oppose big pharma. The FDA needs to be reformed drastically. I support the implimentation of the Fair Tax, and the drastic restriction of the IRS. The Fed needs to go bye bye not that it will happen. War only to preserve life and liberty, but Im no pacifist. Whilst I oppose discrimination, the government can piss off when it comes to private entities. Only things public shall be regulated. Legalize weed and any other drug for medical reasons. Harsher punishments for sex offenders. Put mental patiens and prisoners to work when possible. Eliminate all taxation save the Fair Tax. Both sides are nucking futs. I stand by my Ron Paul statement and will gladely vote for Jessie Ventura. I listen ti Alex Jones even though I disagree with him sometimes. Phil Robertson is a bigoted piece of crap but I defend his right to freedom of speech. I dont believe in political parties. One religion is enough. Tell me again how I fit the progressive Democrat agenda? Please try to convince me how the world would be a better place with Saddam alive, Bin Ladin alive, and the Taliban still in power? I never said their deaths were wrong sweetheart. i just said that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. 9-11 was not a lie. Wanna bet? Of course you do, when did I say otherwise? And when you make the free decision to reproduce, and your body contains another person's body whom your actions created, you can go ahead and show that person the same respect by not killing him or her. pokay snowflake, listyen carefully: Life begins at birth.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Wow, where do I begin tackling all this stupid.....................?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Oh, and the NDAA is a complete human rights violation. Indefinate detention without legal counsel, and due process violates human rights and the founding documents.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Being killed in a terrorist attack is a human rights violation.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Oh, and Ron Paul could outdo every politician available. Dont make me laugh sweetheart.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

I can't tell if you are supporting Ron Paul or not. I think he is a bumbling invalid.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

religious people have no right to force religion on people. .
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

No, But we have eery right to govern ourselves according to our beliefs, just like you do.Are conservatives living in ultra liberal regions being forced to practice atheism by the laws there? So how are atheists in conservative states having religion "forced on them".When the partial birth abortion ban was passed, did someone from the Bush administration knock on your door that sunday morning and drag you to church?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Banning abortion is forcing people follow radical Christianity .
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

So let me get this straight.. I can make everyone in the country believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, who is the creator of the universe, and he suffered and died for our sins... By passing a single law based on religion....Ok, well I guess I will start a campaign making it illegal to marry your sibling... Oh wait... We already have that law, no one disagrees with it, and there are a lot of non-believers out there.... Huh, guess it didn't work.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

your rights end where mine begin. If I dont want to be governed by religion, that is my right.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Well I don't want to be governed by atheism. If states had been warned before joining the union that there was a rule against making laws based on the bible, do you really think we would have 50 states today? I don't think you would have 5. Every time the supreme court finds some novel interpretation of the constitution it is an assault on everyone's sovereignty. Has abortion ever been popular enough, in the entire history of the United States, to be put in an amendment and ratified by the states? No!!!! So how is it justified to all of the sudden say it is in there when it isn't?
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

And yet I still have the right to not be governed by religion. Freedom of religion is not the right to force your religion on other people.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

You have an illusionary freedom not to be governed by religion. One that was never put on paper and voted on. It is kind of like a pretty witty Richard Dawkins quote, "what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." History is simply not on your side, the constitution is not on your side, and common sense is not on your side. Hell even the idea of fairness is not on your side. All you have are a couple uncharacteristic supreme court rulings.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

Because women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: False

That is pure bullshit, you cannot worship Atheism. Second in hay countries people simply do not have need to follow myths .
Debate: Seperation of church and state is a fanciful myth
Side: True

Did I really say "worship atheism", I'm sorry I ment to... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I don't think murder should be allowed anywhere... but some people think it's okay... -.-
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Murder and killing is human nature. We are a violent species, no debate there. But it isn't up to you to make that call for someone. It is her body and her child (possibly) and we can't pretend to know the circumstances, especially us men. Your views are yours, but don't force your views on others with no proof that your side is the right one. It is just your opinion, same as me.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

You do realize that you just implicitly admitted that it was murder, correct? You also, therefore, implicitly admitted that murder should not go punished, since our views might be different from the one murdering.... wow.....
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Fetus is not born human, ergo cannot be murdered, you are again failing to separate religious shit from real world.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

How is it not a human? Is it a giraffe? Does it have its own species?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

It may once be a human, but it is not. It does not even knows that it exists, it is no different from breaking apart touster...
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Do sleeping people know they exist? No. Would you kill them? Fetuses are humans.. no one is doubting that. You would have to deny modern science to argue that (Law of Biogenesis). The issue is whether its a person, which it most certainly is.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

There is no "modern science" on side of religious zealots same as there is no law of biogenesis...
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Biology informs us that, as do some religions, that a unique living thing with its own genes is an individual. If those genes came from human beings then it the individual is a human being.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Fetus is not a born human. I guess you forgot the born part.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

It ins't murder if it is in the early stages of the pregnancy. You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.Thats begging the question sooo much. Who cares whether there is consciousness? Would you kill a sleeping person? No. Do they have consciousness? No. Do they have disposed consciousness? Yes. But so too do babies. You're playing a dangerous game of picking and choosing. Human life is what is valuable in and of itself; if it isn't, then the killing of sleeping people is acceptable.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

A sleeping person still has a mind is a sentient being. Even in sleep your mind still is present however early fetuses have no minds so can't be killed more than a plant.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

A sleeping person still has a mind is a sentient being. Even in sleep your mind still is present however early fetuses have no minds so can't be killed more than a plant.So, we're going to base this off of the mind? Who decides at what point a mind is viable? Couldn't one say that your mind isn't really a mind? Couldn't we say that babies who have been born do not have mind? Who's to say when a mind is actually a viable mind? You're begging the question soooo much, by assuming that the mind is based in a physical element. But if the mind is built into an abstract entity, such as a soul, then you're dead wrong. Stop begging the question, and stop being a mini Hitler.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Viability of a mind is objectively measured based on the level of development of the central and peripheral nervous systems. Simply put, a fetus is physically lacking the capacity to think, feel, or perceive anything until partway through the second trimester, for more or less the same reason that a victim of, say, paralysis lacks the ability to feel in the paralyzed limb. It is not a problem with a paralytics 'soul' that prevents it, it is physical damage to the bodys infrastructure for communicating sensations.Conscious thought and self awareness don't begin to form until some time after the baby has been born; this is observable via EEG comparisons from before and after key points in development.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

You're begging the question soooo much.. Philosophy has always had a dispute about the fundamental difference of the brain and the mind. Do not conflate the two. You're assuming for naturalism, and begging the question soooo badly.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

It's one thing to note philosophical debates over the fundamental difference of the brain and the mind.It's another thing to say, with certainty, that even if there is a 'mind,' there is no capacity for it to feel, much less process any kind of thought or sensation. We know that perception is directly linked to an intact nervous system.I mean, do you believe that the mind and body of a fetus have some kind of special non-nervous-system perception that is lost upon development of the nervous system? Because even young paralyzed children and those suffering from certain types of deafness and blindness can be shown to have a loss of various types of perception due to physical damage to the nervous system; obviously any type of pre-developmental perception would by necessity be lost.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

We know that perception is directly linked to an intact nervous system.We know that physical, naturalistic perception requires a nervous system.I mean, do you believe that the mind and body of a fetus have some kind of special non-nervous-system perception that is lost upon development of the nervous system?Assuming the soul to be true, then all humans have a unique and specialized mind, that is independent of the physical.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

We know that physical, naturalistic perception requires a nervous system.We also know that the subjective experience of perception requires an intact nervous system, due to the ability of patients who have suffered damage to such being able to communicate their lack of perception. If there is some kind of perception granted by the soul, it is not our selves in this world, in these bodies that experience said perception. Are you suggesting the soul is some kind of meta-self that is experiencing our lives alongside us, that we can neither perceive, nor are we privy to the perceptions of? That is an interesting outlook, but that would also mean that my soul really isn't 'me' as I experience things now.Assuming the soul to be true, then all humans have a unique and specialized mind, that is independent of the physical.And that would include being completely independent of a damaged or dead body as well; at no point in this process is a soul being harmed.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

We also know that the subjective experience of perception requires an intact nervous system, due to the ability of patients who have suffered damage to such being able to communicate their lack of perception. If there is some kind of perception granted by the soul, it is not our selves in this world, in these bodies that experience said perception... And that would include being completely independent of a damaged or dead body as well; at no point in this process is a soul being harmed.Who cares? This is irrelevant.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Who cares? This is irrelevant.If you can't understand how all of this is relevant to the subject at hand, then I think I'm rather done with you.