azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

A clone has the same set of DNA as the original. This is the exact situation as identical twins. Twins can become very different based on their nurturing situations and experiences.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloned organisms are much more prone to infections, and the procedure of cloning is expensive and extensive. The process of cloning began with 277 eggs; only 30 divided; only 9 actually induced pregnancy, and only 1 survived to term.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Keyword test: clones, gene pool, dangerous, playing god, organ farming, stem cells
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

The quick brown dog jumps over the lazy fox. "What is beauty?" General MacArthur responds to this with: "I shall return."
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

It's useless. The gap is too great. We'll never catch up. My spirit--nay, my soul--is broken. I am a shattered shell of the man I used to be.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Packing on the points. We can win! Win win win! Moooore points, please.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

What if I support this with 50 characters or more? I think I'll get another point on this.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Also, cloning lessens the diversity of genes. It weakens our ability to adapt and is detrimental to the beauty found in individuality.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

If I were a clone, i would be sad because I have no actual mother and also cloning makes one inferior and 'less valued"
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

As for organs, I think it is possible not to clone an entire being.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

whats make every person special is because they are limited edition but if they have cloning i think they are'nt special anymore. because they have a copy, makes them are not special and different.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

if you were to clone a human for instense they would not neccaserly look like the original person and they would start off as a baby and you would have to raise them; and it does limit the gene pool as well as in breeding and there would be more genetic diseases in the world.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

I strongly believe that there is an issue on religion here in this controversial motion. Have you ever heard of the saying " Is Science Playing God?" ? The whole question suggest that science, as the world become more technologically advanced, is taking over the forces of nature. By then, what revolves around us human is science and nature will no longer play a part in the human society.As for cloning, Is Science taking over God's "job" of creating humans? Most religions, Islam, Christianity etc believe tha God create humans and this iissue of cloning has unquestionably, undeniably raised a controversy that Sience IS playing God.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

When you say your clone could do your'e homework for you, then your clone would get smarter and you would get dummer as you are both individuals
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

ii would think that cloning would hep with the over population of the earth and further deplete our resources.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Я проти клонування тому що дійсно не має сенсу для клонування. Ми не повинні грати бога. Також було овець, які отримали клонований і він жив ​​протягом 7 років, а потім помер. Таким чином, клонування не зможуть в людині.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

cloning is basicly pretending to be god by creating humans. Cloning is defing nature because you are making someone who has identical dna as someone else, what happened to everyone being unique?
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Subject pretty meticulous, my main argument - it is unethical, and therefore opposed. Mankind has lost the basic instinct - the instinct of self-preservation of the form (why continue to race if it can be artificially grown ...
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

It's not unethical, it is a new way to preserve species, such as lonely George the last Pinto turtle who recently died. We could have kept the Pinto turtle alive had we had the technology to clone. It could also help the people that cannot have children for various reasons such as infertility. It wouldn't mean that humans would have to be artificially grown, it would only mean that there would be another option.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

it's not necesssarily going to happen, because we have the right to allow it to happen or not, we are the ones developing the cloning technology, whether or not it's going to be the future, it all depends on us. We should not just say, 'ohh, no matter how it's going to happen, so just accept it.' This really shouldn't be the way of thinking, we should choose what we want or not.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

How can a stateless, peaceful, classless, resource abundant society be bad ?
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

I can agree except capitalist.-------------------------------------
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Capitalism requires a violence monopoly to protect its property, and thus a state is necessary to capitalism. Capitalism is dependent on the price mechanism, which is dependent on scarcity and not abundance. Supply is artificially kept low or less efficient alternatives are pursued to boost revenue in some industries, for example a light bulb that never needed replacing would not be good for sales and thus it won't be pursued. The search for cheaper labor and access to resources leads naturally to war. If not for the democratic nature of most of our government and some key technological advancements we would likely still be enslaving Africans because of capitalism.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

I thought I wasn't going to laugh today until this now, thanks.Capitalism requires a violence monopoly to protect its property, and thus a state is necessary to capitalism.First, property is protected by law, and law is possible without the state, and as for violent monopoly, the state can only provide this. The State is force and violent.Second, if private property is not permissible, how is production possible? Man lives for self interest.Capitalism is dependent on the price mechanism, which is dependent on scarcity and not abundance.RothbardSupply is artificially kept low or less efficient alternatives are pursued to boost revenue in some industries, for example a light bulb that never needed replacing would not be good for sales and thus it won't be pursued.Whatever, supply is low because stuff is scarce. If it wasn't scarce, it would be free as is AIR. Air is abundant on Earth.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

What type of law exists without the state? Sounds like warfare to me. Man does live for self-interest, and private property, as marx meant by the term, is often counter to that interest since so few can aquire it. Production now days is rarely owned soley by one person, typically there are hundreds of investors/ share holders. Supply is not always low because stuff is scarce, consider the distribution of new game systems. Companies have enough productive capability to flood the market, instead they keep the supply artificially low. Companies that control the productive capability which produces a product control its supply, and they will supply such to maximize their profits. Abundent things are not always free either, consider porn.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

What type of law exists without the state? Currently, none. It would happen in a poly-centric law.Actually, the monopolistic law fits much closer to warfare than in a poly-centric law.MisesMises 2Mises3Supply is not always low because stuff is scarce, consider the distribution of new game systems. This is actually laughable.In stages of production, the most important thing is cooperating factors, where it is impossible for one factor of production that produces a consumer's good or even advances a consumer's good from its previous stage. Basically, video game companies don't control every stage of in the production of a game, so scarce resources and cooperating factors force all companies to be most efficient.Companies have enough productive capability to flood the market, instead they keep the supply artificially low.Irrational, due to the stages of production, all goods are subject to supply and demand.Abundant things are not always free either, consider porn.Porn is not abundant whether for pay or not. If it was, then would be in a constant state of abundance. Without the The cooperating factor of a video camera in the stages of production, there is no porn.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Its a fine idea but the reality is impossible. I personally would not be happy in it even if it worked out perfectly. I happen to like the idea personal responsibility and in a system like communism and in socialism it is to easy to blame someone els for your problems and consequently not be able to change your own fate.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Do you know what communism is? Judging by your reply it seems you don't. The so called "communist states" were/are very far removed from what communism actually is. Communism is more or less when everyone has capital, and that means that individuals are more independent and thus truly more responsible for themselves.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Ok then.. what do you mean by capital? I ask again what is the difference in it being bad or good if it doesn't and cant work?
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Productive machines. It can and does work, it worked in its primative form for the great majority of human history(primative communism), it works in various microcosms of our day to day lives and so forth and it will certainly work as productive forces advance for it is the natural result of advance productive forces.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Whatever has given you the idea that a Communist society would be resource abundant?
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

The same thing that tells me triangles have 3 sides and 180 degrees, and thus all the trig rules(with enough anaylisis time)... The definition.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

The definition.Something which you have failed to provide. In what way do you define communism?
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Actually, it was the very first post I made in this debate and can be found at the top of the left hand side. Its also the one that this convo has branched from....A classless stateless society. Wikipedia does a good job for the most part, there might be a few things that could be changed but most of it is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

How can a stateless, peaceful, classless, resource abundant society be bad ?Usually I'm not so blunt but when everybody is making the same amount of money it doesnt work. in every society you have gods and you have cogs. The gods work hard to make their money so they can relax later in life. But the cogs slack off and are now outraged that they dont have nice things. But society needs the cogs so we can have people do the jobs nobody wants to do, such as taking the garbage, or sorting the recycling. Besides, name one good communism.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Money doesn't exist in a communist society. Money comes from not owning your own capital that you need to survive or to enjoy luxuries, when you own capital money becomes obsolete. Band societies, all they need is the right tech and their modern instead of primitive communism.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Very easily, that's how.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Okay, so before you call me a 'commie bastard' hear me out.Communism in theory is actually a great idea; everyone is equal and everyone shares the same stuff. Unfortunately when attempted to be put into practice every single attempt has failed and instead ended up as a Dictatorship. A Dictatorship is when one person has absolute power over a country (Stalin, for example), this is the complete opposite of Communism.So if you think communism involves having one person that controls the country you are wrong, as such if you think the U.S.S.R (now Russia, no longer a Dictatorship), China, Libya (formally), or North Korea are country's of communism you are an ignorant fuck tard most likely lead to believe this through stupid Western Propaganda.In saying this though, I still prefer living in Australia with my greedy capitalist life ;)
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Communism in theory is actually a great idea; everyone is equal and everyone shares the same stuffHow is this a good thing? All this does is provoke laziness and take motivation out of working, learning, and just about anything that is currently competitive.Unfortunately when attempted to be put into practice every single attempt has failed and instead ended up as a Dictatorship. A Dictatorship is when one person has absolute power over a country (Stalin, for example), this is the complete opposite of Communism.Exactly, it is nothing but an ideal. That's why it is only harmful to try it.In saying this though, I still prefer living in Australia with my greedy capitalist life ;)You really had me there. But still, I can't imagine why anyone likes the concept of communism. One of the main goals in life is to make more money than other people and enjoy a nice life. With this wiped out, what incentive is there to get up off the couch if someone else is doing work, yet still is equal and and has equal possessions?
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Do you honestly believe that people only preform valuable work because of coercion?
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Actually this is one of those instances where I dishonestly believe in my position.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Good, or else you would honestly believe most human activities are actually not preformed.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Apparently you didn't catch the sarcasm. This is not what I said at all. I'm making the point that too many people have shown that when provided for, work is not necessary and therefore not done.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

"How is this a good thing?"Well it eliminates the crippling poverty, and hardship so many have to endure, im not suprise you have no conception of what that means"and just about anything that is currently competitive."I agree that some mechanism to promote competition is essential."One of the main goals in life is to make more money than other people "Really thats what you think your main goal in life is, i pity you.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Perhaps in theory it would eliminate poverty (though i don't think thats possible) but in reality whenever "communism" has been put into practice the opposite has been true. In all real world examples of communism there is mass poverty and no liberty and almost always turns into a dictatorship.You may think his comment is sad but he has every right to have that opinion and in a non- Communist society the right to express it so I do not pity him. I am happy for him.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

"Perhaps in theory it would eliminate poverty (though i don't think thats possible"it would certainly go along way towards ameriolating the problem.""communism" has been put into practice the opposite has been true"No thats not quite true, firstly communism has never successfully been put into practice, but in the instances in which it has the disparity between rich and poor has been much much lower."In all real world examples of communism there is mass poverty and no liberty and almost always turns into a dictatorship."Im not advocating communism.You may think his comment is sad but he has every right to have that opinion "I agree, and i have every right to tll him what i think of that opinion, the problem with this world in which we live is that too many people have the same opinion, wealth ddoe not equal happiness yet we have a culture constructed on that notion, this is why the poverty problem is acute, this is also why we are destroying out natural environment."in a non- Communist society the right to express it ."Im sorry you seem to think im a communist, im not, also theres nothing in communism about eradicting free speech."so I do not pity him"Thats not a reason not to pity him, address what he quoted not his right to quote, thats like me saying; "i like rape puppies while riding a unicycle",then somebody saying that they pity me, adn you responding to them by saying he has the right to express himself, therefore i do not pity him.The point is the view he expressed is pityful."I am happy for him."i do not understand are you saying you agree witht eh statement?
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Well it eliminates the crippling poverty, and hardship so many have to endure, im not suprise you have no conception of what that meansI understand this, however poverty can be made less devastating than it is when straight capitalism is implemented. I think a bit of poverty is necessary to maintain a healthy, striving society. After all, poverty is not a permanent condition. One can be down and out and just as quickly be hired for a good job and work his way up to a high position.Really thats what you think your main goal in life is, i pity you.THis was bad wording, but you can't say that people aren't motivated by the notion of gaining money.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Actually social mobility depends on numerous factors that capitalism may not maintain and certainly doesn't without the intervention of a goverment. One such factor is wealth inequality, which capitalism naturally maximizes. Money is a indirect motivation, if it couldn't be used to aquire more direct means of satisfaction it wouldn't be wanted.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Money is a indirect motivation, if it couldn't be used to aquire more direct means of satisfaction it wouldn't be wanted.Nice hypothetical insight. Maybe next time you can provide logical, real information to counter my argument.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Well it eliminates the crippling povertyNot true. As it demotivate people from being competitive and innovative, it ends up in general misery for everybody. You can't generate a good standard for everyone endlessly - communism works well for the beneficiary side of nation only in the first days, when the accumulated wealth is "fairly" distributed. But what about the next day - who will take risk, who will work hard for a revolutionary idea, who will manage others if his/hers reward will be the same as for those who contribute nothing or very little? I agree that some mechanism to promote competition is essential. It's called capitalism.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

"Not true. As it demotivate people from being competitive and innovative, it ends up in general misery for everybody. "Not necessarily."You can't generate a good standard for everyone endlessly "Define good standard, i would say that most Cubans have a relaitvely good standard."It's called capitalism."Capitalism if far from the only other politcal ideology that promotes competition.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

"Well it eliminates the crippling poverty, and hardship so many have to endure, im not suprise you have no conception of what that means."I would just like to point out that if there was a communism people would stop working hard to earn their keep. People would stop going to university to earn an education to become a doctor. Business's would start to lose money because when the owner makes the same amount of money as the lowest employee, then nobody tries. If I got a job at safeway and made the same amount of money as a heart or brain surgeon, then how would you feel. I suppose you also want to cripple everyone's talents so that we can all have a chance at being an olympic skier or a great hockey player.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Communism in theory is actually a great idea; everyone is equal and everyone shares the same stuff. Actually, it's not a great idea even in theory. Some of us might find this idea attractive, but some of us don't. If you want to implement such idea, you must use force and therefore you inevitably need a violent revolution.The problem lies in the core idea of equality. Communism is not about equal rules for everybody - in fact, it needs some authority to distribute the wealth among all citizens and the members of such authority has different rights than others. Communism is about the equality of results, which is, at least for mankind, a nonsense. Some of us do wish to work 16 hours per day, some of do want to take risks and to create something significant. But not for the purpose of sharing between all of us, but for our self-interest, for our family etc. If you forbid the reason, the interest, you kill the incentive.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

If you want to implement such idea, you must use force and therefore you inevitably need a violent revolution.No, just no. Communism is embraced by so many third world countries because they want a better quality of life, so the majority WANT it. Unfortunately it turns out to be the opposite of communism and they get screwed over.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

Actually, you may not have to use force but if you do it would only be because of vested interests in an outdated system. Also, force isn't neccassirly bad, the american revolution was forceful and was most independence movements; certainly not having britain control the world is a good thing eh? Actually communism is decentralized, what you are refering to is a particular type of socialism which typically results in failure. Your definitions are those of the cold war propaganda, and both sides of the alantic were lying to their citizens.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Bad

Your description is immature, its not that everyone shares the same stuff but rather that everyone has access/ownership of capital. You can blame Leninism for the failed so called "communist states". At least you know that the "communist states" are not communist societies, good :) Tis brings hope to me.as for being a commie bastard, that would be me.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

I don't think immature would be the correct word; perhaps lazy would be ;)I was just about to finish my break at work so I was rushing through things.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

I was on born in modern democratic Kazakhstan. However Kazakhstan took its independence only 20 years ago. Once, I needed to go to the shop and stopped the car. While driving I was talking with the driver he was a Candidate of Science in the field of History. I have asked him a question about the past years, and what he thought about communism, and did he live better during those times. The "driver" told me "Oh, those good old days are gone, but I still remember how good it was during the Soviet period. Yes, there were long lines for food products, and yes there was always some lack of clothes, car parts. But the mentality of people was different. People were not only running for material values. It was safe to walk in the street at any time. The development of science and technology was on the highest levels." He convinced me that the life was somehow better and I believe in that. Some people have lost their moral values while getting the physical ones.
Debate: Communism: Good or Bad?
Side: Good

I take the view that it is wrong question "good" or "bad". Every political system has advantages and disadvantages. More over the wealth of nation depends more on rulers (government) and on their purposes than on the political system. For example now I live in "democratic country" but if to think critically and answer several questions such as 'What rights do i have' it becomes obvious that our system has nothing in common with Democracy. So, I should say that system gives only ways to rule and politicians decide what kinds of result we should get.