azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

please see this videohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589&ei=PCBYSZT1M4P6-QHInZC9Cg&q=occupation+101 then help us to publish it
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

MAY ALLAH BLESS GAZA,, WHO'S THE ONE WHO CAN SUPPORT THE ISRAELI'S KILLER..
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

I THINK ISRAEL SHOULD WAKE UP TO IT SELF AND SEE THAT THEY ARE ONLY KILLING THE POOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

The Israelites are using massive destruction weapons and they are killing without any sense of humanity.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Israel

Israel is just killing a bunch of stupid people that just don't know when to quit.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Bring Peace to Both Israel and Palestine

Israel and Palestine have fought for so long and people are blaming each other. I understand that many people on both sides are dying and i watch CNN, Aljazeera, and Jewish news, because i want to see and learn how each story is different, such as Aljazeera shows children being rushed to hospitals and some interviews with children with no legs or arms. As for the Jewish news i see home being detroyed, and people injured and rushed towards the hospital. But what i novticed about both the news shows is that it shows the people and is on for a very long time, but if you at CNN, they only show a few pictures and talk about why they are fighting and why Hamas has rockets and suicide bombers, also they only stay on for a few minutes and change to people having loans and Obama's inauragtion(not saying he's unimportant), but they talk about it more than whats reallly going on in the world. LOOK PALESTINIANS AND ISRAELIS WE ARE THE SAME BUT WE THINK WERE NOT, I WILL GIVE YOU SOME MANY REASONS HOW WE ARE, B/C I'M ARAB AS WELL AND I HAVE JEWISH FRIENDS. 1. JEWS AND ARABS ARE LIKE COUSIN, AND THEIR RELIGION ARE MUCH CLOSER TO CHRITIANITY, WE BOTH BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, AND SOME OF UN FAST, AND WE REMEMBER ALL THE PROPHETS AND KNOW THAT JESUS IS NOT THE SON OF GOD.2. BOTH OF US ARE TRYING TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND FIND PEACE, WE ARE TRYING TO LIVE AND BRING HAPPINESS INTO OUR CHILDRENS EYES, YET BY BOMBING AND KILLING, AND BY HATRED WE MAY NOT EVER SEE HAPPINESS IN OUR CHILDRENS EYES.3. ISRAEL AND PALESTINE ARE STRONG WHEN UNITED, HAVE YOU BOTH NOT KNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE HATED BY OTHERS NATIONS AND ARE NOT BEING HELED BY OTHER NATIONS. tHINK ABOTU ITS BEEN WHAT OVER 60 YRS SINCE WE FOUGHT AND NO ONE REALLY HELPS US, YOU JEWS WERE MASSACRE BY GERMANY AND PUSHED AWAY TO ISRAEL/PALESTINE BY THE BRITISH LIKE DOGS, DOESNT THAT MAKE YOU FEEL ANGRY ON HOW THE EURPEAN COUNTRIES TREATED YOU LIKE ANIMALS, AND HOW YOU TRIED TO GO TO AMERICA IN ORDER TO SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THE NAZIS YET THEY KICKED YOU OUT AND WERE SENT BACK TO YOUR DEATHS!!. aND FOR THE ARBS HOW WE ARE PORTRAYED AS TERRIOST WHEN IT WAS BRITIAN AND AMERICA WHO SENT TROOPS TO THE MIDDLE-EAST SUPPOSELY TO HELP US FROM THE TALIBAN BUT ACTUALLY FOR MORE LAND AND OIL. 4. IF BOTH OF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK BACK TO SEE WHO PUT YOU IN THIS POSTION OF KILLING AND HATRED OF ONE ANOTHER, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT ITS NOT US WHO WE SHOULD HATE BUTS ITS THE ONES WHO GAVE US WEAPONS TO FIGHT ONE ANOTHER, AND LIED TO US ABOUT EACH OTHER, AND WHO PUSHED US WITHOUT OUR DECISIONS, AND THAT MADE US HATE EACH OTHER WHEN WE ARE ALONE, HATED BY OTHERS, AND TREETED AS IF WE WERE NO MORE HUMANS BUT HUNGRY ANIMALS SEARCHING FOR MORE FOOD AND REVENGE. bOTH JEWS AND ARABS ARE COUSINS AND TOGETHER WE WILL SETTLE DOWN AND BRING PEACE IF WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHO BROUGHT US TO THIS HATRED AND HOW WE CAN ACTUALLY SHOW HAPPINESS TO OUR CHILDRENS EYES, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT IT BOTH AMERICA AND THE UK WILL NOT REALLY HELP US BUT SEEM AS IF THEY DO.BRING PEACE TO BOTH COUNTRIES AND RESEARCH BOTH PAST AND HOW WE ARE SIMILAR...
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

Most palatinean civilians don't even support the Hamas regime.Israeli's are brutes and do not know what they are doing.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Israel

They have no idea what they are doing. They have won 4 wars against overwhelming odds. They are a bunch of brutes. If they don't support Hamas they should do something about it.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

The land was Palestinian land before Israelis moved in. After WWII, the UN decided to give land to Israel. This is unfair to the original owners of the land and it is unfair that a religious group is simply handed it's own independent nation.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

Ahmed Ibrahim: No israel doesnt have the right to exist, you mention righting past wrongs, but israel was only created 60 years ago, and it is only a set back to peace. If it was destroyed in 48, we would be telling our children how stupid we were and about a pre historic thing called "war". Most conflicts in the world that ever happened since 48 were caused by israel or israel has direct involvement in it. The israelis claim that their ancestors lived in Palestine long ago, but then the Romans came, then the Arabs beat the Romans. That is when we could say that we cant rewind every little thing that ever happened in our World, because that was 1000 years ago. but the creation of the neo-nazi state of israel was 60 years ago, and it would be in every country's interest to get rid of it. But I think that it is unrealitic to destroy israel, it couldnt happen in the near future, so we need a 2 state solution."My next point is that historically the only claim that israelis have to Palestine is their ancestors. but the funny thing is that the Israelites are not the modern israeli's ancestors. most israelites converted to Islam or Christianity shortly after the Arab invasion. So it is the modern Palestinians who are the grand children and great grand children of the Israelites. THe ancestors of the modern Israelis are Eastern Europeans and Spaniards or North Africans. the israelis have no moral claim, no historical claim, no claims at all. Your ancestors lived in Ukraine, not Palestine. Go massacre and annoy them, not us."
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

I will destroy many of your arguments now. First, Palestinians don't hate Jews, they hate Israel for good reasons. I am Palestinian and happen to know a Jewish person who's parents immigrated from Palestine. Palestine actually used to allow a person of any religion to enter Palestine. They actually were okay with the mass amounts of European Jews entering Palestine until they declared themselves a separate state. Second, Arabs can't simply just get citizenship in Israel. People with Palestinian passports need special permits to enter Jerusalem, which is controlled by Israel. My uncle got beaten literally into temporary blindness for staying in Jerusalem 3 minutes longer than which his permit allowed. Lastly, does declaring war first really mean that you attack first? America has fought with Iraq and Afghanistan for about 8 years now, and there is technically not a war going on. America is also technically not at war with Libya. In all of this fighting, no war was declared, but they are clearly equal. And if you are still unconvinced that Palestine should exist and Israel shouldn't, go research UN resolutions against Israel. Also look up Rachel Corrie who was an American journalist that was ran over by an Israeli bulldozer.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

I'm an American and I hate Israel. It's an illegal occupation which the Palestinians and Arabs alike rightfully hate; and America takes the blame. The U.S. should give Israel an ultimatum to pull out and no longer lend it's support, militarily and financially. I haven't checked this out but I heard the U.S. pays for free Israeli health care, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Abolish the Israeli occupation and we will rid the world of many problems and violence.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

Look at the Total Points, they don't lie..... Palestine__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

I would feel more represented if a voice named "It's all about America's degeneration" was a possibility. Indeed, America has started this war, America wanted to give the Jews a country, and it was America that did all that ignoring that Palestinians had been living those lands for a long time. The truth is that, if America should look itself reflected into the mirror, the mirror would immediately break up. It is responsible of war in half the countries of the world, and the funniest thing is that she is still calling for democracy and freedom, and their president was given a Nobel prize for peace: LOL. Americans: wake up!
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

i believe in Palestine 100%! I am NOT anti-Semitism although I am anti-Zionism ...
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

My word. Just because a couple of thousand years ago, God said "oh Jews, you are the chosen people, therefore this is your land" does by NO MEANS give them the right to steal land from the Palestinians. I am totally on the Palestinians side, they have the right to their land, it was theirs to start with, and they have every right to it.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

I honestly think that Palestine should give up the land that the Israelis are after. It's just land...
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Palestine

The problem is... where are they going to go?
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: realization

They can stay in Palestine. Before 1948, Palestine was filled with Jews, Christians, and obviously Muslims. It is holy land to all these religions so the Palestinian gov didn't restrict travel. Israel on the other hand built a wall larger than the Berlin wall so that they can keep Muslims out.
Debate: Israel versus Palestine
Side: Israel

both these statements you mentioned our retarded. where they ganna go? idk maybe a bordering Islamic nation. just a thought.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

A MUCH more important question right now is, "Is the IMMORAL ADULTERER, LIAR, PUSSY-GRABBER IN THE WHITE HOUSE ... morally justified?" HE is responsible for the deaths of thousands because he tried to cover up the virus that everyone, including Obama, warned him about .... and HE ignored! Is HE morally justified?? Can anyone say he didn't intentionally kill them, or he DID?? No, He just didn't try to STOP IT! To ME that's not "morally justifiable." If I thought I'd have to live my life under HIS vision of America ... I'd take abortion!
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

Your claim that this is a much more important question is entirely arbitrary.It is also a very obvious red herring fallacy. Even if the president did intentionally kill innocent people, that does not make it justified for us to do so. It is completely irrelevant.And for you to conclude from your arbitrary claim that abortion is morally justified is a non-sequitur fallacy. It simply does not follow.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Your claim that this is a much more important question is entirely arbitrary.Your belief that abortion is morally wrong is entirely arbitrary you utterly ridiculous hypocrite. You are making sweeping arbitrary statements about what is moral and what is not moral, so your attack here beggars all belief. In the real world occupied by adults, double standards equals zero credibility.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

My argument is not arbitrary. It is entirely valid. I did not make "sweeping arbitrary statements about what is moral and what is not moral" that is a straw man of yours. I was very specific. I said it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings, rather than saying "killing things" is wrong, as you falsely claimed my position is. All you've done is continually insult me.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

Killing people is never "irrelevant". My "Arbitrary claim" is no more arbitrary than YOUR arbitrary claim. You have a good night.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

I never said "killing people is irrelevant". That is a strawman. Quite the contrary. I was saying that just because someone else allegedly killed people doesn't make it right. It is irrelevant in the sense that it cannot be used as justification for killing, such as abortion. You distorted my point beyond recognition.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

I guess you can't even read your own writing, ;-) It's right there above! You don't have to have the words in that particular order to make the statement, YOU MADE IT!.......Now, pull out your sword and go play with it Sir Galahad, like a good boy. When you're done we'll have an English lesson. ;-)
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

What I claimed was that anything Trump did, even killing, has no relevance to whether killing is right or wrong. So abortion can't be justified on the basis of what Trump or anyone else did or did not do.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

There are several possible moral justifications of abortion:Prevent pain for the unborn in the case of severe abnormalities like microcephaly, etc.In the case of twins, triplets, etc., selective abortions can improve the chances for those that remain.All abortions can be morally justified the same way self-defense can.----There are other reasons against restricting abortion as well - ref
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

Your first argument proves too much. As this argument can be used to justify killing anyone--born or unborn--who has severe abnormalities. Yet in most cases that would be considered murder. And if you argue that it isn't murder if they give their consent, that would still work against abortion, since the unborn didn't give their consent.Your second argument merely assumes the unborn aren't human beings, because if they are, then your argument implies that it is right to intentionally kill innocent human beings to improve the chances of others.You give no support for your third argument, even though it is a huge claim. Further, it is begging the question. The question is "Is abortion morally justified?" So your argument is the same as saying "Abortion is morally justified because abortion can be morally justified in all cases."The only situation where killing the unborn may be justified, in a similar way that self-defense can, is if the mother's life is at stake and an operation is necesary to save the life of the mother, and as an unfortunate but unintended consequence, it dies. Ectopic pregnancies are an example of this. However, your sweeping claim about "all abortions" is not true.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

second argument ... "implies that it is right to intentionally kill innocent human beings to improve the chances of others"Are wars and the death penalty moral - even if there may be collateral damage and errors in the justice system?
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

"Are wars and the death penalty moral - even if there may be collateral damage and errors in the justice system?"Remember, my argument is that it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Whether it is ever justified to guilty ones, does not need to be proven or disproven to show that abortion is morally justified. And whether it is ever justified to unintentionally kill innocent human beings does not need to be proved or disproved either. But even if there are rare exceptions, it does not disprove the general rule. It would be fallacious to argue that we may kill people generally without justification, because in some cases we may break the general principle that it is prima facie wrong to kill innocent human beings.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

The military frequently makes this calculation. If terrorists are known to be in a bunker with their families and/or others, and there would be high-danger/low-value for our military to engage directly, they can and have bombed the area knowing that non-combatants would be affected.Using the minimum force necessary (abortion) to avoid the harms to our country (the mother) are the same principles at work vis-a-vis abortion.Bringing it back to the topic (selective abortions) - if a woman has to decide between carrying twins with a high risk of both of them dying and getting an abortion to vastly improve the odds of the one that remains having a more successful birth/life, both options would be defendable morally.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

first argument ... "can be used to justify killing anyone--born or unborn--who has severe abnormalities"While people may have differences of opinion on where that line is - brain dead vs terminally ill and in pain - all I suggest is consistency. If it is moral to pull the plug when someone is on life support, apply that same standard here.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

"While people may have differences of opinion on where that line is - brain dead vs terminally ill and in pain - all I suggest is consistency. If it is moral to pull the plug when someone is on life support, apply that same standard here."Abortion is not unplugging. It is actively, deliberately killing. The two are not analogous. Abortion kills a human being which is just beginning it's life and has much potential. But a brain-dead human is for all intents and purposes, permanently dead.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

"Abortion is not unplugging."They are both deliberate actions that result in the death of a body that would not otherwise live on its own. Also, my comment did not just consider "a brain-dead human", but also a completely alive terminally ill person with chronic pain. Many people find physician-assisted suicide as moral and it is legal in several states/jurisdictions."a human being which is just beginning it's life and has much potential"In case it wasn't clear, the mercy justification applies when the expectation is that of a stillbirth or a child that only lives for a few hours or days - people should use comparable criteria for when euthanizing a born person would be moral.
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is

"You give no support for your third argument"Sorry, I've made the case on here a few times and wasn't going to rehash it all unless you demonstrated interest.Here is the boiled-down version.Elements of self-defense:-Reasonable fear of harm: while there are many possible complications from pregnancy that can result in severe organ damage or death, we only need to focus on the harms common to all; every successful pregnancy results in either a Caesarian-section or a vaginal delivery. If anyone were to attempt to perform similar actions on a woman outside the context of pregnancy, she would surely have a self-defense right to defend against it.-Imminent threat: imminent does not have a strict timeline and centers more around unavoidability. If an enormous asteroid is on-track to hit Earth in 9 months, the threat to humanity is imminent. Likewise, if action is not taken, the pregnancy will unavoidably continue toward the above harm.-Proportional force: some jurisdictions require a retreat to the wall or limits on the use of force above what is required to prevent the harms. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is the only, and therefore minimum-force, remedy.Some common questions:- What about consent?While this wouldn't apply to rape, etc., let's consider two scenarios where a consent is given.1) If a woman consents to sex, then changes her mind, can she then say no to the sex continuing? Consent does not continue perpetually into the future.2) If a woman chooses to walk down a dark alley, does she still have a right to defend herself against a mugger? Taking some level of risk does not remove a future right of self-defense.- But the baby is innocent and doesn't intend to harm the motherIntent is not a required element of self-defense. Imagine the case of a person with a fake gun trying to rob a store. They certainly don't intent to kill the clerk, but the clerk still has a right to self-defense. The requirement (noted above) is a reasonable fear."if the mother's life is at stake"Different states have have different standards - including just protecting your neighbor's tv, etc. - but all protect not just life, but also serious bodily injury (see the note on harm above.)
Debate: Is abortion morally justified?
Side: it is not

"Reasonable fear of harm." While some pregnancies may cause reasonable fear of harm, it is unreasonable to claim that all abortions do. You want consistency? If we think all pregnancies are justified killings because of just a possible threat that they may pose, then we are justified in killing just about every human being who we feel threatened by. Abortion can't be justified by this line of reasoning."If anyone were to attempt to perform similar actions on a woman outside the context of pregnancy, she would surely have a self-defense right to defend against it." This works against your case, as it admits that pregnancy is a unique circumstance. But if you are saying it shouldn't be allowed at all, surely abortions shouldn't, even more so."Imminent threat: imminent does not have a strict timeline and centers more around unavoidability. If an enormous asteroid is on-track to hit Earth in 9 months, the threat to humanity is imminent. Likewise, if action is not taken, the pregnancy will unavoidably continue toward the above harm."This is absurd. Pregnancy does not cause harm as unavoidably and as deadly as an asteroid."1) If a woman consents to sex, then changes her mind, can she then say no to the sex continuing? Consent does not continue perpetually into the future."But this has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not simply a woman changing her mind. It is the deliberate killing of innocent human beings."Intent is not a required element of self-defense. Imagine the case of a person with a fake gun trying to rob a store. They certainly don't intent to kill the clerk, but the clerk still has a right to self-defense. The requirement (noted above) is a reasonable fear."You don't have the right to kill someone without strong justification. If there is no imminent threat to the mother's life, and all you have is a bare possibility, abortion is unjustified.In most pregnancies, there is no reasonable fear for the mother's life. So it is not justified. And your claim that all abortions can be justified as self-defense is just not true.