azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Bender vs Optimus Prime
Side: Optimus Prime is better

Have you seen his stats? He is a basically a god in semi-truck form. Besides, you can hang out with him and be pretty secure in the knowledge that he won't try to steal your wallet.
Debate: Bender vs Optimus Prime
Side: Optimus Prime is better

Bender prefers to make money and drink beer with his time. While this is normal for most people, Optimus Prime actually travels through time and does his best to prevent evil forces from taking over earth
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

It is not their decision if you keep a pregnancy or not, it is their responsibility to not only provide for you but for your child if you do keep it. It may be your body, but its their money, their house, their work, their time and ultimately their body as well and as guardians they can take steps to not only insure their own prosperity, but yours.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I agree. Parents are the ones raising their grandchildren when their teenage kids "accidentally" get knocked up and they don't have a say so in it. If they have confirmed their child is sexually active, yeah I think they should press forward with birth control. This would prevent a lot. It's not going to kill the kid to pop a pill once a day. They have no say so until their 18. If they are playing grown up games they need to be responsible. If not, they should keep it in their pants or their legs closed. Just that simple.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Actually, I don't think that's completely right. I know a girl at my school who has a kid and she takes so much care of her baby it's not funny.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

who houses and feeds the kid, and babysits it while she is in school? i
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

She pays for daycare. She's a responsible parent.................................................................................
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Its highly doubtful she pays for much else, as what you omitted suggests. Also, daycare is expensive, she may pay for daycare while she is in school, but does she when she works?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Yes of course. You have to understand some people are more into the whole "my baby my life" thing than others.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I imagine her work hours are long then, her social life nil, the time with her child sparse, etc. Or does the child care she pays for come at a discounted rate...?Are you to have me believe she houses the child as well?It is nearly impossible for a young mother to make it well on her own, and if that is the case when it comes towards your friend then she is a statistical anomaly.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

No, She's only 16 she lives with her parents but her boyfriend (the one who got her pregnant) helps her out. He's 18 and he works so....
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

There are many paths open to a pregnant teenager whose parents don't want to raise the baby - morning after pills, abortion, adoption, or move out and live on her own with the baby.Parents should be more concerned about their daughters catching a life-threatening STD and drum in them the importance of condoms, than be concerned about pregnancy and make them go on the pill. The latter is only a nuisance, the former a matter of life and death.Forcing a teenager to go on the pill when she doesn't want to should be an absolute last resort that is taken only if pregnancy would pose a serious risk to the teenager's life.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

In many areas Parents have no legal say in if a abortion, or adoption happens. Morning after pills require the teenager to take them within a allotted time period, and depending on the age of the teenager parents may be not be legally able to kick them out of the house.Most stds/pregnancies are not life threatening, many are curable and if not then livable but life changing. Both can affect the entire family in medical bills, treatment afterwords etc. In the majority of cases a pregnancy is more likely then a std to cause the greater emotional and financial burden on the family, and the more likely to happen from unprotected sex. Yes teenagers should use condoms, but other forms of birth control may be used as well. Also why assume that parents are more concerned about one or another?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

I'm not assuming that parents are more concerned about one than the other; I'm saying that they ought to be more concerned about one than the other. A parent who is more worried about the costs of raising an extra baby than worried about their child's life is unfit to be a parent.I'd expect that in many, if not most, cases, the questions of whether or not to have the baby, and who will pay for and look after it, will be decided through discussion between the teen couple and their parents. That's the time when the teen should be encouraged to explore alternate options, if the parents don't want the responsibility of an extra child. Reasoned and respectful discussion is the key to solving such issues and preventing further ones, not forcing your child to do this or that.If despite the appropriate discussions, the teen stubbornly refuses to use any form of protection in sex, and just as stubbornly refuses to give up the baby or take financial responsibility for it, then it could be that the parents have to pay up. It's unfortunate for them, but it's only one of many unexpected bills that come up during the course of raising a child. Forcing an unwilling teen to go on the pill may seem like an easy way around it, but that does nothing to nurture a loving relationship or teach her responsibility, and does the opposite of teaching her to respect and care for her body.And remember we're talking about giving a growing adolescent girl artificial hormones to take on a daily basis over an extended period of time. While many women take the pill day after day for years and have come across no problems, many others report having side effects, and the long-term consequences of the pill are still under debate. If someone makes a free and informed decision to go on the pill, that's their choice and I respect it. But to force an unwilling and healthy person of sound mind to take unnecessary drugs is incredibly unethical, especially when the drugs may be harmful.The bottom line is, yes, the parents may well have to bear some costs - the financial and emotional costs of looking after a pregnant daughter, or of her getting an abortion, or raising the baby. The fact is that parenthood is an expensive enterprise. If they weren't prepared to put in money, time, and energy, why have they chosen to become parents in the first place?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I suppose walking down dark allies is a dangerous enterprise, if a women wasn't prepared then why would she choose to walk down the ally in the first place? I suppose she should just accept what ever comes her way, never mind the pepper spray(it doesn't really hurt most people, but it might); after all if talking doesn't work then the black eye is just an unfortunate cost...
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Your analogy doesn't match parenthood very well. We believe that everyone should be able to walk around in public areas without fear of personal harm. But we do not believe that everyone should be able to raise children without fear of having to devote time and money on the children.The reason parenthood is described as a huge responsibility is that we have many expectations of parents which we do not have of, say, walkers of dark alleys. Parents are to devote significant time and money to their children's upbringing. They are to expect additional bills and worries to crop up now and then. They are to educate their children on responsibility and decision-making. They are to consider their children's physical and mental health to be paramount concerns. They are to respect their children's bodily integrity. And much more.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Your analogy doesn't match walkers of dark alleys very well. We believe that everyone should be able to walk around in public areas without fear of personal harm and we do believe that everyone should be able to not devote time and money on children they themselves did not birth...
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Your analogy doesn't match walkers of dark alleys very well.The analogy between parenthood and walking in dark alleys was brought up by you, not me. Are you that your analogy is not a very good one? If that is the case, I agree with you.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

category replacement is a test of logic, I used it seriously two posts ago, only to use it sarcastically/mockingly last post. Points were made in both of them. Two posts ago I used it to show how Your argument could be used to justify anything, I then used it to express that you got off subject, what bearings does our expectations have on the rights of people in various situations? If reproductive autonomy(including how many children you are taking care of, biological or otherwise) is a fundamental right, then both the parents and the teen has it. The parents are legally obligated to provide for their teen, and the teen for her child. For the teen to provide for her child she will likly have to sacrifice her needs, the parents are legally obligated to not allow that, thus they must care for the child(a violation of their fundamental right). In our society minors can not vote, can not drink, can not smoke, etc. why? because they are not as developed as adults. if a minor is not developed to the point where they can take care of a child and themselves, and that their possible decision to keep the child will force others to take care of the child against their will, then why are they developed enough to have the right to not take birth-control if their guardians(the ones who would take the role of parent to her potential child, and who as guardians has an obligation to ensure her health) want them to?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

My apologies about the spelling and grammar errors, Rereading it some words are missing but I believe you can deduce what they are. I have some business to attend to or else I would fix it. Take care, good night.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I must admit, my heart lies on the other side of the argument. If the first sentence started with "should they" instead of "should they be able to", you'd see me on the other side.But as long as our society differentiates between minors and adults and expects minors to be the legal responsibility of a caretaker, then yes, that caretaker should have the legal right to do this. Particularly since they would likely have to deal with (and pay for) the repercussions of unwanted pregnancy.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Abortion is like killing yourself and if you think thats right debate about that.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

The comparison of abortion to suicide is both vacuous and irrelevant to this debate.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

besides killing your kid why not have birthcontrol? its dumb to kill your kid, so just taking a pill and going on is just fine. but waiting on your kid to have a heartbeat and then killing it is bull. its taking a soul. "you take a soul you lose your soul".
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

besides killing your kid why not have birthcontrol? People still get pregnant on birth control.but waiting on your kid to have a heartbeat and then killing it is bull.Having a heartbeat is not an indication of consciousness, or of anything special, really. Lots of things have heartbeats. its taking a soul. This assertion requires that souls exist, a claim of which there is no evidence.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

There is no evidence that we are actually a living being that is completely concious of everything around us. We just believe this is so.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

That you are conscious being is in fact the only thing you can be sure of. Believing anything is impossible without consciousness."I think, therefor I am," remember?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I'm not so sure. Considering no one even knows where human life came from, I don't believe we even realize what true consciouness is. Hm. Point to argue.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

We have a pretty good idea of where we came from as a species, but even if our origins were completely unknown, it wouldn't change the fact that the word 'consciousness' was coined to describe our ability to be meaningfully aware of ourselves and our surroundings. If there exists organisms with an awareness that greatly transcends our own, we would not have our awareness revoked. We would still be conscious beings.Also, this is becoming rapidly irrelevant to the debate at hand. What point do you believe you are making by trying to argue that humans are not conscious?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I'm trying to say that just because what we beleive we understand why and how we're are here, doesn't give us the choice of ending life. We have the GIFT (not the power) of being able to produce life. I don't think we should be in the position to decide who lives and who dies though.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

You are free to exercise whatever restrictions you feel come along with this 'gift', but you should realize that when it comes to decisions regarding the bodily autonomy of someone else, your philosophy doesn't matter very much.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

It think if you ask aound my so-called "philosophy" is so much of a philosophy. It's a gift. Do you ever wonder why your here?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

It think if you ask aound my so-called "philosophy" is so much of a philosophy. It is a gift.This does not even make sense. You assert that life is a gift, which requires explanation and evidence in and of itself, and is not a belief I subscribe to. This statement is not itself a gift, as you seem to be implying, whether or not you intended to. Do you ever wonder why your here?I do not believe life is a gift from a higher being, granted for a particular purpose, if that is what you are asking. So, no, I do not really wonder "why" because I do not believe there is an intrinsic "why" behind the existence of humans. Each individual's purpose in life is theirs to discern.  I assume from your responses that you do consider life to be a gift. As I said, you are free to treat your living body as a gift or however you wish. You are not free to impose restrictions on how others treat their own body.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Okay, how about abortion is murder. I don't care when a baby is technically alive, the baby would have been alive had you not killed it. Future murder is murder.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

"abortion is murder"XD If that's true, then by your logic, male masturbation is mass genocide.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Yeah, that's 'future murder' on a pretty massive scale .
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

But the sperm won't become living human beings except under special circumstances. A fertilized egg will become a living, thinking human the majority of the time. So the two are not the same at all.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

"A fertilized egg will become a living, thinking human the majority of the time."Same basic principle. Alot of women will unintentionally miscarry these underdeveloped spawn so by your definition, every woman who's ever passed a fertilized egg is a serial-killer. XD
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

No, that's also a different story. Miscarriages are a horrible fact of life, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. But people wouldn't even have abortions if they thought the fetus would miscarry, would they? So they're getting the abortion on the basis that it would turn into a living, thinking human being. And that is at the very least intent of murder.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

"So they're getting the abortion on the basis that it would turn into a living, thinking human being. And that is at the very least intent of murder."It isn't technically murder or intended murder if it isn't considered a human being. Below is a video that I am sure you'll enjoy. Watch it (all of it) and get back to me later ;)
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

I have lots of problems with this video. I know he's being a comedian, but he's still setting up a straw man.Once again, people should take responsibility. Women shouldn't be 'brood mares'. They shouldn't, however, be whores, either. They should take just as much responsibility for their actions and sexual flings as anybody does in anything.And grocery eggs aren't fertilized. They're just eggs. It's like eating the chicken's menstrual period. You're not killing a chicken by eating an omelet.As for carbon ... carbon will never become a human. It may help make up a human, but never become human. And burning coal actually releases carbon into the atmosphere, enabling it to become a part of animals. (But I'm against fossil fuels, anyway)Once again, it's not the woman's fault her body rejected a fetus. It is her fault if she got pregnant or chose to have an abortion. Yes, it's her fault if she got pregnant. She could choose not to have sex. That would stop her from getting pregnant. She could even have sex and take every precaution against pregnancy.And the Bible condemns homosexual acts.And God never told anybody to kill Muslims, Buddists, Christians, or anybody like that. In fact, after Israel's conquering of Caanan, I don't think He told anybody to kill any race of people (or religion, or anything). That's caused by people deciding that others deserve to die. Not God.Of course dead people don't speak. They're dead. If they could speak in death, we'd have no idea what they'd say. So using the whole 'only living people talk about life' is weak.But other than that, it's fairly funny.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

"And the Bible condemns homosexual acts."Nobody cares anymore so you religious may as well give up that argument."And God never told anybody to kill Muslims, Buddists, Christians, or anybody like that."Ever heard of the Crusades? Religious difference has killed more people than anything else. Especially the Christians.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Religious difference is different than God telling people to do it. That was people telling people to kill. Big difference.And the comedian was making fun of Christians not liking homosexuals because they don't have abortions, but it's not about who has abortions. That's what I was getting at.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

"Religious difference is different than God telling people to do it."And since there are no gods actually talking to us, that just makes the act worse.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

If you don't believe in God, than don't blame Him for human actions. The crusades were human actions, not God-sanctioned. And yes, they were horrible.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

"The crusades were human actions, not God-sanctioned."Try telling them that. They were absolutely sure that their god wanted them to kill all those that didn't believe. What? Your god can do no wrong? I don't think so. Sounds like a self-serving bullshit story and an escape-goat to justify your actions and/or lack of understanding. Not to mention an piss-poor excuse for a universal answer to anything you can't comprehend. The Crusades were nothing more than children fighting over imaginary friends. Much like religious difference today. Children and their imaginary friends. That's all.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

They were absolutely sure that their god wanted them to kill all those that didn't believeNo, they thought God wanted them to liberate the Holy Lands from the Muslims. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that. God never advocated the mass-slaughtering of Muslims or Jews, or any other religion.And, once again, if you don't believe in God, don't blame Him for human actions.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

I don't care when a baby is technically alive, Good for you. Not everyone shares your priorities, and when it comes to what is inside someone else's body, what you care about becomes a lot less important.the baby would have been alive had you not killed it. Future murder is murder.I do not think anyone is arguing that fetuses are not living tissue, just that they should not be legally classified as 'a life' until they are independent. Organs are living tissue, animals are living tissue, but they do not deserve the same rights as a conscious human. The law does not and should not protect future/potential citizens at the expense of existing citizens. To stay somewhat on topic, I notice you have come out in support of a teenager being forced to use birth control. Validly or not, some people consider abortion to be birth control and there is little preventing them from using it as such. Should parents have the right to subject their pregnant teenager to an abortion? Disregarding your stance on abortion, why not? Where is the line drawn?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

"they should not be legally classified as 'a life' until they are independent."In that case, they should be classified as 'Symbiotes'.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

I do not study law so I could be wrong but because there is a specific name for the act of unlawfully killing a fetus (fetucide instead of homicide) I think that fetuses may already be afforded their own legal standing.
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

Oh, well. Nothing to worry about. Since when have laws ever stopped people from breaking them?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: NO! IT'S MY BODY!!!

Oh, well. Nothing to worry about. Since when have laws ever stopped people from breaking them?
Debate: Birthcontrol???
Side: Yes they should.

they should not be legally classified as 'a life' until they are independentThen a child isn't a live until they're 18 years old or legally emancipated?Organs are living tissue, animals are living tissue, but they do not deserve the same rights as a conscious human.Organs are not sentient, and they never will be. And I'm sure if we could prove certain animals (I'm banking on Dolphins, Gorillas, and African Gray Parrots) are sentient it would quickly become a crime to kill them. You could probably even argue that human babies under a certain age (say, 13 months) aren't sentient, as they can't speak (Parrots, Dolphins, [and whales], and Gorillas have them beat, there), and are totally dependent on other life forms to live (same as a virus or parasite).Should parents have the right to subject their pregnant teenager to an abortion?In a word, yes. Parents are parents. They are the legal guardians of their children. Until their children are either 18 or legally emancipated, their parents have the right to decide for their kids what's best. If the parent chooses not to have to take care of a baby (as it will most likely will be the grandparents of the baby who will take care of it), that's their choice. A good parent would take into consideration their child's wishes, too, but the ultimate decision rests with the parent.