azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: Just remove age barriers

I apologise for the over zealous use of brackets; most unbecoming.the effects of it (nearly nonexistent rates of STDs and accidental pregnancies) would indeed be agreeable for society in general.If one regarded a tangible gain to outweigh an intangible one. However I suspect that to suppress the romantic instincts of a society's youth, whether the suppression be internal or external, would severely hamper the generation of culture. One observes a parallel in Catholicism, that most evil of all religions.General abstinence serves no purpose if contraceptives are readily available. As I have previously demonstrated (at length) to Casper (whose name is appended with a number which I have forgotten), correct employment of a prophylactic and a progestogen pill reduces the risk of pregnancy to .01% (both having, if used correctly a 99% effectiveness rate). This matter of STDs would be very easy to solve with a little due diligence by prospective partners (though for first timers, such would hardly be necessary).I would suggest a bracelet system, provided upon passing a screening at a clinic, but it seems doubtful that people would actually wear them, or bother to be checked. The bracelet would also only guarantee that the person attached to it was free of venereal disease at the time they were screened.A more practical solution would be to remove age barriers on the purchase of contraceptives and increase the prevalence of prophylactics in teenage dramas &c. Government propaganda videos sound very much like a stern parent telling us to avoid behaviour which they engaged in when they were young. The difference is that for a government which cannot run its own affairs properly, it is rather hypocritical to lecture us on ours. I'm loath to admit that television has an impression on teenagers, but I pursued an exceptionally science-oriented education because of Walter Bishop in Fringe. It seems therefore that the best way to associate prophylactics with regular coition in the minds of teenagers is to portray teenage idols using them. Skins, if you have it in the United States of America, would be an ideal candidate.The material point, however, is that whether the adult faction likes it or not, they have no moral right to judge on teenage romantic affairs, nor interfere in them. Analogously the government should not interfere excessively in industrial affairs, but instead should provide an environment in which they may be pursued to society's behove, which does not consist exclusively of tangible rewards.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

It is not the job of the schools, the taxpayers, or society for that matter to supply condoms.Which is why the motion is hypothetical.The "teenagers have sex" argument is ridiculous and absurd.It is true, so I cannot conceive as to how either adjective may apply. Condoms aren't that expensive and if you have any skills at all can be easily stolen.Why provide the poor with bread if they have arms to steal it with?Also, this might be ever so slightly controversial, but has anyone ever even thought of NOT HAVING SEX!?We evolved with genitalia and hormones for a reason. Unfortunately for you, we also developed the bothersome faculty of discourse and reason, one of the products of which are annoyingly persistent things called "emotions". Combined with chemical impulses, these "emotions" have made sex quite appealing to us and central to our psyche. An analogy: we are 1, but are formed in such a way as imbues us with a natural gravitation to other units, satisfied only with a value of 2. It is thus for all but the broken, who I cannot speak for.I KNOW it's hard, but weighing between dropping out of school to take care of kids and not having to worry about that crap at all, is hardy a choiceIf condoms were freely available, there would be no need to choose.if of course you have a brainIf one has a brain, one has also an endocrine system; the aforedescribed scenario results. Should taxpayers be forced to supply condoms in such a controversial venue?Why dost feel it necessary to repeat the motion is beyond me.Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this?If it is within our power to force them to supply prophylactics, it is surely within our power to force the supply of a certain type.They can't even provide a quality education, how can we expect them to provide quality condoms, or quality anything for that matter?A defect in a system is no argument against a proposed means of improving it.Maybe they can just resort to anal or oral, as opposed to vaginal?That is not a resort.If it starts in the home that's where it needs to be fixed.Then tender unto us some argument proving that this is the case.Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools.I'd prefer to receive this "talk" from persons of biological education.I guess now it's four, Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, and sexual Reproduction classes.I maintain contempt for a system of describing a group of three concepts, only one of which begins with an "R", as "the three Rs". As for your musing, I think not. "Biology" begins with a "B".You would have us revert to superstition and fear.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

This is crazy! Seatbelt are mandatory in cars and it's illegal to not wear them and yet I know more people that don't wear them than do. Get over it! It starts in the household and with the parent's ability to bring them up right when it comes to this subject. We all, in some form or way, act like our parents and reflect through our lives how we perceived them. If you think against that statement, you need to do some soul searching. Despite if you were the best parent you ever thought to be, if you have a rebellious or crazy teen, trust me it's something that you lacked in their upbringing...no matter how great you were. We should have a class for parents at the high school teaching them how to talk to their kids before we give kids condoms. I would never in my life want my daughter to throw herself away like that b/c the school said it was ok and told them just to wrap it before they tap it.P.S. I wear my seat belt EVERYWHERE b/c my PARENTS always made... Just saying =)
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

Selling condoms in school!?! that made me quite unpredictably laugh. seriously I believe schools should teach kids to be safe is all not condone sexual activity.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

I would prefer that people stupid enough to have unprotected sex should be kept out of high school through natural selection i.e. pregnancy = no school.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

I would prefer that people stupid enough to have unprotected sex should be kept out of high school through natural selection i.e. pregnancy = no school.Of course, the subsequent gross expansion of the impoverished underclass that would follow such a policy is an "acceptable loss".
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Why deprive the allegedly uneducated of an education?Would you also suggest that people who are hungry should be banned from restaurants?
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Why deprive the allegedly uneducated of an education?Well that is the very effect of the matter. We submit that the proponents of this policy must be either themselves uneducated, or poorly so; or educated to the extent that it would be advantageous that they be part of an educated minority.Would you also suggest that people who are hungry should be banned from restaurants?But our friend maintains that they should have thought to eat a meal; by which means they might have been delivered from starvation and absolved of the iniquitous crime of being hungry.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Why, it would appear that this logic should be examined in various situations.Why give poor people money?Why give food to the hungry?Why remove stumbling blocks before the blind?It would appear that you, I, and even Jesus are in agreement that one should not prevent people from acquiring something that they need.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Why, it would appear that this logic should be examined in various situations.We should examine such logic to our behove, if there were any to examine.Why give poor people money?Having never had any, they should surely be insensible of how to spend it. They would inevitably waste it, rendering such furnishing a futile exercise.Why give food to the hungry?For the sake of preserving luxury, some will have to do without.Why remove stumbling blocks before the blind?If they were all to fall and die, there would be no need to waste public money on aids such as stumbling blocks.It would appear that you, I, and even Jesus are in agreement that one should not prevent people from acquiring something that they need.The first rule of governance is that governors are most powerful when the governed are content, regardless of system. By any means therefore provide these necessities and never allow thoughts of deprivation to flourish.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Yes, precisely what this nation needs. More uneducated people!
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Having unprotected sex has nothing to do with intelligence. Usually it is an emotional decision. Or, they were not properly educated in high school. Also, do you feel the same way about the men who get the girls pregnant? Or just the women who get pregnant.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Honestly, I think that it's more the guy's fault than the girl's. I mean, they should be the one with the condom, right? Shouldn't they be able to say no if they don't have one? I can. I mean yeah, guy's can't exactly get on birth-control, but condoms are the best thing to prevent pregnancies AND STDs. The school is always sayin "abstinence", but they know we won't. Why even try? I'd be like "Wear a condom. Not wearin one could ruin your life." I mean, come on. I guess some school people are too "uneducated" to realize that they need to support the students with statements and lectures that could actually help, not go completely against them with "talks" that high school students just completely ignore.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Sorry bout that, I completely and utterly digressed from the subject. Haha.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Affordable and accessible contraception is a public health interest, as well as personal health concern for all genders and sexes. Medicinal contraception is often prescribed as a hormonal therapy and treatment. Further, non-medicinal contraceptives provide clear health benefits in promoting and enabling healthier and safer sex. This reduces exposure to and transmission of STDs.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

If done properly (good luck) contraceptives should be provided free by the government.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Yes. Women have the right to choose. .
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

They can choose to go buy contraceptives, no one is taking that away. We are just discussing who pays.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Women have the right to have their contraception covered by insurance.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

No, that is obviously a privilege. I agree that it should be covered, but it is not a right. There is nothing stopping you from using your own money to pay for it.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Wrong. Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Contraception is one of those rights. Not your body? Not your choice.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Yes, that is true, but it does not apply to this argument.Please explain how making an insurance company pay for something has anything to do with your body.Nobody is taking away your right to put stuff in your body by not having insurance pay for it.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Women have the right to have their reproductive healthcare covered.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

What makes it a right?
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Oh joy, another sexist male thinking he has the right to tell woman what to do with their bodies. #needyourpermission
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Or you could answer my question instead of prematurely insulting me. How's that sound?
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Women have the right to bodily autonomy, that is what makes it a right. #needyourpermission
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Right, but you made no mention of where insurance comes into the picture. It's one thing to say women have a right to choose to do what they want, it's another to imply that insurance companies must comply with a request to fund a luxury.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

The civil right to bodily autonomy is NOT a luxury. It is a RIGHT. #needyourpermission
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Right, but that's not what I'm saying. I said forcing insurance companies to provide a luxury is wrong.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

It is not a luxury, it is a right. .
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

You realise your entire argument has been: woman have a right because they have a right because they have a right because they have a right? Are you completely incapable of developing an argument beyond a=a because of a?
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Says the sexist male who think he has the right to choose on behalf of women instead of letting women choose for themselves.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

That has nothing to do with using logic or not. Woman have a right woman have a right! Why? Tell us why? You do you have any idea?I'm actually for contraception be covered by health insurance. It is covered by the state in the UK.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

At least you have admitted that it has nothing to do with what goes in your body.I am not sure how this is a right, but I agree that it should be covered.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

I admitted nothing. This is about a woman's right to choose, end of story.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Not true, you changed what you said. Therefore you gave a different opinion.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Wrong. I am not saying two different things. Contraception should be covered because women have the right to choose.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Why ?
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Because right now contraception is not covered for any reason, and there are many women on it for health reasons. Also, because birth control is cheaper than the damn kid.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Women have the right to have their contraception covered by insurance.Why is that a right? Free condoms and birth control pills are a right, lol.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Though I agree that contraception should be covered by health insurance I fail to see why a civil rights claim should be fulfilled through health insurance rather than social programing to secure accessibility. Were it not for the legitimate health issues surrounding contraception (and not just contraception for women), I think a valid argument could be made against your right to choose stance insofar as the lack of coverage does not strictly speaking abridge that right. A woman could still choose to abstain if contraception is not financially an option. Now, I could argue back against that but my point really is that there is firmer ground to stand upon.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

I disagree. I will always support a woman's right to choose. .
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

I think you misunderstood me. I was not arguing against a woman's right choose. I was arguing that it may not be the best grounds from which to defend a stance favouring coverage.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Okay how about this: unplanned pregnancies cost the economy much more than contraception.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Still not a health related argument. To argue for coverage within health insurance it seems to me that the strongest and most valid ground to debate from is that there are negative health consequences to not providing coverage. The economic burden of unplanned pregnancies is also not a reason for coverage within health insurance, but would be a valid reason to support an independent government program providing contraception.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Confusion. I have it. I need you to clarify and give me examples.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Sure, I will do my best. To me the only argument that makes sense for supporting health insurance coverage of contraception is a health related argument. For instance, medical benefits of contraceptive hormones or STD prevention. Health insurance protects personal and public health interests. The points you have raised - women's rights and economic costs - are not directly related to health but to civil rights and general economic concerns. If those are the reasons for ensuring access to contraception then the funding should come from some other program that is not health insurance. There is no current program like that that I am aware of in the US, but some nations do have programmes which distribute contraceptives free of charge to their constituents. This is particularly true in countries where the HIV/AIDS epidemic has hit hardest and the public health interest in providing contraception has been most immediately evident. Does that clarify?
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Why shouldn't health insurance address major health concerns like this? Covering contraception helps reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, as birth control can be very expensive. Besides, a person may be in an abusive relationship with a partner is sabotaging birth control, and need something covert. Or they may have PCOS or another health condition that can be treated with hormonal birth control.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Yes. Contraception is a right. ........................................................................................................
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Noes because that's not something you need.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

You probably shouldn't make that blanket statement, without any qualifiers or exceptions. For many women, birth control pills are very important and are necessary to daily life.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

What about Viagra, should that be covered by health insurance?
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

No it shouldn't. Why does something so cheap need to be provided by health insurance? rhetorical question
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

That's true, but that currently is covered, so wouldn't it make sense to also cover contraceptives?
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

Nope I don't see why. It's not discrimination not to."Men get this! So why can't we have this?" Ohh waaaah
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

It is discrimination. A man can't get a woody and it's a big enough issue that insurance companies, who hate paying out money, are more than willing to fork over the cash, but a woman who needs birth control so that she doesn't get knocked up by Viagra guy, she can't get what she needs without paying full price?
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

I don't think either should be covered by health insurance. So just because the other one is doesn't mean i agree with that.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

I was responding to the "Men get this..." In terms of that, with men getting their meds, women should get theirs. I agree that, barring medical need, both should be out of pocket, but since that's not the case, if it continues not to be the case, I'd want birth control to be covered.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

You can't use the excuse that contraceptives are not something you need and also defend Viagra which you admit is not something you need without being a hypocrite.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

You misunderstand. I wasn't defending Viagra.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

It is true that women have the right to choose what they wish to do with their bodies, but they have absolutely no power to force insurance companies to pay for them. That should be left up to the insurance company, and not the woman.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Oh please. Contaception doesn't have to be to prevent pregnancy either. I nearly went broke paying for birth control pills and I was on them because of severe issues. But insurance doesn't have to pay for it even then. Men don't need erections but Viagra is covered in case a patient has other issues. Birth control should be covered too: no matter what, just in case.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

That is a much more logical argument that the user Sitara. Allow me to continue. I agree with you. I do not think Viagra should be covered by insurance though and thus do not believe that contraception should be provided by insurance companies. It should not be covered due to it's initial purpose, to prevent pregnancy, hence the name "birth control".
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

Wrong. I am presenting a very logical argument. .
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: No

You cannot follow the purpose of the debate. She used a conparative argument. Viagra is covered yet contraception is not? That is a much more solid argument since it follows the premise of this debate. Your argument is over women's right to choose contraception. This debate doesn't call for that.
Debate: Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
Side: Yes

I have presented a logical argument. I told you why contraception should and will be covered by insurance, but you choose to ignore logic. Do stop wasting my time.