azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

I disagree. The unborn are biologically human. .
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

On that note you emotional intellectually-incompetent incorrigible female. Have a nice life. That is sexist. Biological sex does not matter when debating. You are just another sexist priviliged male that wants to control women. I bow to no one but God.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

I did not classify females as a whole. I said you emotional etc.You are just another sexist priviliged male that wants to control women. I bow to no one but God.No. I love women. Actually I have trouble with some women because I am too non-controlling. SexistI do not value one sex over another. But I do know that women are more emotion/hormonal with a lot of things unlike men. Because of estrogen.I bow to no one but God.Check yourself in a psychiatric facility so you can room with Barbra who says that Rudolf will come and bust you both out.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

If you love women, you will not bring up someone's biological sex. You are just attacking to avoid having to debate facts like most sexist males out there. There is nothing wrong with being theist or female. If you do not stop being rude, I will donate in your name to my favorite prolife charity.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

Incoherent and irrelevant. Maybe I did not elaborate. I love women. Just not your incorrigible type. I have debated facts. But your conclusion cannot be fact. This argument is inductive. Which means that the conclusion is subjective. You remain consistently blind from your emotions on abortion. You will not look at both sides just yours. You do not even attempt understand anything someone in opposition to your ideology. But not everyone is open-minded.P.S If you think imaginary friends are acceptable at your age, then there is something wrong.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

This debate is about abortion. Stick to the relevant facts or I will ban you. What do you have to say about abortion?
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: Yes.

If your rules of the debate are that you are right, then what is the point of debating at all? o.O
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

My opinion:No. In order for a fetus to have rights, it must be a person. I define a person as something that is self aware and exhibits theory of mind. From Wikipedia:Self Awareness: Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals. Researchers have demonstrated that the awareness of ourselves begins to emerge at around one year of age and becomes much more developed by around 18 months of age.Theory of Mind: Theory of mind (often abbreviated ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc. — to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.
Debate: Does the fetus have rights?
Side: No.

no, if you are to give a lump of cells rights similar to a living thing, (even more rights than the mother) then you imply it to be alive, with no heartbeat, no pulse, no EKG, no brain waves, nothing that would classify ordinary living things to be living. so, no the fetus should not have any rights to live, if it isn't even alive.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Atheism is a religion so atheists are good to go. Their rights are protected ;)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Atheism is still not a religion you have been corrected on this more than once ; you constantly bleating it does not make it so :)You really need to take a case against every dictionary maker throughtout the world and get them to change the definition of religion just to suit your confused thinking on this tricky term :)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

To me, words mean exactly what I want them to mean ;)Why are you trying to oppress me? You should not go around persecuting people for their beliefs. You are cavaphobic!
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

To me, words mean exactly what I want them to mean ;)So to me oppress means educate and yes I'm trying to oppress /educate you :) Persecuting to me means something entirely diiderent because words only mean what I want them to mean :) You are isteophibic !
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Oh, is your real name Isteo? That's cool. Are you ethnic? I mean, with a name like that ... ;)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Is your real name Cava ? That's also cool . Are you ethnic ?I mean with a name like that :)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

I am ethnic! What gave me away ;)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Would you not think that it's fairly obvious ? Why did you ask this question of me every question asked reveals the questioners true motivations ... Or maybe you disagree :) Seeing as you ask me a question let me ask you one ..... Once in a while when you get thinking about people and past times who is that person you need to forgive ... that person that you cannot seem to forgive ....
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

To forgive means that you make a conscious effort to let it go. I just naturally forget so forgiveness doesn't make sense. Either that or it happened so long ago that it no longer bothers me. To me, to not forgive is to still be holding a grudge. Holding a grudge is like taking poison in the hopes it will kill the other person. I can't think of a grudge I'm still hanging onto. ;)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

If you find your loved one having conversations with an invisible mythical creature such as a leprechaun. Your loved one is convinced there are endless riches at the end of the rainbow and begins a journey to find the treasure would you allow this person to follow their intuition? Or, would you raise objectionable concerns? Despite your stance to reason, your loved one replies, "Why are you trying to oppress me? You should not go around persecuting people for their beliefs. You are cavaphobic!" The same could be said about you. What gives you the authority to question someone else's beliefs in Leprechauns?The truth is, all beliefs and claims (especially yours) is not above suspicion and inquiry. Therefore, for the sake of evidence and human progress all extraordinary claims and god faiths without corroborated evidence must be ridiculed from existence."What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

I don't think you understood what I said. I said that atheism is a religion. ;)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

By basic principle all religion in the world is publicly shared belief. All definitions that are placed inside any Dictionary that is in print can be proven as bias. The elaborate scheme of any object is not what makes it substance.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

You say ....By basic principle all religion in the world is publicly shared belief. All definitions that are placed inside any Dictionary that is in print can be proven as bias.The elaborate scheme of any object is not what makes it substance.Absolute nonsense ....
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

If we are a religion: what do we worship? where do we congregate?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Worship Science and math.Congregate in the lab. ;)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Atheism is not a religion it is the rejection of the God claim. There is nothing to "practice."
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Atheism rejects everybody else's God, just like every other religion on the planet. ;)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Or, as Richard Dawkins said: "We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

The block of any law respecting an establishment of religion means yes atheism is protected, because the only way you could legislate against atheism is to legislate for some version of religion. Nor do I believe the founders as a group were anti atheist. They were quite clear about most of what they believed and if they had been anti atheist it would have been written in explicitly that way.Finally, there have been enough religious types on here who equated with science as religion you pretty much already granted anyone who believes in modern science believes in a version of religion.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

On April 23, 2015, at the Women’s World Summit, Hillary Clinton said “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed.” Using the force of law Mrs. Clinton says religious beliefs have to be changed. Freedom of religion is the first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution.Why would a Progressive like Hillary say deep seated religious beliefs have to be changed if Americans have the Freedom of Religion ?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

She meant that the "deep seated" hatred BETWEEN religions needed to be changed! I totally agree with her! The force of the "laws" of the Constitution SHOULD change that, but until "Christians" accept other religions we don't ACTUALLY have religious freedom in America!"Such are the heights of wickedness to which men are driven by religion." Titus Lucretius Carus
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

TORCASO v. WATKINS (1961), Supreme CourtKAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY (2005), 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Whether "atheism" should be regarded a "religion" depends not only on how one defines "atheism" and "religion," but also the context and purpose of labeling it one way or the other. Religion can be defined various ways, some broad, e.g., a world view providing a systematic approach to living, and some more specific, e.g., such a world view associated with faith and belief in a deity or higher power. For purposes of discussing philosophy, whether one treats atheism as a religion likely depends on how one defines "atheism." To the extent atheism is defined as the lack of any belief in god(s), it doesn't seem to qualify as a religion in the sense of a philosophical world view any more than the absence of any belief in all sorts of other things, e.g., unicorns. That said, those lacking a belief in god(s) generally have other beliefs, e.g., materialism (the philosophical sort, not the consumer sort) or paganism, that together may be regarded a religion. Fair enough--though I'm not sure "atheism" is the right label for such a religion.In any event, for purposes of determining whether all persons, "believers" and "nonbelievers" alike, enjoy the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion, courts have decided to treat atheism as the equivalent of a religion so that the Amendment equally affords atheists and theists the freedom to exercise their "religion." The courts got this right. As the aim of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause is to assure each individual the freedom to come to his or her own beliefs about the world, god(s), and such and to exercise those beliefs, and the Constitution’s equal protection clause assures individuals equal treatment under the law, it would make no sense for courts to define religion to exclude the world view of some (indeed many) and thus deny them both the freedom to exercise their world view and equal protection of the laws.It should hardly be supposed, though, that the courts' interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment free exercise clause to cover atheists as much as theists means that they (or anyone else) should or must consider "atheism" a "religion" in any and all contexts and for any and all purposes.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Saying that the Constitution will not prohibit the free excercise of religion cannot be interpreted to mean that some religion must be excercised. Just as the freedom of speech does not compel speech, freedom of religion does not compel religion. Furthermore, the freedom of speech protects non-religious and even anti-religious speech, which is what atheism is.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

how does one "practice" atheism ... except to make up your own laws and "morals" ... in other words .. anything goes
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Making up your own morals is done by Christians. How is that an atheist thing?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

As usual, you are dead wrong, SadMan.We atheists most certainly do not make-up our own morals. Rather, the vast majority of us are good and decent law-abiding citizens who follow the accepted morals and codes of society. Many of us volunteer for charities, as I do with Habitat For Humanity. Many of us work in fields to help others, such as in law enforcement and medicine and Social Services. Perhaps you are unaware that there are far more secular charity and philanthropic organizations than there are of non-secular ones?We simply do not need to engage in superstition and Bronze Age Hebrew Mythology to be good people. Nor do we need to believe in false imaginary friend sky gods or long-dead Jewish carpenters. And we certainly do not need to ascribe to the teachings of a blood-soaked holy book that has dozens of passages in it that call for murdering entire ethnic peoples, or children, or innocents. As does your bible.Nor do we feel compelled to partake in holy wars, which have killed millions. If you need your silly religion to try and be decent people, then fine. Use your crutch if you must.We don't need it.Thanks but no thanks.When was the last time you helped the homeless? Or did something kind for somebody with no thought of a reward?So, speak for yourself. We do fine without your silly shite.SShttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2014/10/atheist-morality-no-need-for-god/
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Blow up the churches, for starters.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

You must oppose the Bill of Rights and the freedoms within that Bill of Rights !
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

1st Amendment continued : abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.What else in the 1st Amendment would you like to seen blown up !
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

... only the churches?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

For starters, yes.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Oh ye of little ambition. Have faith. We can take them all at once.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

As an Atheist, the MAJORITY of MY laws and morals (maybe a little less on the strict morals side, (chuckle)), coincide with those of the Bible, simply because those of the Bible coincide with common sense. Atheists are very fond of common sense, not so of indoctrination!
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

The practice of atheism is not relying on faith of something yet to be peoved in order to live a full life and make good choices.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Yes. I am personally opposed to atheism, but I support the rights of an atheist. The right to freedom of religion inludes the right to not be religious.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

I am personally opposed to atheism.What does that even mean?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Means that he dislikes atheism, but not enough to deny rights to atheists.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

"I am personally opposed to atheism, but I support the rights of an atheist."And" dislikes atheism, but not enough to deny rights to atheists."Thanks for clarifying.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

No problem. You're welcome.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

You actually think you clarified something?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

The way you're asking, I wonder what qualifies as 'clarifying' for you.As to what we meant here, the 'Dispute' button conveys that meaning, in the likely case you didn't notice.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

The way you're asking, I wonder what qualifies as 'clarifying' for you.And, the way you accepted my thanks, I wonder what qualifies as 'clarifying' for you.As to what we meant here, the 'Dispute' button conveys that meaning, in the likely case you didn't notice.If you noticed the dispute, then you accepting the thanks was very cowardly.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

I accepted it as much as you originally meant it. (Guessing that shouldn't be hard, but I guess you have to be consistent.)
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Clearly I didn't mean it at all since I used the dispute button. You knew that, right?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Of course I did. I've not been using that button by mistake, in case you didn't notice.In fact, you are reciting this fact after I've already said even though it shouldn't have needed to be said.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

If you knew it then your response was cowardly. I made it clear to you that you didn't fucking clarify a thing. And you decided not to defend yourself.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

I don't defend against mindless universals. They aren't worth me trying. If you are to panic at the bleakest possibility of attack, then I'd prefer you don't expect me to give the same reaction.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

It doesn't matter what reasoning you give for being cowardly, especially your bullshit reasoning. You are on a debate website and you don't defend your arguments. You ran from the argument. Either way you panicked about my "bleak" argument. You can be lying about it being bleak or lying about how you knew it was an attack. Choice is yours.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

There is no attack for me to defend against. Though I expected you'd take a lesson and retry, but I guess some things can't change. It's you who is too much of a coward to ask directly and tried to run by a poor attempt.It doesn't matter what reasoning you giveYou want me to apologise for your ignorance?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

There is no attack for me to defend against.So, you didn't recognize what the dispute button meant. You lied. Though I expected you'd take a lesson and retry, but I guess some things can't change.Why should I? I was clear the first time.It's you who is too much of a coward to ask directly and tried to run by a poor attempt.You have a shitty answer to the direct question. You don't do well with direct questions. It had nothing to do with cowardice.You want me to apologise for your ignorance?Of course. The only thing I am ignorant about is your stance on the topic. That's your fault.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

Come on, you know that I'd be anything but a coward. Ask nicely, and more importantly, directly, and I will reply. As I said, I don't defend against mindless universals.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

Come on, you know that I'd be anything but a coward.You cowardly run from every argument on this website.Ask nicely, and more importantly, directly, and I will reply. I don't want a fucking reply. I want the answer to the fucking questions I ask.  I said, I don't defend against mindless universals.You say a lot of worthless bullshit. What's your fucking point?
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

It is you who does not understand even the most little of things.  I don't want a fucking reply. I want the answer to the fucking questions I ask.I can edit that 'reply' to 'answer' if you have problems understanding? You cowardly run from every argument on this website.Rather than cowardice, that'd be annoyance at you not understanding what is written already. (Not like you nicely ask, even.) What's your fucking point?My point is that I don't defend against mindless universals. They aren't worth me even trying. You'd better not expect me to panic like you might against such attacks.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

It is you who does not understand even the most little of thingsWho is worse? The person who doesn't understand little things, or the guy who knows all the little things and keeps the information to himself? can edit that 'reply' to 'answer' if you have problems understanding?Your statement was accurate with the word "reply" you never provide answers.Rather than cowardice, that'd be annoyance at you not understanding what is written already. (Not like you nicely ask, even.)Your annoyance is exactly the same as other people's cowardice.My point is that I don't defend against mindless universals.Good one. It sounds even fucking dumber the third fucking time.They aren't worth me even trying. You'd better not expect me to panic like you might against such attacks.Expect it? I am witnessing it right now.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: Yes it does!

I'm not panicking. In fact, it amuses me that you can go great lengths to justify asking a question not worth defending (in case you didn't notice, I merely played along). You'd be as much a coward as you accuse me of being; your position isn't any better. Come on, peasant, ask nicely if you want me to answer before I'm too bored to do otherwise.