azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Bullying from having an odd name implies possible assault, as well.How so? Especially if the intent of the odd name was not malicious? Let's say that the parent is a fan of "Howdy Doody" and names his daughter "Doody". Is he bullying?What does that say about people whose last name is "Doody"?http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0233145/IMHO, the term "bullying" is very nebulous. When I was in school, I was physically assaulted, repeatedly, over a period of years. That is "bullying". I do not understand how someone can consider "name calling" (as opposed to threatening physical violence) as bullying. Especially in the case of "bullying" on social media. Block them, or report them for violation of terms of use. If you can't remove yourself from the area where you are being called names, then whoever is preventing you from that is assaulting you.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

How so? Especially if the intent of the odd name was not malicious? Let's say that the parent is a fan of "Howdy Doody" and names his daughter "Doody". Is he bullying?Do you not know how bullying works? People at first tease him verbally, then he gains a reputation among everyone. What that child may do in defense may make it worse. People would end up seeing him through this reputation, and start throwing rocks, perhaps even pushing them about. Name calling can be hurtful, and makes them feel hated by everyone.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Do you not know how bullying works?Yes. I was a victim.People at first tease him verbally, then he gains a reputation among everyone...Name calling can be hurtful, and makes them feel hated by everyone.so?If the verbal teasing is opinion, then there is no assault or theft. Another's opinion of you is none of your business, nor are they obligated to show you kindness (or even civility). You get over it.If it is "fact" that may be proven false, then it is libel, which is the equivalent of "damaging the value" of that person's reputation. This is actionable under property rights.What that child may do in defense may make it worse.Such as?Is a person justified in physically assaulting another, or damaging property merely because he was offended, or has his feelings hurt?Is any of this justification for the government to restrict the parent's right to name their child?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

so?If the verbal teasing is opinion, then there is no assault or theft.It leaves them prone to assault. Don't say "so" to verbal abuse, people have killed themselves over words on the internet.Such as?Is a person justified in physically assaulting another, or damaging property merely because he was offended, or has his feelings hurt?Is any of this justification for the government to restrict the parent's right to name their child?No, I mean to say that he may punch the bully or talk back to him, which would make the bully become violent.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

It leaves them prone to assault.How?Because others see weakness and will attack?If another attacks, I believe that a person has a right to defend himself, using as much force as necessary.Take this case:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/teen-who-killed-bully-to-go-free-under-stand-your-ground-law/2012/01/07/gIQAjpybjP_blog.html If more people stood up and defended themselves like this, there would be fewer bullies.Don't say "so" to verbal abuse, people have killed themselves over words on the internet.I am well aware that people have killed themselves because someone hurt their feelings. This was foolish. I was ridiculed for being smart, socially awkward and a "nerd" all through school. You know what I did? I got over it. I pitied the people who were stupid enough to denigrate achievement.In my opinion, the bully is not "assaulting" anyone by calling them names. The state is assaulting the child by not allowing him the liberty to remove himself from an institution/situation where another is causing him to feel uncomfortable by calling him names.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

How?Because others see weakness and will attack?If another attacks, I believe that a person has a right to defend himself, using as much force as necessary.No, giving them a label lowers down their dignity as a human. In illegal drug testing facilities in China, they labelled their patients/victims as "logs" so as to not feel guilty about treating them inhumanely. This same affect would happen when the child becomes labelled whatever.I am well aware that people have killed themselves because someone hurt their feelings. This was foolish. I was ridiculed for being smart, socially awkward and a "nerd" all through school. You know what I did? I got over it. I pitied the people who were stupid enough to denigrate achievement.Come to understand that everyone is not you. People react to bullying differently to others. You came to 'get over it' because you aren't one of those people who took their own lives.n my opinion, the bully is not "assaulting" anyone by calling them names. The state is assaulting the child by not allowing him the liberty to remove himself from an institution/situation where another is causing him to feel uncomfortable by calling him names.Is the suicide of countless children not enough?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

"No, giving them a label lowers down their dignity as a human...This same affect would happen when the child becomes labelled whatever."So does calling someone a racial epithet, but calling someone a racial epithet is not "assaulting" someone, nor is it valid justification for assaulting someone. I presume the government also prevented the "logs" from leaving. Unjustly imprisoning someone is assaulting them.Come to understand that everyone is not you. People react to bullying differently to others.Agreed. What are you advocating?Is the suicide of countless children not enough?This is an appeal to emotion, not logic. What are you advocating? I'm advocating an end to mandatory attendance at public schools, to allow people who do not wish to be there, to leave.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

So does calling someone a racial epithet, but calling someone a racial epithet is not "assaulting" someone, nor is it valid justification for assaulting someone.I don't care if it's not assaulting them, it's damaging them to an extent, which makes them prone to further abuse and suicide.I presume the government also prevented the "logs" from leaving. Unjustly imprisoning someone is assaulting them.The real assault was when they tested poisons on them and let many die. Agreed.What are you advocating?You can't use your 'getting over it' to refute others who couldn't, and committed suicide.This is an appeal to emotion, not logic. What are you advocating?I'm advocating an end to mandatory attendance at public schools, to allow people who do not wish to be there, to leave.It is logic, when clearly verbal abuse has affected the lives, and has taken the lives of many.Giving the child the choice to leave school at any given time would affect their education, and it would not solve the conflict between the child and bully. Instead, action should be taken against bullying, which is what people are 'trying' to do right now. It's not worth changing this debate about how to take action in preventing bullying.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

I don't care if it's not assaulting them, it's damaging them to an extent, which makes them prone to further abuse and suicide.Our "feelings" on the matter are irrelevant. It is not assault (unless it is a direct threat of assault) and should not be actionable as such (but in many cases, is).The real assault was when they tested poisons on them and let many die."They", as representatives of government?You can't use your 'getting over it' to refute others who couldn't, and committed suicide.I'm not refuting the fact that people committed suicide. I'm refuting the relevance of the fact that people committed suicide.It is logic, when clearly verbal abuse has affected the lives, and has taken the lives of many.No. It is emotion, but I will address this argument.Calling someone a name is not the same as physically assaulting someone. A suicide is not a murder. How you react to a situation is your choice. If you were to call bob a poopyhead, and he got mad and slit some random person's throat, did you (or your verbal "abuse") kill that person? No, Bob did. If he got mad and committed suicide, did you kill Bob? No, he killed himself. "Affecting the life" of someone is not the same thing as committing a criminal act against that person. If I own a store, and I raise the price of someone's favorite comfort food, to a level where they can no longer afford it, I have negatively affected them. If they decide that life is not worth living, because they can't afford cheezy-poofs, I am not responsible. On bullying, what action would you take against verbal, non-threat, "bullying"?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Our "feelings" on the matter are irrelevant. It is not assault (unless it is a direct threat of assault) and should not be actionable as such (but in many cases, is).Dead children aren't 'feelings'."They", as representatives of government?Why should it matter? These were secret experiments years ago, but yes, from the government.I'm not refuting the fact that people committed suicide. I'm refuting the relevance of the fact that people committed suicide.But it is relevant. You are saying that verbal abuse is not an assault, when thousands die from it. What does that say?No. It is emotion, but I will address this argument.Calling someone a name is not the same as physically assaulting someone. A suicide is not a murder.Again, you say it's not assault even though thousands die from it.Actually, let's drop the word 'assault'; it's clearer than day that verbal bullying is a bad thing that has taken lives and should be stopped. The word "assault" basically bears the relative concept of something that is bad.Don't you agree? How you react to a situation is your choice. If you were to call bob a poopyhead, and he got mad and slit some random person's throat, did you (or your verbal "abuse") kill that person? No, Bob did. If he got mad and committed suicide, did you kill Bob? No, he killed himself.But what caused it?"Affecting the life" of someone is not the same thing as committing a criminal act against that person. If I own a store, and I raise the price of someone's favorite comfort food, to a level where they can no longer afford it, I have negatively affected them. If they decide that life is not worth living, because they can't afford cheezy-poofs, I am not responsible.It doesn't have to be a criminal act to be devastatingly bad.On bullying, what action would you take against verbal, non-threat, "bullying"?It's irrelevant and boring to discuss about, but children must be aware of the effects of bullying, through class discussions and stuff. Name calling is basically half the definition of bullying. How is it non-threat when people commit suicide from the powerful psychological anguish?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Why should it matter? These were secret experiments years ago, but yes, from the government.Because the government was assaulting these people, by detaining them and using their bodies to their own ends. Calling them "logs" was not "bullying" them. You are pointing out the psychological effects (on an individual) of namecalling a perceived enemy, not the effects of that namecalling on the one called a name. I'm sure that being called a "log" did not cause the victims of medical slavery to feel bad about themselves. It was just a psychological "salve" for the agents of the oppressors...when thousands die from it..No one has died from verbal "bullying". They died from the various lethal methods they used to end their own lives. But what caused it?Bob's inability to cope with life. It doesn't have to be a criminal act to be devastatingly bad.But did I "bully" or "cause the death of" the person involved, by raising prices?What about cases where a couple breaks up? If the "powerful psychological anguish" of the breakup, is so great to one, is the other half of the couple guilty of bullying?How is it non-threat when people commit suicide from the powerful psychological anguish?"Threat" must be the promise (implicit or explicit) of direct physical harm.Let's take the case of the nutjobs that kill abortionists. The fact that unborn babies are killed by the millions per year causes "powerful psychological anguish" to this person. He snaps, and kills a local doctor. Now, was it a murder? One person killed another.Or was it a suicide? The Dr. caused psychological anguish to another who acted to end the life of the Dr., thus the Dr. caused his own death.On "bullying":I'm for all private schools, with codes of conduct, which allow for "bullies" (verbal or physical) to be thrown out.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Because the government was assaulting these people, by detaining them and using their bodies to their own ends. Calling them "logs" was not "bullying" them. You are pointing out the psychological effects (on an individual) of namecalling a perceived enemy, not the effects of that namecalling on the one called a name. Ugh, do I have to repeat myself again?They called them Logs to justify their mistreatment on them. They label them, which makes the labelled individual seem indignified. People will see that person as a label and find it okay to treat them as such. I'm sure that being called a "log" did not cause the victims of medical slavery to feel bad about themselves. It was just a psychological "salve" for the agents of the oppressors.Again, I brought in the example for "Log" not as something to make them feel bad. It is an example for a label which makes people think it justifies their mistreatment on them. No one has died from verbal "bullying". They died from the various lethal methods they used to end their own lives.So. Stupid.You need to think why they resorted to these lethal methods in the first place.The way you are thinking is just playing dumb, and is not helping anyone. Are you saying it is perfectly okay to drive someone to suicide and not be the one to blame, because the rope is to blame for hanging them? Stop. This. Now.Bob's inability to cope with life.What if I told you that with verbal abuse out of the picture, none of the bad things would of happened; and that if you took verbal abuse out of the picture from the thousands of children who had killed themselves over it, they would still be alive today.Great! Let's take verbal abuse out of the picture for more troubled people, and we will see that they will live, because clearly, verbal abuse is doing something very very bad which means that it is a bad thing.Do you know what bad things are?I am sick of your fowl logic. Good bye.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Didn't answer my questions.Called me stupid.Called logic foul. I'm traumatized. Whatever I do now, is your fault. I hope you're happy.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Didn't read my argument:What if I told you that with verbal abuse out of the picture, none of the bad things would of happened; and that if you took verbal abuse out of the picture from the thousands of children who had killed themselves over it, they would still be alive today.Great! Let's take verbal abuse out of the picture for more troubled people, and we will see that they will live, because clearly, verbal abuse is doing something very very bad which means that it is a bad thing.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Let's take verbal abuse out of the picture for more troubled peoplehow?to what extent?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

I'm saying that we should be taking verbal abuse out of the picture, because it is clearly a problem/bad thing that shouldn't happen.Let's leave "how" to another debate because it is annoying and boring to talk about.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Very important to point out that people do not have the right to not feel offended. I can say 'Adolf Hitler had the right idea, too bad he couldn't take some blacks out too', (whether I believe it or not is irrelevant) and no ones rights have been violated. I can say any hateful things I want as long as I'm not inciting violence then it doesn't matter. If people raised their children in a way that would discourage bullying behavior then there wouldn't be an issue. The most important thing is to control the people that are doing the bullying, not the people that would get bullied. This is the same as making women wear only certain clothes to reduce the likely hood of them being raped. Focus on real issues.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Very important to point out that people do not have the right to not feel offended. I can say 'Adolf Hitler had the right idea, too bad he couldn't take some blacks out too', (whether I believe it or not is irrelevant) and no ones rights have been violated. I can say any hateful things I want as long as I'm not inciting violence then it doesn't matter. If people raised their children in a way that would discourage bullying behavior then there wouldn't be an issue. The most important thing is to control the people that are doing the bullying, not the people that would get bullied. This is the same as making women wear only certain clothes to reduce the likely hood of them being raped. Focus on real issues.But children with weird names have a high risk of being bullied. It usually starts off verbally, but it is still bad for them. Thousands of children kill themselves just for words on the internet. So children should not be given names that indignify them.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Of course not... and I just saw where some girl in Iceland was named "light breeze" (in their language) which was not an approved name so she is now referred to as 'girl'.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

We shouldn't be over-regulating all apsects of life.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Seriously, parents should have the freedom to name their child with whatever they please. Any loving parent will never name their child some ridiculous name. Even some odd names like Metallica, Superman, Veranda, Ikea and Elvis are perfectly fine.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

I agree with your statement and "hope" the government never needs too. Playing devils advocate, what if a unloving parent names their child "Stupid" and the child suffers terribly because of the name?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Well, approved names already exist in Sweden among others.First, unloving parents are far inbetween even low income families.Second, naming a child Stupid would be extremely embarrassing among family and friends, not to mention family and friends could get it changed in the interest of the child.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

It does not matter how rare or embarrassing for the parent it is. Neither was part of my question: What if a unloving parent names their child "Stupid" and the child suffers terribly because of the name?..not to mention family and friends could get it changed.How do they do this without help from the government?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Actually, it did answer the question. Unloving parents don't really exist hence far inbetween. The child will not suffer since names can be changed. They don't need the help of government, parents don't own their children, they are guardians, so family, friends and even community can change the name through court by the interest of the child. Hence, courts settle disputes.This devil's advocate is so ridiculous, I would love to see even one child's name even close to that.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Actually, it did answer the question. Unloving parents don't really exist hence far inbetween. The child will not suffer since names can be changed. They don't need the help of government, parents don't own their children, they are guardians, so family, friends and even community can change the name through court by the interest of the child. Hence, courts settle disputes.So your OK with a "ruling body" regulating baby names as long as it's not called the "government"?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Of course, there is ruling body in all civilized societies. The court is merely ruling on a dispute between free individuals whereas government arbitrary rules on free individuals.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Of course, there is ruling body in all civilized societies. The court is merely ruling on a dispute between free individuals whereas government arbitrary rules on free individuals.I think it was implied that the judicial branch of government would actually be making the decision, not a random government employee. Maybe I misunderstood?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Arbitrary government action comes at the regulation of approved baby names list.Also, I was referring to libertarian court system. It appears you got off the topic.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Arbitrary government action comes at the regulation of approved baby names list.Also, I was referring to libertarian court system. It appears you got off the topic.Lets see if I can refocus this:Should the US government (specifically the judicial branch) regulate baby names if unloving parents name their child "Stupid" and the child suffers terribly because of the name?
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

I think this branch has a misunderstanding, because of the ambiguous word "regulate". It may seem to mean regulation on the front end (approved list) or regulation on the back end (only when harm has been proven). I weigh in on the back end, if and only if significant harm has been proven and if the child wants the name changed.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

I agree.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

LOL, then you guys were doing what reventonrage and I were doing, arguing against one another, on the same side of an argument. :P
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: YES

Not sure. He still may not want government in the baby name business at all.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

One day a man walked into court. The judge pulled up his case and said. "Mr Balls, it says here that you want to change your last name. "Balls" is not an unusual name, why do you want to change it?".Man replied "it is embarrassing.".Judge shrugs and says, "seems fine to me, but it's your name. For the record, please provide the court with your first name.".Man replies "Harry.".Some parents. . . . . can be cruel. But government shouldn't have the power to regulated baby names.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Nope. If parent wants to give there child an inappropriate name and make life harder that's there choice. And the child would most likely changing there own name.
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

This is true David Bowie's son was named Zowie but changed it to Duncan, keeping Zowie as a middle name
Debate: Should the government be regulating baby names?
Side: NO

Parents can name their child whatever they want to, when the child turns 18, they can change it. If you want freedom, you must be tolerant of what other people do with their freedom.