azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

Why should they pay for two airline tickets when they are one person? Airline tickets are sold per individual, not per pound. And, the fact that this has been an ongoing debate, for so long, exemplifies the fact that there is a need for the airlines to address this issue. People should not be penalized because of their weight. This smells of discrimination. The airlines are a customer driven society and they should do what they can to make their present, and potential, customers happy. Would it really be putting the airlines out too much to accommodate their larger customers?
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: Yes

And who do you propose "finances" that accommodation? normal customers?
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

No, obese people shouldn't pay for two airline seats. First, the airlines make the seat's size smaller and smaller continually to hold more people into airplane, maybe someday the seat would be as small as an A4 paper! If you want to be more comfortable, yes you can, just book 3 or 4 seats. Second, extra luggage have been paid for years, now we pay for our body's weight. human=luggage? How do somebody say it's nothing about discrimination? the last but not least, airlines runs for the people. We've already pay enough to let airline company to keep passengers comfortable. so after thinking about making more money, we should think of more about human respect and prejudice. We've already had racial discrimination, social status discrimination, are we going to create "weight discrimination"?!
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: Yes

What a truly retarded post on so many levels. Wow. I am astonished.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

i do not beliee that obese people should pay for two seats; even if they cant fit into one perfectly they still shouldnt. i will be honest i am obese or so the doctors say but if i was skinny my answer still would be no. they should not make a weight limit for people because they make the seats "super small" just to make more money for the seats,and sometimes when they do make a person pay for a second seat somone has to sit there anyway and hey shouldnt make the person pay unless the other customer beside them complains and if they do they should get a huge discount to pay like a 90% discount because there isnt one more person flying its still one person
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

Is there any rules prohibiting the over size persons to pay for their seats in any transportation means? Obese person don't actually liked what they have, if this is the case that some ask for extra charges then it is a sort of discrimination. We are not all born to have fit body, we are not physically the same, but for the rights we have, we must have equal and fair share. It is a health condition that every should have reconsider and have fair treatment.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

I believe that when you reach a certain age (18 I presume), you should choose whether or not you want to wear a seatbelt. Everyone knows the consequences, and if you decide you don't want to wear one, that's a personal choice.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

No, and this is entirely frustrating for people in that kind of scenario, and it is also a violation of rights. Airline fees counts every customers head to head an not by weight. Reverse the idea, how about the child that can't actually occupy the old's seats, can they be exempted instead or have their seats offered to other and they will not pay for their fares. So embarrassing, anyway, to get rid of this obese issue, I suggest everyone to try the health monitoring systems featured at http://www.interactivecare.ca/, this is interactive so I guess it will be helpful to everyone.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

I think that maybe a per-person flat rate is a bad idea, even if we double it when they take up two seats.What if, instead, your fare was based on the combined weight of your person and all of your luggage? I don't believe there is a reasonable objection to that- nobody is being discriminated against, the fare is calculated in a wholly objective way. Fat people wouldn't be paying a higher rate than thin people- they would be paying the same rate, applied to a larger overall mass. This would also carry the benefit of encouraging people to pack lighter.Combine that with tiered seat sizes, where individuals are placed in the smallest seat that can accomodate their entire body, and we have a system that is ultimately fair for everyone.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

No, of course not. When we do, we treated them as one that is normal and can cause provocation of rights., unless otherwise, if the passenger himself pay and occupies seats for two.Regards.Rodney of http://caldwells.com/
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

I think not, if an obese person has to pay for two seats then they just feel more self-conscience about about there wait. I should know I weigh alot and I'm always thinking what other ppl think of me. We obese people should either get the second seat free or half off.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: yes

This is one of the lamest arguments in this column. Airlines aren't in the business of making people feel good and worry about people's self conscience.Your argument about getting the second seat for free or half off is ridiculous. If a normal weight person straps an underweight person to their back and tries to get on the plane - would they get the second seat for free? Let's use a more reasonable example of why obese people should have to pay more. Airlines exist to make money. The more people they move they more $$ they make. That's why airlines exist. To make money. If someone is taking up the space of two people then they should compensate the airline for this. Not the other way around.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: yes

Fuck You Fatty !!!! Lose weight of take a car. I say ban all fat people from leaving the HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

fuck you skinny ass hoe, you know what some people have medical issues have you ever seen the cute little obese boy that sings "the cupycake song" well he was on the octor oz show and they discovered that one day he was a skinny healthy 3rd grader one day and then the next morning when he awoke he was overweight?it's called medical problems you fucking idiot! I SAY BAN ALL PEOPLE LIKE YOU FROM BREATHING HELL YA IM UP FOR THAT!!
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: yes

If you overconsume calories, then it's your fault that you're overweight, not the airlines.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: Yes

if they are more self conscious about their wait they might do something about it then.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

No!! That's so mean! How do you think someone obese feels reading this right now?
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: yes

That they should put down the Big Mac and start exercising to save on airfare.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

Not all obese people are that way simply because of their eating habits genius.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: yes

Most of them are. That is self-evident from looking the shopping carts of obese versus fits people. Some people care about their health and are up to the challenge of keeping their bodies healthy and, needless to saym attractive. Many other people don't realize how much work is required to be fit.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: yes

Sorry, but I refuse to believe that old argument about "I don't overeat, it's in my genes". If you cut down on your food, you cut down on your calories, and you eventually lose weight because your body begins taking energy from the fat stores in your body. It's all about self control.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: No

the 99 obese people are all claiming its a medical disorder that they are fat, when theres probably only 1 out of 100 thats fat NOT FROM EATING TOO MUCH
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: Yes

Very true, most often than not it is a combination of the 2 things.....eating habits and exercising (or lack of ) habits. And no obesity due to a medical condition is not that common as some of you, fatass apologists, would like to believe.
Debate: Should Obese People Pay For Two Airline Seats?
Side: Yes

a lot of them are genius.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

I say parental consent is not legally necessary to have a baby, and nor should it be. The ultimate authority over whether to have a baby must be the baby’s mother, not its grandparents. It is absurd to say that someone is old enough to have a baby, but not old enough to have an abortion. The parental consent required for surgery is a legal sham in any case, since in serious cases a refusal can be overridden on medical advice with a court order. In effect, parents can consent to surgery on their children, but cannot withhold their consent. This is not a good example for the proposition.And if needing parental consent became effective it could just lead to 'back street' abortions. Which are far more dangerous to the mother and the baby than just being able to go to a clinic.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Under-16s need parental consent for medical treatment and surgery: abortion should not be an exception. There are plenty of other things children are not allowed to do without their parents’ consent: tattooing, ear-piercing, school activities such as school trips; parents can withdraw their children from school religious activities without their children’s consent; under-16s are not allowed to get married without their parents’ consent. Abortion is at least as important a decision as any of these if not more important.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Abortion should be one of the only exceptions to that rule. Children may not be able to do some things without their parent's consent but abortion is much more an important decision, a decision that could be life changing. Getting a tatoo or an ear piercing is a totally different subject on a much lower level of concern in a parent's eye ( one would hope ).Whether or not a teenager/woman wants to keep her baby should be totally up to her and nobody else.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Absolutely not. I'm 16 years old, sexually active, and I've had one--exactly one--pregnancy scare, even though I've used protection every time. I have many, many friends--both older and younger--who have been in the same situation. Involving parents makes matters more difficult, and they may even override the pregnant woman's decision.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

If she is under age, by definition, she is not a woman. Therefore, the parent is not overriding a pregnant woman's decision.Also, by definition, the act is statuary rape. Now, what was this argument for abortion that says that in case of rape....Children who use drugs also feel that involving parents makes matters much more difficult. There's a reason for that.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Under the law, parental notification provisions are only legal if they allow the underage person to "opt out" of notification via some other legal process, usually appearing before a judge. This was decided in Ohio v. Akron and again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and part of the rationale for the decision was that young people may be subject to abuse or coercion if they disclose a pregnancy to their parents, or may already be victims of incest (hence having the need for an abortion). Such "opt-out" provisions generally require the pregnant minor to appear before the court, and the court will then consider factors such as her maturity and her circumstances in determining whether parental notification should be waived. I think this is a reasonable balance between the interests of the pregnant minor and those of the minor's parents.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

I am going to make my argument assuming that it is already accepted that abortion should be legal in general because that is a separate issue.Here are some the reasons abortion is legal: Primarily people have a right to determine what happens to their bodies. But also we know from history that many women will abort babies themselves if they do not have access to legal abortions and we want to protect those women. Also it is detrimental to society to have unwanted babies being born just because they could not be aborted as they are more likely to be in poverty and not raised properly and will therefore be statistically more likely to gravitate toward crime.Specifically regarding underage women the first point is debatable. As has been mentioned minors need consent for surgical procedures. But I believe the circumstances unique to abortion override this. If parental consent is required for abortions it logically follows that many underage girls and women will be prevented by their parents from getting legal abortions. And you therefore face the two other reasons I gave for abortion being legal in general. In this instance I think the illicit abortion reason is the most salient. Underage girls have very strong reasons for not wanting to be pregnant. Please don't mention "they should have thought of that before they had sex etc." because it is irrelevant. It is too late at this point. Understandably they may be very desperate to terminate their pregnancies, and being young they are possibly even more likely to do something rash like attempt a self-abortion. In my opinion the safety of underage pregnant women keeping in mind the strong possibility they will try to abort their babies themselves, outweighs the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children. I think that almost all of the time parents will make better medical decisions for their children and their children are not old enough to make such decisions. However I think almost everyone old enough to get pregnant understands pregnancy and abortion well enough to make their own decision. There is a bit of a difficult situation with very young girls like 12 years old, and I have difficulty with making a decision on this. In general, however, I think underage pregnant women should not need parental consent to have abortions.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

I do believe that parents should be informed on the fact that their child is receive an abortion. It is their right.But, they should only receive this information once their child is getting that abortion. Parents do not have the right to stop a child from getting an abortion.I would make a longer argument, but it seems a shit load of people have already made all the arguments.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: bs

Hello Pyg,Longtime no word!Would you care to defend your position in debate with lawnman?Why do I ask?You are rationally honest!
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

No, no, and no.As someone who comes from a foster home, let me tell you, teenage girls do not want to have to tell their parents they've been spreading their legs, especially if it's to black men in the south. So what happens when this girl who did just that has to ask her racist daddy for an abortion? She'll make the smart choice: coathanger > daddy kicking her in the stomach until she miscarries.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

To be honest with you, that statement scared me a little.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

1.)Parents have a right to know what their children are doing: they are legally responsible for their care, and as parents they have a proper interest in any case. Any good parent would want to know if their daughter were having an abortion; any good parent would want to help her daughter make a good decision on the matter, and to prevent her from making a bad decision.2.)The parents of teenagers have to live with the consequences of teenage motherhood: they often bear a particularly large responsibility for looking after the children, because teenage mothers are usually 1) single; 2) living at home; 3) unemployed; 4) in full-time education. They are economically dependent, and unable to give all of their time to their children. If the mother’s parents are going to have to look after their grandchild and to live with it, they should have a say on whether it is born in the first place.3.)The decision whether to have an abortion or continue the pregnancy often has a major long-term impact on a woman's psychological and emotional well-being, her ability to continue formal education, and her future financial status. The proposed measure helps ensure that pregnant teenagers get support and guidance from their parents in this important decision. If parents are not informed, there is a risk that they and their daughters will become permanently estranged at a time when parental support is most important.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

The key word is requireYour reasoning, assuming require is a prerequisite, assumes every pregnant teenager has the type of relationship with a parent or gaurdian where they can tell them anything.The fact is, the world isn't a Norman Rockwell painting.Many of these young girls are abused by their gaurdian. Many times, the male gaurdian is the father.Requiring consent is for many the same as simply outlawing it.If a young girl knows they need to get this consent, they ofen simply will say nothing. They will not get any kind of medical treatment, they won't get ultrasounds, they won't find out if their own life may be in danger by bringing the child to term,and worse, many many times, they will seek an abortion from a place with no license to give abortions.Requirements in this arena can only be a bad thing.Encourage those who can to tell their parents, help those who cannot, and educate them as much as possible.But requirements only lead to more and greater problems.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

A healthy family would not need a law to force their daughter to tell them; an unhealthy family would put the girl into unnecessary peril. Your points are very true for a healthy family; however, not every family is healthy. Also, you don't need parental permission to have sex, to get married in the event of a pregnancy, and a parent cannot force a child to abort- so why, why, why would you let a parent effectively force an underage girl into birthing a baby that she doesn't want? Would those repercussions not be more emotionally scarring than destroying a clump of cells? The choice of getting an abortion is serious indeed; however, it should be the decision of the mother and only the mother.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Parents need to know what's going on in their children's lives when they are still underage. As far as I'm concerned a 13 year old kid has no choice because she can't think it all through properly. It's her body but the parents are still responsible for her until she comes of legal age.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

What if the parents are biased? Some parents are totally anti-abortion and some are totally for it. If the parents have a choice they might not be making the choice that is RIGHT for the child just the choice that supports his/her VIEW.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Parents are biased in much more than this and yet they are still responsible for their child's welfare. I cannot think of any circumstance that would dictate having a child while underage is a good thing whether or not the parents are biased in that way. They may be biased but there may be conditions to that bias.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Some parents believe abortion is the worst thing you could possibly do so if they choose to keep the baby it could ruin their child's life before said child has a chance to decide what he/she wants to do. Thought I am in agreement with what you said, I still think that the girl should take the opinion of the mother and father but be able to make the final decision on her own.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

When you remove choice you create slaves. In saying that a thirteen year-old has no choice, you're saying that they aren't granted civil liberties. You're effectively not regarding them as a person anymore. For instance, if a fifteen year-old girl gets raped, and knocked up as a result, but doesn't want her mother to know because the mother is a suicidal rape victim with recent trauma herself, that's a good reason not to tell the parents. Or if the girl just simply doesn't want her parents to know she's not a virgin anymore, that's also a good reason. Why? Because it's her choice. When the law forces people to do things against their own choices is when it infringes upon their civil liberties. Forcing people to reveal their secrets to anyone, unless they are of legal importance, is a violation of civil liberties, and simply saying "It's not her choice" is the same argument which was given before the violation of civil liberties throughout history.Being under 18 doesn't make someone a second-class citizen.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Hello K,The baby growing within the girl is a separate and unique person. Neither the girl or any person in this world has a right to kill (abort) the life growing within her womb!Feel free to counter those facts. (I perceive we agree!)
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

An embryo or fetus not a "person" under U.S. or European law. See Roe v. Wade and Vo v. France. Argument countered.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: bs

Great, you too have never heard of a human fetus or human embryo. Too bad that the supposed authorities you appeal to have never heard of an embryo or fetus that is not human.What species of fetus or embryo is not a person? Careful with indefinite negatives, perhaps your law prof. has yet to inform you of such.