azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

Well, in an ideal world, welfare and medicaid would not exist and everyone would have to make their own money.That is the world I'm looking forward to. Just because we have a structure now-a-days that encourages bad behavior, doesn't mean that we should just build based on that structure. Tear it down and start again. And anyway, free condoms do not stop irresponsible behavior. If a teenager decides "I should get condoms", he will buy just as much as he will go after a free one. I don't mind, however, a vending machine on school grounds for condoms. It's the tax-payers part that I do mind.but, if you and other people feel that condoms should be available for free at High Schools, than you can merely donate to a cause of putting free condoms in a High School. you don't have to get other people, like me, involved.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

My ideal world would have clinics to keep the insane in... I believe in prisons, as well.Once again... you are creating a straw man argument.And even people living in poverty can afford a box of condoms... you're acting like condoms are the same price as insurance or apartments.Well, there is a way to make condoms cost a shit load... have the government use tax-payer dollars to buy a shit-load of condoms. Most of which will be wasted. Prices will go up because condoms will become an inelastic demand, and government won't care because it's not their money.And your last statement is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared. All of them feared the majority rule over minority rights, and Thomas Jefferson specifically said that forcing Americans to pay for furnishings that they will never use nor need is tyrannical.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

My ideal world would have clinics to keep the insane in... I believe in prisons, as well.They are hospitals, though, not prisons.Once again... you are creating a straw man argument.No it isn't. The libertarian position is that socialised medicine is bad.And even people living in poverty can afford a box of condoms... you're acting like condoms are the same price as insurance or apartments.No, I'm acting as if prices are barriers for certain people. I know that when I was in High School, I didn't usually have five dollars on my person. Most students didn't carry change, as a matter of fact, and some were so poor that the school cafeteria was their parents' only way of feeding them.Well, there is a way to make condoms cost a shit load... have the government use tax-payer dollars to buy a shit-load of condoms. Most of which will be wasted. Prices will go up because condoms will become an inelastic demand, and government won't care because it's not their money.Again: the price of government-issued latex, or the price of government-issued surgeries, tests, and abortifacents. Take your pick.And your last statement is exactly what our Founding Fathers feared. All of them feared the majority rule over minority rights, and Thomas Jefferson specifically said that forcing Americans to pay for furnishings that they will never use nor need is tyrannical.I don't treat the founding fathers as prophets or messiahs. I see them as intelligent men who had flaws like everyone else. I know that a healthy society is one that is interdependent and that services costs less per person when the total sum is divided amongst everyone. I also know that the top 1% of our nation could afford to shoulder the vast majority of the burden to alleviate the suffering of the bottom 80%, and that if health and social services were privatised it would just force that 80% into greater debt or inferiour service as the top 1% enjoys a premium tier. That's how capitalism works.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

I meant straw-man as in you were attacking my ideals with examples that were not contrary to my ideals.In fact, every argument that we've had about Libertarianism (except for the very first one) has started with you attacking my positions and later on turning into you stating that Libertarianism is a flawed ideology. Whether it is flawed or not is not my problem. My problem always stemmed from you using made up reasons on why the Libertarian Party is flawed.First, you can't establish whether you're attacking the Libertarian Party or extremist Libertarians (and you then claim to be going after either one or the other, and then proceed to treat them synonymously when I no longer bring up that differentiating issue).Second, as stated, my ideals do not equate Libertarian ideals. So yes, you were unjustly attacking my beliefs by saying "libertarian position is that [socialized] medicine is bad". I don't care about the Libertarian position on socialized medicine. I believe in clinics to keep the insane in. Just like how I believe in prisons to keep prisoners in.As for poor students, boo-hoo. (i could elaborate; but your "want a cookie\" statement reflects how serious we should be in these debates).And of course they were men with flaws. But that ideal is what keeps asswipes from voting in laws that force people to provide for what they don't believe in and hold no stake in. We can justify the police because even if a rich guy can afford private security to protect him from criminals, the poor can not afford private security to protect them from the rich guy. To fix this, they both are protected from each other by paying for the police.The same can not go for wasted tax dollars based on ideology vs. liberty. The ideology of neo-liberals that "teens have sex, so they should have anything they need in order to have sex" has been okay in my book for the most part. Unfortunately, it has also resulted in this notion that now us taxpayers must pay for the teens actual sexual behavior. I will admit that when it comes to sex, neo-liberalism is far superior to neo-conservatism, but even so, the liberals have reached their limit in suggesting that teen sex must be payed for by Americans. Teens are not less likely to use a condom if they must be payed for. I am highly in favor of having vending machines or even free dispensers (so long as they are provided by a private organization and not accommodated for by taxpayers).Most of the issues of teens not practicing safe-sex stems from insufficient education caused by Conservatives. But going from one extreme to the other is no good for our civil liberties. We are a free people. Free to buy our own condoms and free to have sex whenever we want with whomever we want.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

I, personally, am not for a Free Market. Not because I believe it's an EXTREME view (you saying that it was is what caused me to defend that belief), but because I don't see it as a perfect view. Close to home, but not quite there.And it's true; I'm not quite sure if teens are MORE likely to have unsafe sex if condoms aren't for free. If anything, there is a slight percentage in favor of what you're saying.My question is, however, if providing free condoms will actually sufficiently prevent the spread of HIV and pregnancy among teens. To me, it will not. The odds of getting pregnant or HIV by having sex without a condom are already slim. Providing free condoms won't decrease the spread by a significant amount because then we would be talking about how many teens (who were practicing unsafe sex before) would THEN practice safe sex. It's pointless, to me. But I believe in cutting spending in so many little things (eventually, you save the tax-payers a lot).As for other things; I don't believe in government funded abortions. Another method of tax-payers paying for teens who are having sex (and worse, it can be anyone having sex).
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

My question is, however, if providing free condoms will actually sufficiently prevent the spread of HIV and pregnancy among teens. To me, it will not. The odds of getting pregnant or HIV by having sex without a condom are already slim. Providing free condoms won't decrease the spread by a significant amount because then we would be talking about how many teens (who were practicing unsafe sex before) would THEN practice safe sex. So this argument is basically a dispute over this very subtle issue with which we haven't any unequivocal data.As for other things; I don't believe in government funded abortions. Another method of tax-payers paying for teens who are having sex (and worse, it can be anyone having sex).Would you rather pay for those teenagers who couldn't afford the abortion and now need welfare or unemployment because they had to have a child they cannot care for?
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

You're saying it like free condoms would take away all of these problems.Since I don't believe in that, it is of no concern to me.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

No,because this will encourage teenagers to be engaged in sexual activities before marriage.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

No,because this will encourage teenagers to be engaged in sexual activities before marriage.So?
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

in many households, this is not seen as a problem, therefore this arguement is ineffective
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Did you intend to address that argument to Isheba? Because it does not really make any sense in response to me.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

As schools distribute condoms to teenagers,it'll encourage them to have sex.Having sex before marriage is just SEX and nothing special. Sex should only occur if to individuals are married.Knowing that there is trust and genuine love in a marriage makes sex special Teenagers may decide to have sex just because condoms are available at schools or because its just "fun", and that's just like throwing your body in the garbage after disrespecting it.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

As schools distribute condoms to teenagers,it'll encourage them to have sex.Comprehensive sex education and/or the presence of condoms won't encourage teenagers to have sex...because they are going to do it anyway.http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=521&grandparentID=477&parentID=514 http://std.about.com/od/prevention/tp/toptencompsexed.htm Having sex before marriage is just SEX and nothing special. Sex should only occur if to individuals are married.Knowing that there is trust and genuine love in a marriage makes sex special I think teenagers are perfectly capable of developing genuine emotional attachments to their partners. People do not need to be married for that.Additionally, there is nothing inherently wrong with having sex for fun and no other reason. What is the problem, if it is done safely, and partners are honest with each other?Teenagers may decide to have sex just because condoms are available at schools or because its just "fun", and that's just like throwing your body in the garbage after disrespecting it.This is only true if you think there is something intrinsically shameful or disrespectful about sex, and it is somehow sullying the body to engage in it for 'the wrong reasons'. Not everyone shares your particular views about when sex is a wonderful, magical bond between two soulmates, and when it's just a nasty, dirty act that one should be embarrassed about. You should not try to make it difficult or more dangerous for teenagers who happen to consider it a normal part of life.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

As schools distribute condoms to teenagers,it'll encourage them to have sex.Having sex before marriage is just SEX and nothing special.So what? Schools are not in the position to impose those values on children.Sex should only occur if to individuals are married.If you believe that, then only engage in sex after marriage for YOURSELF. Your concern is irrelevant to most of us. Most of us find sex to be a social act, an act of romance.Knowing that there is trust and genuine love in a marriage makes sex special Teenagers may decide to have sex just because condoms are available at schools or because its just "fun",Again, so what? You do not own their bodies and minds. Maybe that's all they want from sex. I know that if I wasn't so sexually repressed in my youth, I would have found the experience very enjoyable and worthwhile. It is one of my deep regrets that I missed that part of life because of our sexually repressive religious culture. You are only a child once, a teenager once. They should be able to use their bodies however they like as long as it isn't dangerous. That's what condoms are for.and that's just like throwing your body in the garbage after disrespecting it.I would argue that it is disrespectful to your body to engage in unprotected sex, which is what you're encouraging.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

These may be your views, however others may not share the same views as you, therefore you cant argue this point either.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

teen sex has caused a huge amount of distress, lack of trust, pregnancies, STDs spreading like an epidemic and other forms of emotional damage. 80 percent of teens think they should not be sexually active.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: Yes

You understand that I made that post in the context of supporting easily accessible condoms, right? Which are designed to help prevent STDs and pregnancy? Making condoms available to teenagers who don't regret sexual activity doesn't mean anything for the ones aren't sexually active. For teens who don't want to have sex, free condoms doesn't mean they have to. Accessible condoms just make it safer for the teenagers who do want to use them. That's all. I support condom accessibility in conjunction with comprehensive sex education, which educates kids about consent and makes sure they know the effectiveness of all methods, including abstinence.Also, maybe you'd like to cite a source for that stat.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

condoms don't stop all forms of STDs...........................................................................
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-statistics.htmlhttp://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/ literature_9432hs.asp
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: Yes

I should have been more specific. I was asking about a source for the claim that 80% of teenagers regret having sex. This is for my own curiosity, because it sounds unlikely. Even if it's true, my argument still holds: available condoms don't mean that teenagers have to have sex if they don't want to. It just means condoms are around for the ones who do want to. Again, this availability should be in conjunction with sex education that also addresses issues of readiness and consent. Are you arguing against increased accessibility of condoms for teenagers? If so, citing high rates of pregnancies and STDs is counterintuitive, because condom use decreases these rates. No method is as effective as abstinence, but that doesn't mean it should be made more difficult for teenagers to get a hold of.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Are you aware that the majority of studies show that, for example, abstinence-only education programs don't significantly lower the amount of teenagers having sex ? (Instead, it just raises the amount having unprotected sex, since they're not able to make informed decisions.) This is no different. Regardless of what opinion you dictate to them, plenty of them are going to have sex anyway. This will also happen whether or not condoms have been made readily available. I agree that, from a personal perspective, I don't think physical relationships should be entered into lightly. However, some people are better able to maintain more of an emotional distance than I am, and there is nothing wrong with that. Their bodies, their decisions, and more power to them. I realize that some (not all) teens that have sex will undoubtedly have negative emotional effects following their decision (this is a potential consequence of pretty much ANY action, by the way). For those ones, you're exacerbating their pain by not trying to ensure the least possible damage is incurred. Unplanned pregnancies and STDs can ruin a person's life, as I'm sure you know perfectly well. Teens are going to make bad decisions sometimes, it's a fact of life. You can better serve them by making sure that they have a way to lessen the damage, not say "don't do it, and if you do it anyway, well, you deserve whatever bad things happen to you." Think of it this way: lots of teens are going to drive recklessly, there's no way around it, even if they pass their driving test with flying colors. The least you can do is have the decency to remind them to wear a seatbelt.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

Why don't they just teach kids how to masturbate and provide them with porn? ;)
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

This is also another great way to prevent the pregnancies! ;)
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: Yes

too much masturbation causes problems and porn is known to be addictive and a great way to screw up relationships. Why don't we tell the kids EVERYTHING about teen sex, including its consequences and opinions/experiences from people who are or used to be sexually active so that the kids can decide whether they really wanna do this. and if they will hand out condoms, get parent approval first.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

No, a lot of kids will just end up making water balloons out of them. ;)
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

It is not the job of the schools, the taxpayers, or society for that matter to supply condoms. The "teenagers have sex" argument is ridiculous and absurd. Condoms aren't that expensive and if you have any skills at all can be easily stolen. Also, this might be ever so slightly controversial, but has anyone ever even thought of NOT HAVING SEX!?! I KNOW it's hard, but weighing between dropping out of school to take care of kids and not having to worry about that crap at all, is hardy a choice, if of course you have a brain. And even if abstaining is completely impractical, that still doesn't answer the more philosophical questions about this topic. Should taxpayers be forced to supply condoms in such a controversial venue? I should think not, but then again personal responsibiliy and common sense are dead, so this is to be expected. Another question is, if provided, would the students actually USE them. Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this? They can't even provide a quality education, how can we expect them to provide quality condoms, or quality anything for that matter? It may be naive of me to believe that abstention is not hard at all. (Maybe they can just resort to anal or oral, as opposed to vaginal?) But it is just as naive, if not more so, to believe that the schools can fix this problem. If it starts in the home that's where it needs to be fixed. Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools. Whatever happened to the Three R's? I guess now it's four, Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic, and sexual Reproduction classes.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

Condoms aren't that expensive and if you have any skills at all can be easily stolen.Are you actually advocating thievery?Also, this might be ever so slightly controversial, but has anyone ever even thought of NOT HAVING SEX!?!You are a revolutionary! Quick, take your idea to the news, so that they might educate the ignorant masses of this amazing new idea!Abstinence only education does not work. I KNOW it's hard, but weighing between dropping out of school to take care of kids and not having to worry about that crap at all, is hardy a choice, if of course you have a brain. There are more choices than abstinence, or have a baby. We are talking about contraceptives, after all. Should taxpayers be forced to supply condoms in such a controversial venue?I understand the other side of this issue but I do not see a very obvious flaw being addressed. If the issue is that people do not want more of their money taken for public health, then what happens when teenagers do not have easier access to condoms, don't use them as often, and STDs and pregnancies are more common? The alternative is far more expensive. Condoms are generally uncomfortble, and sure there are some brands out there that make it feel like you're not wearing one, but can we expect the schools to provide this?Why not? It may be naive of me to believe that abstention is not hard at all.Yes. It is naive. But it is just as naive, if not more so, to believe that the schools can fix this problem. Providing easier, anonymous access to contraceptives, combined with comprehensive sex education, would help. Schools are capable of doing this. Parents need to start giving their kids the talk, and not schools. If parents neglect to do this, then the cost their child may incur is the responsibility of everyone. Parents who wish their children to only practice abstinence are still free to raise them in a way that encourages such a procedure. Easily accessible contraceptives just ensure that a child who disobeys is not permanently afflicted with a disease or a child because of it.
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: yes

There are countless things that would make society better. Not all of them are possible. Expecting all teenagers to remain completely abstinent is among these things.What is agreeable about a society which suppresses the romantic instincts of its youth?
Debate: Should condoms be made available in high schools?
Side: No

I was referring to teenagers remaining voluntarily abstintent, which is what this person appears to expect them to do. Although voluntary abstinence is something that simply cannot be relied upon, the effects of it (nearly nonexistent rates of STDs and accidental pregnancies) would indeed be agreeable for society in general.