azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

Again, it comes down to someone who is not experiencing a pregnancy trying to dictate how it ends. In the case of a man paying child support on a child he didn't want, it does put these men in a potentially unfair situation but the other option is to have a lot of babies brought into the world to single mothers who can't fully support them. Not only does the mother suffer, but so does the child, who is no longer a couple of cells, but a fully recognized human being who shares no part of the blame in these cases. It is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, and those situations are never perfect for anyone.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

I am proposing a situation in which the mother would not need to support them. The father is willing to take all financial burden. Therefore, your argument about single mothers is not relevant.As far as the lesser of two evils go, you think it is a lesser evil for a mother to terminate her child rather than give it to a capable and willing father, without any future burden?
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

If she can't afford the baby that's her fault. She could have gotten an abortion or put the baby up for adoption. She can do whatever she wants to avoid being in that situation. If you respect women's reproductive rights you should respect men's too.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

Unless he is the one having the baby then go right on aheadand he gets to choose!BUT since thats not happening leave the decision up to thewoman who is having that kid,after all its her body = her decision
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

Her decision affects him too! If she keeps the child, he must pay child support. If she does not, he loses a chance to be a father! I agree that if she does NOT want the abortion that he should not be able to force her. However, if he says he wants one and she says no, then he should be able to remove all responsibility after the child is born. After all, if she chooses to have the abortion, the result would be the same. Also, if she wants the abortion and he does not, he should have the option of finding a surrogate mother and remove her of all burden.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

"Her decision affects him too!"-(it sure will!)"If she keeps the child, he must pay child support."-(Yeah,thats what he gets since he dipped his penis into her vagina.)"If she does not, he loses a chance to be a father!"-(well then he should go have babies with another woman!) "I agree that if she does NOT want the abortion that he should not be able to force her."-(Hey!We're on the same page now!) "However, if he says he wants one and she says no, then he should be able to remove all responsibility after the child is born."-("With Sperm,comes Responsibility")"After all, if she chooses to have the abortion, the result would be the same."-(well her vagina probably wont look the samebut i dont think thats what you mean..) "Also, if she wants the abortion and he does not, he should have the option of finding a surrogate mother and remove her of all burden".-(Thats a good idea no pun intended,butthen we fall back into our previous issue!The pregnant womenwould have to decide that too!Oh no!)
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

This is the most outrageous argument yet. You are proposing man have no rights at all! What about equality?"Yeah,thats what he gets since he dipped his penis into her vagina"New flash! The sex was mutual! She took just as big of a risk as he did! Her consequences should also be equal."With Sperm,comes Responsibility"Once again, without her eggs, no dice. It takes TWO!"then we fall back into our previous issue!The pregnant womenwould have to decide that too"Why? It is no more intrusive than an abortion and she is free of all burden from there? Whats there for her to decide?Once again, it is amazing how many people on this forum are just sheep of the feminism movement! This was all planned! Open your eyes!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjF_ZZI7XY
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

It is my belief that every person's body is their own property, and that each person has the right to do with him or herself whatever he or she desires regardless of the opinions of others. Having a man be able to dictate what a woman does with herself is a violation of her right to self. If men can tell women what to do with their pregnancies, why not tell them more? By that logic a man should be able to dictate whatever a woman does with herself.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

Nobody is suggesting a man should dictate what a woman do. Just that he should have some control over a child that he may or may not want. If she does not want the abortion even after he say he does not want the child fine. However, he should have not financial burden. If he says he wants the child and is willing to hold all financial burden even while she is pregnant, why should this not be an option. I take it one step further and say, he will find a surrogate mother and people still object. If a father has equal burden after the child is born, he should have some say.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

I think it should be a joint decision as much as possible, but in the end the burden and risk lays with the women and so therefore does the right to make the final decision.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: yes

The man has many risks tied to her decision as well. Such as, financial burden should she keep the child. Studies now suggest, a man will go through many of the same mental problems such as remourse and depression should she have the abortion.
Debate: Should a father have a right to refuse an abortion?
Side: No

And what kind of mental problems would a women have if she was forced into having a child she couldn't afford, she couldn't care for or support? And what is SO bad about a man paying to help his child? Why is it that instead of a man paying a little extra money to keep HIS child fed, whether he wanted the child or not, he would rather say he doesn't have equal rights because he couldn't force a women to have an abortion?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Should churches be allowed in Europe after all the atrocities committed by the Crusaders? Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam. It was committed by a single extremist group with both religious and political motivations. I personally think that Islam is bad for humanity in the same way that all religions are bad for humanity, but above all else I believe in freedom, and assuming the people responsible for the community center containing the mosque went through all the proper steps to get the building approved, I see no reason why a mosque can't be built two blocks away from Ground Zero.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Should churches be allowed in Europe after all the atrocities committed by the Crusaders?Learn something about history before you start making these claims.The Crusaders were fighting a war begun by the Muslims.Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam. And yet you still use the Crusades as an example for your argument. Thus, I shall dispute with:Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Christianity...It was committed by a single extremist group with both religious and political motivations.Prove it.I personally think that Islam is bad for humanity in the same way that all religions are bad for humanityYour personal beliefs are irrelevant.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Thankfully, I have studied the Crusades and they were started by Pope Urban II in 1095 because the Muslims had taken Jerusalem, but that doesn't change the fact that the greatest atrocities were committed by the Crusaders. According to the first-hand account of the First Crusade, written by Fulcher of Chartres, one of the Crusaders, the Crusaders entered the Dome of the Rock and slaughtered all the women and children that were in there praying for safety until the blood was ankle-deep. Secondly, I never argued that it was Christianity that was responsible for 9/11. I was merely showing that other extremist groups with different beliefs have also done terrible things in the past, but it is not the fault of the religion as a whole. As much as I think religion as a whole is stupid and harmful to society, most religious people are decent human beings, and the 99% of Muslims who would have openly opposed this extremist act if they had seen it coming should have all the same rights and liberties as all the other citizens of the United States. This includes the right to use their hard-earned money to build a mosque wherever they want to. They could build it on Ground Zero if they paid enough, but you will notice in the original article that they had the decency to build it a couple blocks away. If anyone is really offended enough by this, then by all means go buy that plot of land and build whatever you want there. As for proving that 9/11 was committed by an extremist group, I honestly don't know what to say. Osama bin Laden confessed that Al Quaeda did it in a video he sent to us right after the attack. I'll admit that it isn't definitive proof but it's good enough for me. Finally, you are correct for once. Personal beliefs have no place in a true debate, and I will try to limit them in the future.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Thankfully, I have studied the Crusades and they were started by Pope Urban II in 1095 because the Muslims had taken Jerusalem, So you admit that it never would have happened had not the Muslims been so warlike.but that doesn't change the fact that the greatest atrocities were committed by the Crusaders.That's open to debate. How can one be certain that Muslims never did such a thing but - obviously not as stupid as the Crusaders - didn't write about it?According to the first-hand account of the First Crusade, written by Fulcher of Chartres, one of the Crusaders, the Crusaders entered the Dome of the Rock and slaughtered all the women and children that were in there praying for safety until the blood was ankle-deep.Eye-witness accounts are never reliable. Just ask aveskde.After all, there are many first-hand accounts of vampires, ghosts, etc., but do you believe in such things?I was merely showing that other extremist groups with different beliefs have also done terrible things in the pastHow do we know these things to be the truth?This includes the right to use their hard-earned money to build a mosque wherever they want to.What if I personally bought Ground Zero (or the closest location available) and erected a statue in dedication of the Muslims who gave their lives defending their extremist views (i.e. the terrorists). Would people mind that?Osama bin Laden confessed that Al Quaeda did it in a video he sent to us right after the attack.Osama bin Laden; aka Tim Osman!
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

I was merely showing that other extremist groups with different beliefs have also done terrible things in the past, but it is not the fault of the religion as a whole.It's not the fault of the religion when it preaches against the behaviour in question or doesn't condone it in any way. When a religion's chief authoritative text demands or praises atrocious behaviour, then the religion is accountable.As much as I think religion as a whole is stupid and harmful to society, most religious people are decent human beings, and the 99% of Muslims who would have openly opposed this extremist act if they had seen it coming should have all the same rights and liberties as all the other citizens of the United States. This isn't a matter of religious or minority liberty. I'll use an example to illustrate my point, since it is easier to convey this way:Fred Phelps and his church congregation, Westboro Baptist, would act loudly and protest during the funerals of soldiers who died in in service. Their message? "Thank god for dead soldiers." They were well within their rights of free speech and protest, but laws were eventually established to reduce this behaviour. My question to you is: Would you be amongst those that defend the WBC protesters' rights to protest and speak freely during a time of mourning for a family and friends?The construction of a Mosque so close to ground zero is in this vein. It doesn't matter what the beliefs of the majority of Muslims are, or whether those attending the church will choose to defile the memory of those who died, or simply pray peacefully. What matters is that a mosque is an endorsement to the same religion that the perpetrators of the attack died in the name of. A mosque is a symbol of affirmation of that religion, and it serves as the same type of obnoxious reminder that the WBC protesters acted as.Try framing this issue as a matter of common decency. We both agree that the Muslims have a right to build mosques, and worship in this country, but if you think of this as a matter of courtesy and decency over politics and law, it becomes clear that a Mosque near ground zero is extremely insensitive.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Islam, like Christianity and other religions, is full of contradictions. There is a passage in the Quran that can be interpreted as condoning the killing of infidels, although I have had Muslims explain to me that they interpret it differently, but the Quran also says "whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew entire mankind; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept entire mankind alive" (Quran 5:32). Because the message is so confusing and contradictory, and the vast majority of Muslims are productive, peaceful members of society, they should have all the same rights other citizens do. As for your argument involving Fred Phelps, I have attended multiple Anti-WBC protests because I believe they are terrible human beings, but I still would defend their freedom of speech as long as they were not acting in such a way that placed their targets in physical danger. On the other side, the families of dead soldiers also have the right to restrict access to ceremonies and funerals as private gatherings, reducing the impact WBC can have on them. As for your common decency argument, it really makes no difference in my judgment. The mosque is a few blocks away from Ground Zero so I don't see it as offensive anyway, and if we won't allow a mosque there then where will we allow it? They clearly want to put a mosque there and they have every right to do so. Part of living in a free country is accepting that occasionally people you disagree with will have their way. You must either overcome them by legal means, which, in this case, is limited to buying the property where the mosque is/will be located, or you must abandon the value of freedom that is one of the most important principles our country was founded on. I choose freedom.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Because the message is so confusing and contradictory, and the vast majority of Muslims are productive, peaceful members of society, they should have all the same rights other citizens do.Which they do. There are 1400 mosques in the USA.On the other side, the families of dead soldiers also have the right to restrict access to ceremonies and funerals as private gatherings, reducing the impact WBC can have on them.Right. New Yorkers, those affected by the terrorist attack, have a right to protest and prevent the construction of a mosque right next to where the incident happened, to reduce the impact of Islam on the memory of those who were murdered in Islam's name.The mosque is a few blocks away from Ground Zero so I don't see it as offensive anyway, and if we won't allow a mosque there then where will we allow it?Why don't you see that as offensive? Don't you think this fact occurred to the people who bought that land for project? Do you REALLY think they were just naive Muslims who had no idea that constructing a mosque in close proximity to a major Islamic terrorism site would cause extreme offense and outrage?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

I agree that they have the same legal rights currently, but I am not talking about the mosques that are already in place. I am talking about their right to build more, because America is a land of freedom and opportunity where anyone that is willing to do hard work and earn money while following our laws can do whatever they want with that money within certain legal boundaries. This entire debate focuses on the idea that it is somehow okay to take peoples' rights away because the majority of citizens find their beliefs or actions distasteful. I completely agree with your second point. New Yorkers absolutely have the right to protest or buy the property themselves, but if they don't take the initiative to buy this land from the people who want to construct a mosque there then the Muslims get that land fair and square and since building a mosque is legal they are free to go ahead and do that. Finally, you seem to be assuming that the Muslims doing this are either evil or stupid, but the third, and I think most likely, option is that they have considered it and agree with me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal since they are innocent.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

I agree that they have the same legal rights currently, but I am not talking about the mosques that are already in place. I am talking about their right to build more, because America is a land of freedom and opportunity where anyone that is willing to do hard work and earn money while following our laws can do whatever they want with that money within certain legal boundaries.They have the right to build more already. However, being a religious group doesn't give them impunity, they must respect community wishes like everyone else.This entire debate focuses on the idea that it is somehow okay to take peoples' rights away because the majority of citizens find their beliefs or actions distasteful. Somehow? It's been this way since the start of the nation.I completely agree with your second point. New Yorkers absolutely have the right to protest or buy the property themselves, but if they don't take the initiative to buy this land from the people who want to construct a mosque there then the Muslims get that land fair and square and since building a mosque is legal they are free to go ahead and do that.I get the impression from what you said here that political ramifications and underpinnings are simply not occurring to you.Finally, you seem to be assuming that the Muslims doing this are either evil or stupid, but the third, and I think most likely, option is that they have considered it and agree with me that it shouldn't be that big of a deal since they are innocent.Not a big deal? You realise that innocent Muslims in the west were celebrating the 9/11 attacks as a victory for Islam. Then there's the obvious fact that Muslims, in the name of Islam, rammed a plane in a skyscraper a mere two blocks away. If you think that the Muslims overseeing the project assumed it wasn't a big deal, then you're really just saying that they are stupid.Look at the political climate, after all. We have television being censored in the states because of fears that Muslims (in our own country, no less) will kill people for broadcasting the Islamic prophet's image in a cartoon! Just a couple months ago a Muslim tried to car bomb some buildings on US soil. Yet you think they just assumed there shouldn't be any objections because they aren't terrorists?Jeez, what kind of sign will it take to convince politically correct people that we're being invaded by an intolerant, subjugating culture? Do you need car bombs and suicide bombers blowing up twice a month in our country before you realise that Islam is not a peaceful religion?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

It's commical how hypocritical you are at times.You argue again and again for capitalism and free market and anyone should do what they like with the money they earn. Muslims earn money and buy a mosque, suddenly you're an idealist.The Muslims who will be going to this mosque were no more responsible for 9/11 by virtue of being Muslim, then you were for slavery being as you're white,Yet just a few debates ago you spewed despotic how unfair it is that we should now continue paying for slavery simply for our skin color,Now though, now that it is not you specifically, these Muslims should pay for other's sins.I'm dissappointed in how tranparently flawed your logic is.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

It's commical how hypocritical you are at times.I had believed you'd learnt this of me: I debate for fun. I don't debate my own opinions, rather the underdog's opinion. Haven't you ever noticed that I almost always chose the opinion with few adherents?The Muslims who will be going to this mosque were no more responsible for 9/11 by virtue of being Muslim, then you were for slavery being as you're white,You say it with such certainty!The peoples congregating at this mosque may not have been responsible for 9/11, but they could be planning on other terrorist attacks. The irony would be terrific!
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

The peoples congregating at this mosque may not have been responsible for 9/11, but they could be planning on other terrorist attacks. The irony would be terrific!Sure, and all the Christians in Texas could be planning another Waco.As anti-religious as I am, if one group is aloud to worship invisible fairy tales so should every group.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

"The peoples congregating at this mosque may not have been responsible for 9/11, but they could be planning on other terrorist attacks. The irony would be terrific!"Are you serious? Like, is this your actual justification? I honestly can't tell with you sometimes.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

The Crusaders were fighting a war begun by the Muslims... no they weren't. They were started in 1095 CE by Pope Urban when he proclaimed Christians to be superior and encouraged Christians to take Jerusalem.Prove it - referring to who was responsible for 9/11Really? Conspiracies now? You're insinuation that perhaps all Muslims were responsible has no more merit than the conspiracy theory that Bush planned the whole thing.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

... no they weren't.Yes, they were!They were started in 1095 CE by Pope Urban when he proclaimed Christians to be superior and encouraged Christians to take Jerusalem.To take Jerusalem after the Muslims did!
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Actually if you want to get ridiculous about it, hairy guys who worshipped rocks and the sun originally lived there. And since the Jewish Religion is older than both Muslims and Christianity, they were there first.However, the point remains that everyone was doing just fine when once again assholes decided to use religion to do asshole things. Now we are again a thousand years later using religion to do an asshole thing, not let a group of people worship where they want to.It's retarded, literally, doing the same dumb ass thing over and over. Let them worship their silly magic daddy wherever they want.