azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

I find it laughable that we can't come up with a computer model that can accurately forecast the weather in five days but yet we have a different computer model that will definitely, according to some alarmists, give us exactly what the Earth will be like in 100 years. Sorry, I am not that gullible.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

It isn't a matter of gullibility. It's the classic "We can put a man on the moon, but we can't make a beer that stays cold" type of shtick. It is essentially a meaningless comparison.Edit: I also wanted to respond to a comment you made on a closed-off debate.You said:"What is so ironic according to Obama is that when these terrorist attacks happen elsewhere around the globe it is due to global warming but when they happen here in the USA it is the NRAs fault. California is in a severe drought but yet Obama won't blame global warming for this attack, no it is a gun problem. He is seriously delusional."And provided this link: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/say-what-obama-links-global-warming-boko-haram-isis The link quotes this: " "Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world," the president said. "Yet, what we also know is that severe drought helped create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.""It's now believed," Obama added, "that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.""Now, where is the issue? You seem to be mocking him for that comment, but can't you admit that, if one does believe that Antropogenic Climate Change exists, then what he is saying makes perfect sense?
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Cloning endangered species can allow a population boom in that species and prevent their extinction.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Changing the very structure of an ecosystem can have harmful effects on an environment. In the same that killing a population can hurt an ecosystem, creating an excess amount of organisms can have irreversible effects. Nature should be allowed to conduct itself how it wants naturally.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning endangered species creates genetically identical individuals that are all susceptible to the exact same conditions, diseases, have the same immune system capacity...A disease originating in one of the individuals will easily spread between individuals, and that is more likely to lead to extinction.Also, to make such a solution viable, the clones would need to reproduce, possibly passing on recessive alleles, making a genetic condition in the offspring become apparent - which could cause a condition that leads to them being out-competed and, eventual extinction.All roads lead to extinction - it's best, in my opinion, to create safe breeding environments for endangered species, that are protected, enabling numbers to increase, without the 'inbreeding'.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

But for reals: Cloning allows us to weed out imperfections in crops or other organisms
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Actually, getting rid of imperfections isn't a god thing. We only getrid of thing we dont think are important, and could be a deciding factor to the whole race. We, as humans, are only gonna breed treits in organisms useful to us.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Yeah why shouldn't we? We can breed any traits we want into any specimen we want. This would be very beneficial.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

"Why shouldn't we?"To get rid of imperfections is something that isn't something we are scientifically prepared to do yet without making some, possibly catastrophic, mistakes. For us to get rid of imperfections we would have to try to be very careful, or we may accidentally remove something that is good from a species. - Another problem is that removing imperfections may not be good because what we see as an imperfection may not be an imperfection. For example, if I remove something from a creature that I do not think is necessary, and it actually is vital, then I could kill that creature. Is that a good thing? -Cloning is very expensive. Cloning is something with a very high cost, and a very high failure rate, add those two things together and you have something that really might not be worth the trouble; especially if you make a mistake. Cloning is therefore something that is not cost-productive and too many mistakes in such a thing would result in a lot of money-loss. ConclusionCloning to get rid of imperfections may not be a good thing because we may make huge mistakes and when added to the cost of spending time cloning, this really wouldn't be a good thing.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

by studying cloning, scientists can research genetics more thoroughly. It could help to understand gene compostions better and the effects that genes have on human nature and personality.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Extinct species can be brought back into existence. If DNA is preserved, that DNA can be cloned and produce new species through surrogate mothers.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

but surrogate mothers have a very negative affect http://www.ehow.com/list_7630988_bad-things-surrogacy.html
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Infertile women are able to have babies through cloning and surrogate mothers.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

"Pharming" can advance through cloning. Farm animals produce pharmaceuticals. More farm animals, more pharmaceuticals.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Although it has a low rate of success, cloning is a new procedure. Who knows what the future will bring? Like any other science, cloning could become incredibly efficient and safer. I feel that the pros to cloning outweigh the drawbacks and issues we face today.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Exactly, Jarebear says it all right there and that's why he'll be president someday
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

In scene, we cannot afford the lives of originals and clones for what you "feel". There needs to be a point where we have to stop cloning and cease this immoral behavior.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

It is not how I "feel". Look at our world today. So much has changed, in very little time. Scientific procedures develop so quickly today that there are very few procedures that do not make critical progress. You also make it very unclear as to what is "immoral" about this "behavior" (mind you it is not a behavior, it is a procedure).
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

It is not right to debase the life of a clone to support the original. The procedure in itself is immoral for it violates the essential rights of liberty for a human.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Clones are not meant to be made into people. Most of the time, clones are seen as tools or devices to be used to aid in human advancement. Clones would not be walking around in the world like we do
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

If they are not walking around in the world, then what are we doing with them? If we clone humans, will we just store them until we need them?
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

by supporting cloning, it does not mean that the only clones will be human. Cloning can be used to help weed out diseases in plants and animals. Cloning can also be used to create tissue or organs, without creating an entire person
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Not "meant" to ..what? There is no "meant to" or "not meant to". By suggesting there is, you're assuming there is some intelligence out there that decides things.Wrong.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

cloning technology can be used in the future to allow a couple with a sterile partner to still have children with DNA from both parents.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

But cloning is different from artificial insemiantion in that cloning makes a exact copy of a person with the same genes and artifical insemination is taking genes from two parents and putting it into an egg. Also, since cloning has such a high failure rate, then it may not be good to get a baby that has deformities from cloning.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Cloning can help cure diseases and illness. Cloning cells can help cure diseases like alzheimers, heart disease and cancer.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning also creates diseases and cloned organisms often turn out to have LOS, "Large Offspring Syndrome", where organisms are born with abnormally large organs that lead to breathing and blood flow problems. You might say that LOS is a rare case but it isn't only LOS clones that get illnesses, cloned organisms without it can have kidney or brain malformations and impaired immune systems that cause them serious problems.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Your argument is invalid! Cloning is the way of the future!
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Cloning doesn't really harm anyone while having huge benefits such as repopulating endangered animals and creating animals that have desirable traits by cloning animals with traits that are needed or wanted.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Focused breeding is dangerous. When you breed to maximize positive traits, you unintentionally maximize negative ones, too. Look at the chickens that can't walk, or the roosters that go on killing sprees. Cloning is just another extremity added to that process.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Cloning human organs can be helpful to patients who need transplants, e.g. hearts, kidneys, etc.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Julia is always correct therefore cloning is good and we win
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

While this is true, and a definite benefit of cloning, all you're doing is creating sets of "spare parts." If an alcoholic needs a new liver, because he has ruined his own liver, when will he learn that he is not invincible?
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

The gravity of cloning technology will be shaped by society. Lawmakers will set restrictions on cloned organs, as in how many cloned organs one can receive before health care does not pay for it.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

And what about the clones who are forced to give up their organs? The possibility of creating clones just for organ donation is too dangerous. Isolated organ cloning comes from stem cells, destroying an entire life to give one organ to a human whose use of it is questionable. It's not worth negating an entire lifetime to give a living human 10 more years.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Won't that simply create a cloning "black market," even more dangerous than open cloning? The illegal use of technology, like the omnipresent meth lab or illegitimate abortion, proves that no democratic government can truly fully regulate any technology. Government regulation couldn't possibly control cloning fully, and would create an illegitimate and dangerous market.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Diseased animals can benefit from cloning. In order to fix the problem within diseased animals, animals must go through generations and generations. Cloning can speed up this process and allow scientists to find the problems of diseased animals sooner.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

"Diseased animals can benefit from cloning"At the moment cloning is very imprecise. The current success rate for cloning is about 0.1 to 3%. This means that for very thousand clones, only about thirty are made, maximum, and of these there is a 1% survival rate. Diseased animals may benefit from cloning but the time that it would take for a single clone to be made would be huge, and then, after that, some time must be reserved for experimenting on the animal and searching for ways to help the diseased animals. -Cloning isn't cost-efficient.To clone a human it may take about 1.7 to 2 million pounds to successfully clone someone. Wouldn't it be easier to just let the diseased animal die? If cloning costs so much then how can you expect people to be able to sustain it so that it actually benefits a race without crashing their stock markets?
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Species that have a difficult time reproducing can be repopulated. Cloning can be used to repopulate endangered species!
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

TEAM JAREBEAR FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

1) Organ Replacement - Organs can be cloned to be used as backups in case someone's organs fail2) Substitute for Natural Reproduction - Can help in cases of infertility and also some qualities of the children could be controlled3) Help in Genetic Research - Scientists could understand genes better and also learn how to better fight genetic diseases4) Obtaining specific traits in organisms - Customized organisms could be created that benefit research
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Yes, I am for cloning. I think it would be very cool to have an unlimited supply of body parts available as needed...yet, since I am da Christiand and catholic (I guess) I often wonder about the soul issue. Would the clone have one? Are they and individual? Do they have part of my soul? If I die do they retain my soul? Uh Oh, maye messing with cloning is a bad idea?
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

The concept of a soul was invented to explain why we live and have emotions, compared to non-living things.Since we now know how we live (various functions in the body, cells, bacteria) and have emotions (via brain chemicals,) we should be able to let go of this mythical concept...
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Cloning will also be good for humans. We can clone ourselves, and then put ourselves into our new cloned bodies after we rid ourselves of whatever abnormalities we were suffering from so they don't happen again.Cloning is going to be awesome.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

I think it would raise the ecOnomy, but it also sound really COol and it would make a cool movie
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Someone will do it eventually, we may as well get the mistakes out of the way as soon as soon as possible. If used responsibly, cloning could have huge benefits.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Cloning is good................................................................................
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

I think it could be useful, and it's interesting. I don't see any concerns with creating a new being as long as you look after it properly and not purposely make it suffer.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Jurassic Park is probably the coolest thing I've ever seen... other than a wild Jarebear, those are even better
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

clone more white people.. clone more straight people, clone more and more.........
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

clone more racists,, clone more racists ,, clone more straight people,, clone more believers in god,,, clone more racists, cause dint you know, anything goes this world......
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

It's the future and it's going to happen one way or another, so we might as well reap the benefits.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

I think cloning will bring about the discovery to grow limbs for amputees.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning minimizes the gene pool. It lowers genetic variation between humans, decreasing the odds of proper genetic selection. It could lead to increased genetic disease (similar to the products of inbreeding), and interferes with the process of evolution.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

5000 points for Gryffindor! David is correct in that people will soon have no need to reproduce, since cloning is just as easy.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

This might further isolate humans. We have become somewhat lonelier and isolated from each other with such rapid advancements in technology, so if we no longer need to reproduce sexually, what will happen to the meaning of marriage/love/etc?
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

It doesn't mean that will stop it just means that there will be other ways for people who are, for the sake of the argument, infertile and want a child, Cloning would give them that opportunity.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

That is true, however, human clones would not be roaming the streets and reproducing. The human clones would be used for medical support. Plants and other animals that have been cloned will have a minimized gene pools, but they would most likely be used for farming and harvesting for food. Inbreeding would not occur if it is the same set of genetic code being repeated
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Cloning should not be used to replace the way organisms reproduce, it should be used more as a cure. While I agree that massive cloning would result in less variation, cloning does not have to be used in this way. Instead, we can use cloning to cure individuals, and does not necessarily mean that we will genetically modify people all the time.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

While cloning is a new technology with many possibilities, it is incredibly unlikely that reproductive cloning will completely replace sexual reproduction.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning is immoral, expensive, and can fall into the wrong hands. The main reason why cloning is unaccepted by many is that it is not right that scientists can "play God" and control the traits of a person. Stem-cell research is expensive, requiring many trials and errors. (Dolly the Sheep was the 276th attempt). Lastly, cloning may fall into the wrong hands. Political leaders, whether good or bad, may be cloned. Murderers and other criminals can be cloned to continuously commit crimes. All in all, cloning is unjust and should stop
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

yep! this is completely right in every way. okay this thing requires 50 characters so now I'm just filling this up wooo
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Even if political leaders or other unsavory individuals were cloned, that does not necessarily mean that the clone would become the same exact person. This clone would grow up in a different environment. Not all traits are carried in genes, some are nurture, not nature.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning is dangerous! Especially in its current state of testing. It took hundreds of failed embryos to produce Dolly, and Dolly, the longest-lived clone, only lasted a short while before she was overcome by genetic problems.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Any new medical technology is dangerous! Cloning is clearly a very new process, and doctors and scientists will eventually make it less dangerous and more efficient.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Are we going to allow thousands to die as we develop technology to play God? It's too immoral.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Thousands will die if we do not develop this technology. Playing God has always been a goal in human history, but instead of immense power, we are aiming for the power to create life which will help extend the lives of many
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

People and animals already die in experimental procedures, drug trials, and science experiments huge breakthroughs that have helped thousands of people overcome illness and other problems the experiments involved to clone are no worse and no better than any of these other experiments do you expect all of this research to just stop letting huge numbers of diseases to kill without any idea of how to solve it
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning is a fairly new process. It is far from perfected and poses many problems and risks to human life.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Removing the nucleus from a cell (used in SCNT) is a dangerous process.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

The risk of cloning for organ farming is immense. Cloning can't legitimately eliminate donations, only the need for human donations. Imagine the emotional turmoil, not to mention the ethical questions raised, of a person created for the purpose of organ donation.As for growing organs separately, that's a stem cell technology that eliminates human life. What right have we to destroy an entire life just to harvest a couple organs?
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

My Sister's Keeper was a book about a family whose daughter was diagnosed with cancer. Once the parents found out, they had another child to be used for "parts." If there were clones, a new, original human life would not be used to try to cure those who were granted life. Instead, the clone would be used as a vestibule for parts.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

How can we justify this? Clones are human beings. They're not created sexually, but they are humans. The idea of using a human as an organ "vestibule" is terrible.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

We use plants and other animals to aid our medicines and other chemicals to help us live. Are human lives more important than the other life forms on our planet? Just because a human has the ability to speak and think does not make it any more special than an elephant or a tiger or an oak tree.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

So the clone's life has less meaning because it is simply used to supply the original? Debasing the clone's life is immoral, violating human rights.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

The life of a clone was created by humans, it is just the same as harvesting plants for our medicine. That takes life too, but I am sure you have taken many medicines that have used up plants or other life forms. To say humans have more of a right to life than another organism is not right either.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning is currently a very imprecise science at this point with only 1 or 2 successful occurrences out of 100. We often argue on the merits of a human life in regards to abortion and that it is cruel, but with cloning we make a life that is often deformed and doomed to die, which many clones do die from infections and unknown causes. Too much cloning would also eliminate natural variation in nature because it would be the same genes being spread around and defying nature. Is it right to farm organs and such for our own profit if it means having to test, and fail greatly, in order to advance the cloning science? Probably not.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

Nothing is perfect right away, everything has to go through its ups and downs before it becomes acceptable. Obviously there might not be the best results at first but the organ replacement and cloning will be beneficial in the future.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

well your stupid clones are cool! Remember star wars the republic would have lost way faster without clones!
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Oh, I didn't know that this happened to be the star wars debate...
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning is a new discovery in science and is most certainly not perfected. When cloning Dolly the sheep, it took over 250 attempts to get the sheep.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

what happened to reproduction!!!!!!Jeez what has happened to us nowadays?Cloning = no good
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

If we clone we will be copieing our selfs. Do you realy want someone out there who know all the information you do?Do you want a selected group of people to get the power to be god? The ONLY reason i think cloaning would be good would be in war when we are short on men.
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

The ONLY reason i think cloning would be good would be in war when we are short on men.So, the start of the Clone Wars?
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Cloning takes away the meaning of individuality! Who are YOU as an individual if there are 3 other clones of you that are exactly the same?
Debate: Cloning
Side: Against Cloning

Lauren is right! Cloning not only makes the clone inferior to the original, but also debases the individuality of the original.
Debate: Cloning
Side: For Cloning

But you arn't exactly the same your personality and choices are changed by the individual basses on situations and differences in their life clones are just as individual as identical twins