azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

Should the rainforest be saved? The Rainforest should be saved because it is the home of many spicies of animals and plants.Plants that could save some ones lives some day.What if that life happens to be your ?This is why they are important.So ask your self the question a few times.Should the rainforest be saved (yes)
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

While I think the rain forest should be preserved, they should also be exploited for the gifts the may provide to humanity. I've already disputed some of your oxygen claims individually but let me put it out there for you. The entire bulk of the forest provide only 10% of the oxygen. Rain forest only include 6% of the entire forest makeup. This means that the Rain forest provide only .006% of the worlds oxygen. Hardly a blip on the oxygen radar. Phytoplankton provides 90% of the oxygen. The oceans are the true lungs of the planet. The are also the true carbon scrubbers as well. So an argument based on oxygen supply has little merit. Better research people. But I will give you all this. They are pretty to look at, and if for no other reason then their majesty they should be carefully utilized and maintained.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

They reain forest should not be saved, it should be cut down to make hydro-electricity, furniture, transportation links to make trading fast. It should aslo be chopped down to make farm land.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

If you were to cut down the rain forests, all of the inhabitants will die, and it will the reduce the amount of oxygen produced and carbon dioxide being consumed for photosynthesis by plants, therefore having a big influence on Climate change, which is already affecting everyone on the planet. So do you really think this is a good idea?!
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

but of course your right, you also voted against the rainforest being saved, which is the main reason why i am disputing. I was going to further say that Trees/plants produce half the worlds oxygen, Phytoplankton produces the rest. So to all you spongebob fans, take it easy on Plankton hes a cute and also helpful little bugger
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

I didn't vote actually;I was merely disputing another person's point. And Plankton may be veeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyy cute BUT HE IS A BAD ORGANISM!!! Naughty Naughty!
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

Wrong, plankton produces 90% forest 10%. Please look up these matters before posting bogus statistics. Not to say we should eliminate the rain forest, because I don't think that. But I do think you should do clarify your stats. I like trees, they are pretty, and shady and they make good houses and furniture. I'm down with some forest action!!! Lets keep em.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

Actually, The largest independant oceanicographic insitution says half.maybe you should check your information buddy
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: yes

I took your advice and researches this further. It would seem we are both right. The topic is up for debate. There are staunch supporters of both positions. An intriguing point for the 90 / 10 rule takes into account the rate at which forest decay, and are burned from man-made and natural destruction, thus releasing carbon and other toxins back into the atmosphere. This in effect nullifies much of oxygen produced. But again, it's highly contested on both sides. I found this in a few spots including the oceanographic institute, and the national forestry sites, plus a few others. The problem seems to be one of scale. At this juncture, technology only permits a small sample size and so results are going to be inconclusive. So you can have your 50%, I can have my 90% and we can both be right/wrong about the whole thing.... sound fair?
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

The topic of this debate is flawed, its the same as asking "Should we continue to breath". Of course we want to maintain a renewable source for oxygen, however is it the best method? Might we be able to create a better cheaper system? One could play the same numbers game automobile manufacturers play when deciding to issue a recall for a flaw in their manufacturing. Is the cost of over population in our already populated areas <= the cost of loosing some rain forest and investing in oxygen generation technology? Do the pro saving the rain forest people take into account the fact that population control is mostly nonexistent? Disease, crime, space are topics that should be covered and since there is practically no opposition as of yet Ill assume they have not been brought to the table. So my question to everyone in favor of saving the rain forest is do we pretend the inevitable isn't coming or do we start now and create the necessary industry to support booming populations and expanding economies?
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

Destroying the rainforest could provide many business and advantages to the people in the area ,it would be better in the long run if we saved it. If it is destroyed many animals will be extinc . It also provides most of the Earth's oxygen which people need to survive also there are a lot of medicine plants that can be used later in life .
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

no we shouldnt cut down the rain forest because the we need the rain forest to see what we used to cure diseases and we can help the animals there live longer also to spread the plants there and not to kill the animals there but to help them.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

A say no because we are taking all the things that we have make as live. We don't have that much for people to live and we are taking everything. destroying the fores for nothing killing the animals. We are going 2 kill the earth if we don't stop what we doing.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

you should not destroy the rain forest it has lots of living things and it gives us lots of oxygen.if people destroy the rain forest peoples homes will be destroyed and so would animals.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

i think the rain forest is a waste of space because it has mas things that need to be harvested.their also very danger rous thing in the forest and many other thing and it may be were the wild things are
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

I think that the rainforest should not be destroyed because then there's not going to be any animals, and were are they going to go. Then there's not any oxygen that much any more because the plants and trees are being destroyed. They need the plant for medicine and other things. I don't now, well I do now but they don't think about why there are reasons not to destroyed it.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

It is far easer to use artificial "trees" in a country that is less commercially driven than try and preserve trees in country's that need money.
Debate: Should the rainforest be saved?
Side: No

The rain-forest should be saved because it has most of the earth medicine. Some medicines are ther for cancer, AID's and Diabettes. Many animals and unknown species live in the rain forest waiting to be dicovered . It also saves us from death if there was no rain-forest more Carbon Dioxide would produce nd make a global disaster.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Yes. Stem cell research is the most promising aspect of medicine today. It is the obligation of the US federal government to fund this research. It doesn't make any sense for the government to hold religion over science.The human embryos that are destroyed only contain about 150 cells. The brain of a fly has over 100,000 cells. Watch this video to hear the best argument that I have heard in favor of stem cell research.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Allowing itself to be "cowed into respecting religious faith" at the expense of alleviating the "enduring suffering of millions", the US federal government is in violation of the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

How is not funding stem cell research a violation of the first amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Congress is not establishing a state religion, nor is it infringing on the rights to worship as an individual chooses. Instead it is legislating based off expressed opinions of a majority of the population through their election of Congressmen and women.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: yes

You are missing the point of the establisment clause "The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also PROHIBITS the government from unduly PREFERRING religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

It is because people's faith(which condems ES) have their hard earned money going toward something they competely oppose and violates their religious beliefs. Therefore, their rights are being violated.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Religion over Science is a crime! Science is key to our survival and Governments shouldn't confuse ethic beliefs with our rights to survive as the human race.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

You make it seem as if humanity cannot survive without stem cell research. This is, quite frankly, not at all true. We have as a species existed with considerable success over the course of our existence without stem cell research. While this research will undoubtedly help make our life spans longer, healthier and more productive and more importantly alleviate the suffering of millions it is not absolutely necessary to the survival of humanity as a species. Furthermore science without ethics is more than dangerous it's absolutely wrong. At some level all human actions should be measured against a system of ethics. Whether this system is defined entirely religiously, secularly or a combination of the two is of little consequence. But a system of ethics is absolutely necessary for the success of any human society.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Science is key to our survival <<< where does it say Stem call research??? .
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

I apologize the statement seemed to be implied by your rebuttal.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

I'd like to point out that in the very near future scientists will be able to generate stem cells without embryos from regular cells.Stem Cells have such a broad potential for curing many (to date incurable) diseases that we cannot afford to idle on this research.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: yes

I support research, but WHAT?? A stem cell is classified a stem cell because of pluripotent abilities, how does a cell that is already developed into something else (Neuron, Skeletal tissue, etc) go back and become pluripotent?Stem cells do have broad potential, and that is why research should continue and be funded.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

So that makes it okay to believe that a growing human is sub-human and expendable??? Seriously?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

This makes me laugh because humans are their own worst enemy and are destroying themselves. Science over religion is not the truth, that is just a fasade and a way to get around a moral and ethical questions. Religion is just brought into the debate to misguide people on the unproven benefits of Stem cell research
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

The vital difference is that the human embryo has been fertilised and has the potential to become a human. Sam Harris' argument [in the video] that 'every time you scratch your nose you have committed a holocaust of potential human beings' is facile and is prefixed with weasel words.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Yes, indeed he maybe be facile in the respect that he seems to be making bold assersions, but his argument relating to the 'soul mathematics' is nonetheless still valid. Because we have no way to determine the starting point of a soul, it seems, to me at least, that the notion of soul is an invalid argument against stem cell research. Yes, also, that the human embryo has been fertilised, and has the potential to become human, however I dont believe we should be preoccupied with bringing more potential humans into this world as it is limping it's way into the future.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

What does a fertility clinic do with all the left-over fertilized eggs?If they can't be used for research purposes, they have to burn them. It's a waste.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

They should not be destroying human life in the first place so lets exchange one evil over the other? Is that your argument? It would be okay to say that "lets make this destroyed life mean something by using it to help others such as a donor does when he or she dies; however, if you open up that can of worms, it will just be abused like everything else.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Of course; right now the government is spending money on many less productive things. And stem cell research is very promising. But embryonic stem cell research is different. Not only is it morally wrong because it destroys human life, but there is a significant lack of evidence that it will even be as productive as adult stem cell research, which for years has been used to succesfully treat such deadly diseases as leukemia.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

There are too many unknowns about this science not to research it. Once we find out what its many implications are, then we should debate whether we should use it or not. Government should never make a decision based solely on religion. But, thats obviously gonna be the view from an atheist.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

NO offence Rev...but religion should not interfer with science and science should not interfer with religion...two different structures! Apples and oranges...both of which never fall far from the trees.Stem cell is cruetial to many illnesses...I know, I have one that could benifit from it, but by the time the dust settles it might be too late for me...THAT is how important stem cell research is.Southern smiles and world peace,Sharon~The Baby Boomer Queen~babyboomeradvisorclub
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

And no offense to you BB, but to a religious person, God is the ultimate creator of science and scientists are always too busy trying to play God, so it is not a apples to oranges comparison. Look how much time, effort and money is spent in the scientific community to "disprove" creation. I have several family members that could benefit from it in the future as well, but at the cost of detroying life, they would not want it and niether would I. It is kind of like an adult hiding behind a child while under attack...cowardly in my book. Funny thing is that we get persecuted for animal research which is a big no no, but human research is not...I don't get you people and I am in the scientific field (neuropsychology). Just another self-destructive path in science, and I am glad there are people like me in that field. Where is the hope and faith of humanity..in a Petri- dish?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

The government should fund it if there's a potential for improving the country's economy or if it has any military applications.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

A comment was made above that we will soon be able to create stem cells without destroying embryos. We're actually already there. While some of the work of South Korea's Hwang Woo Suk was found to be bunk, the methodology of non-embryonic stem-cell creation was proven recently by scientists working at the University of California. Utilizing cells from a single donor, the scientists chemically forced the cell to blastosphere stage and thus harvested a complete line of stem cells. The scientists implanted the nucleus of a skin cell into an egg cell (thus creating a diploid egg). This diploid was then stimulated chemically, and "grew" in the nutrient solution of incubation, a technique that has already been known. However, the scientists managed to get the total growth to around a hundred cells, far more than we have ever managed before, and large enough to create the full line from the blastosphere stage. The mechanism created no life; in fact, cannot, since the central nucleus of the cell is being replaced by a mature code, not one that can control the complex procedures of embryosis. The hundred-cell volume is probably the largest this can even grow to; scientists reported eugenic decay in the blastosphere even at the time when the stem cells were being harvested (eugenic decay is a total systemic failure of the DNA sequence to adapt to embryosis).So should the government fund such research? Yes, indeed. Extrapolation of the technique identified above will satisfy the religious concerns; man is neither being created nor destroyed to continue the work. And the potential benefits of such research go far beyond the ability to repair the human body. Indeed, the knowledge gained simply from the study of it allows better surgical techniques, better treatments, better and more targeted medications, and better knowledge of human risks, behaviors and illness. That said, I do not advocate wholesale fattening of private enterprise on governmental teats, though; the government should retain and disseminate such research without limitation. If the private enterprises wish patent protection, they must get there without public funding. Public funds should yield public benefits.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Absolutely, stem cell research holds untold possibilities for medicine. The government should be funding more scientific endeavors, there are much much worse ways to spend taxpayers' money. However it is morally wrong to conduct embryonic stem cell research.Luckily there are just as effective alternatives to destroying a fertilized embryo, such as adult stem cells and perhaps even more versatile multipotent adult progenitor cells.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Seems like a no-brainer. If we have trillions for war, and "obviously" government funded war is to help humanity. Why shouldnt govt fund science/medicine, especially something like Stem Cells that is so universally accepted as something that has and will benefit humanity.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

Duh! The money that we pay should be used to kill people! What use is it to kill people and then revive them???
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

I remember watching a show on the discovery channel about ancient civilizations. This program demonstrated that some cultures were literally centuries ahead of other cultures in developing certain technologies. The program gave some specific examples of mechanical technologies that were developed by the Chinese hundreds of years before other cultures discovered the principles that made these technologies beneficial to the citizens.The program didn't explore the WHY of this. But being a wonderer, I wondered why it was. And one possible answer that came to mind was that religions have historically been "nay-sayers" of some scientific advances. And so, I postulated that religion in a given culture may very well have stood in the way of scientific research and the resulting discovery and practical use of those discoveries.I had no specific evidence to back up my postulations, but while trying to come up with possible modern day examples of why some cultures might be technologically ahead of others, my mind latched onto the current events example of stem cell research. I observe that right here in my own country, we have religious influences hindering the advance of a particular scientific avenue of research, while other countries are more aggresively looking for practical uses of this promising field.I can't help but wonder if America is setting itself up to be left behind (or left to play catch-up) in whatever practical applications can be made from pursuing stem cell research?
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: Yes

What, you think they should only fund wars????Prison camps??Their own pockets???...or perhaps something that will benefit all like stem cell research.Wait until you get ill or someone that you love...and tell me then if you don't change you all might high horse attitude then!!!!I say stop the space program and do stem cell....now that ought to get you scientists going out there......let me tell you...there is dirt, rocks and ice on most planets...BIG whoop! People are more important! ...and if there are ET people out there they will find us...and they will be smarter then us because we don't have the sense to have our government fund stem cell research!You have colonized the world, leave the galaxies alone!'nough said...Sharon~The Baby Boomer Queen~babyboomeradvisorclub
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

"perhaps something that will benefit all like stem cell research."Stem cells do NOT benefit all people, just those with cancer or other health problems (only a small segment of society). Now, why poor people's money be going to support richer people with cancer? Don't you think there are more important things for THEM, like food etc. Check out the argument below
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: No

I have a family member (father) that has already died due to a disease that they say ES could cure in the future and again, I say, at what cost? I agree with the space program elimination though and believe in scientific research, but not at the cost of destroying human life and immoral acts. All religion aside, when your number is up, you are going and there is nothing on earth that can save you, so maybe protecting your soul is not a bad idea. On the other hand, it appears to me that you are probably ill or know someone who is and my heart goes out to you, but we do not need to destroy life to prolong another life. I understand your passion and I agree with much of what you have stated, I just disagree with ESCR. My prayers are with you BB.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: yes

Stem cells are an extremely promising medical resource. Doctors have told me I may be unable to walk by the time I'm 30 due to degenerative joints. Stem cells could change this. I support stem cells wholeheartedly and believe that the government should fund this research for the good of the people.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: yes

In order for the possibility of curing cancer and other diseases, stem cell research is just one way in achieving this goal.
Debate: Should the US government fund stem cell research?
Side: yes

And now scientist can extract stem cells from our bone marrow, so there is no longer a morality issue. I'm looking forward to a new set of ears.