azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

OK lets see, I had sex,without a condom.Then I end the life of what i would have reproduced,simply because i was irresponsible.That makes a lot of sense.Kill a baby because you went sleeping around and didn't want it...HOW EVIL IS THAT?!
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

That makes no sense whatsoever. According to the typical Christian beliefs, abortion is murder of a child. Would you say that since God has everything planned out, Christians shouldn't try to stop people from abusing their children? That if there's a country where people are being tortured to death by their government, Christians should sit back and be fine with it because obviously it's all in God's plan? According to your logic, that would have to be true, but I'm pretty sure you'd find very few people to agree with you on that one.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

ABORTION IS MURDERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

I am a Christian and while I have never (and would never) campaign against abortion; I (unlike many, both Christian and atheist alike) try my best not to tell others what they can and can't do.I think both sides should stfu about it.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

And yeah... I hope people realize that being a Christian and following the Bible word for word are not the same thing, especially in certain Christian denominations.Being a Christian as the name implies is about believing in Jesus Christ being the son of God and dying for out sins. Otherwise; there is not CHRIST in Christians. That would pretty much just make them theist of some other sort.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

And yeah... I hope people realize that being a Christian and following the Bible word for word are not the same thing, especially in certain Christian denominations.This is something that perplexes me. Is the bible not the infallible word of God? Can pick'n'mix religion ever have a leg to stand on when it is obvious that they have man made rules?
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

I am saying that there is a difference between reading the Bible and actually being a Christian: Christians are SUPPOSED to read the Bible, and keep it: but reading the Bible and keeping it isn't what makes people a Christian.It's the difference between studying the law and becoming a lawyer, or taking a science class and actually being a scientist.That is what I'm saying.But the main example I'm trying to put is how some people call themselves Christians because they read the Bible, but they aren't Christian because they don't believe in Christ.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Should STFU

I am saying that there is a difference between reading the Bible and actually being a Christian:True I'm not a Christian and I've read it.Christians are SUPPOSED to read the Bible, and keep it: but reading the Bible and keeping it isn't what makes people a Christian.I'm aware of this, and it is what I find confusing, I'd say of all the world religions Christianity has the the most schisms, if you discount the old testament you can technically distance yourself from the Jews and Muslims but there are so many more under the Christian banner, it seems that man can not agree on which teachings to base their beliefs in, if they did there would only be Roman Catholicism, and we all know how that went.It's the difference between studying the law and becoming a lawyer, or taking a science class and actually being a scientist.I can't really agree here, a lawyer or scientist are practitioners of specifically man made rules, open to fallibility and ridicule in a way that religions are not, those that study a small piece of these things can have a skewed knowledge but there are places to go to get this set right, religious dogma does not work the same.But the main example I'm trying to put is how some people call themselves Christians because they read the Bible, but they aren't Christian because they don't believe in Christ.I definitely see your point here, I was not aware of Christians that did not believe in Christ, kind of silly in a way, it's like an Atheist that believes in God.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

But I DO agree that pick-and-mix religions are wrong at the foundation...If you're going to use the title of a religion you need to commit yourself FULLY to it; the good and the bad. Otherwise it shows that the person is two-faced, and weak. <__< I wonder what arguments I shall get for this one
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

To get a feel for what I'm talking about read my arguments with Billie and Genesis1vs1, it think that maybe you'd be a decent rational debater that I could have a battle with on this subject as both of those descended into name-calling or similar childish defense.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

no the christians should not stop compaigning against abortion since it is unmoral in their eyes and since they have the freedom of speach but i do belive christian extremists should stop protesting violantly also as robert casey said in 1990 77 percent of people believed that abortion was murder
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

This debate wasn't really about that. I said it up as a trap. Have another look at the debate description.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Should STFU

First off it's spelt IMMORAL, not UNMORAL. Also I guarantee that the majority off those supposed 77% haven't researched abortion at all.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Should STFU

"no the christians should not stop compaigning against abortion since it is unmoral in their eyes "I think amoral is better used in that sentence as the Christians really don't know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to this issue."since they have the freedom of speach "They can keep blowing out hot air but there are fewer and fewer people listening thank god (pun intended).
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

So you as a nonChristian knows what Christians should believe and what we are all about? LMAOYou are the secular humanist...you are the moral relativist who does not believe there is right and wrong remember? You reject authority and find nothing wrong with killing if it suits your purpose. Abortion is fine to you throughout the nine months.....wow what a compassionate chap you are Gary. You don't know squat about abortion. Nadda nothing. Thank God.........well honey if what we believe is right...you will be doing more than blowing hot air. LOL Pun intended.And you can think back on this conversation about how you mocked God and those that believed in Him. And when God looks at you Gary and says....Why didn't you stand up for the unborn...what will you say then? I would give anything to be a fly on the wall...but I won't care. The fact is GAry......let me educate you here.And gee why do you troll around the Christian threads.....if you can't stand what we are all about. I have noticed that.....but be the love in your secular heart eh?Anyway....abortion is a tough issue because most people with a brain know what abortion does. If it did not kill a living human being......it would not be an issue and would not divide political parties. But it is killing an innocent livign life. The abortionists goal Gary is to kill during the medical procedure. His job is not done until.......the unborn is dead and all contents are gone and not left in the woman. The goal Gary is death to the unborn. This is contrary to all the scriptures in the bible. It is contrary to all those what really love God and stand on the Word. Those that CLAIM to be Christian and are pro-choice are really pro-abortion and will also have to answer to God. For a believer in Christ standing up for the life in the womb is not blowing hot air. Only to a moron...who is so self centered that he can't see beyond his own ego would abortion be acceptable. The question here was poorly written...but then if someone set it up this poorly I highly doubt they know much more about abortion than you do.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

Hmph. Unless you are saying them should stop campaigning ONLY because of their beliefs I would agree with you. But why should Christians be the only one to shut up? Not every christian is against abortion, and not every anti-abortionist/pro-lifer has their opinions on it based on their religion either.I know I don't.People have every right to form their opinions on something, just like others have the right to support something.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

This debate wasn't really about abortion directly, I was trying to debate some Christians about free will, but this was fruitless. So I set it up as a logical trap as abortion is a hot topic that get's people worked up.I have no problem with peoples' right to protest and would never wish to deny such.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

In this fine country (GO USA!), people are allowed to voice their opinions regardless of what anyone thinks of them. Whether you like it or not, they have the right to speak out against it just like proponents of abortion have the right to speak for it.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

This is a copypasta from another dispute I've had on this topic so I'll just let you know the same as it is only fair."This debate wasn't really about abortion directly, I was trying to debate some Christians about free will, but this was fruitless. So I set it up as a logical trap as abortion is a hot topic that get's people worked up.I have no problem with peoples' right to protest and would never wish to deny such."
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

They definitely have every right; if a non-Christian is allowed to campaign for abortion / against abortion then a Christian should be allowed to do the same they shouldn't be discriminated for because of their religion.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Should STFU

This is a copypasta from another dispute I've had on this topic so I'll just let you know the same as it is only fair."This debate wasn't really about abortion directly, I was trying to debate some Christians about free will, but this was fruitless. So I set it up as a logical trap as abortion is a hot topic that get's people worked up.I have no problem with peoples' right to protest and would never wish to deny such."
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_popout&v=fKyljukBE70#!A
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Should STFU

Didn't take you as a point whore.
Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Have every right.

If a person feels that abortion is wrong, such a person has the right to voice his objection.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years. Carbon dioxide level (per million) it has been elevated since the 1950's.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Could you list your sources? And do you know any specific things that the humans did to create climate change 1,300 years ago?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

While it's proven that Climate Change has been around for millions of years, it is not an excuse that humans aren't contributing to the recent rise in levels of CO2, N, and C in the air. When fossil fuels are burned to make energy, as it is in factories and for cars, it releases harmful molecules into the atmosphere that trap UV rays from the sun and eventually warm the earth over time. And now that deforestation and pollution, that kills of vegetation, is hugely popular around the world, it is almost impossible for plants to create and displace the greenhouse gases in the air. Not only has our skyrocketing number of world population demanded more space, but also food. Agriculture is a tremendous contributor to the Nitrogen levels from animal feces. Yes, animal poop is not directly made by humans, but induced because of our farming habits. And with a warming period upon us that has had the highest level of nitrogen in the last 40 million years, it shows that since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have been one of the main contributors to Global Warming and Climate Change.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

I must ask you just one thing: what would you tell a Young Earth Creationist? How would explain to a individual who would tell you the Earth is somewhere to four-thousand to five-thousand years of age? This comes from pure curiosity... I would never support such a ridiculous ideal like YEC.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

By burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, humans have added nearly 400 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere between 1870 and 2013. Owning to the fact that over the past 100 years the oceans' acidity has risen by 30%, therefore effecting the plant life, such as algae. The impact of the oceans becoming acidic devastates algae in a sense of decreasing the amount of oxygen, killing algae. Troubling "us" in view of the fact of algae by being one of the aquatic life that consumes CO2(Carbon Dioxide), making CO2 levels escalate quicker than if these fossil fuels were not to get burned. Just some facts.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

By relying entirely upon facts and not the prospective opposite, you have become a mere populist to the science you state. I would suggest for the purpose of your posts, that you stray from the methodology you have taken upon yourself and have your writing theme take upon a movement towards less statistical posts. Without arguments with a structural basis of facts, the post can be considered more original or creative than other individuals- since you have to develop your own thoughts into worldly ideologies instead of fact-thoughts. To give a primitive outline of the whole of my remarks I will state a competitive state of thought that has existed for many a year- similar to the difference I see with the issue of your stylistic format to the one which I utilize: it would be considered of similarity to the rationalism vs empiricism debate that has existed since times start. Postulate your own thoughts, do not make them become reliant on evidence as induced by empirical facts. This is just a thought, so of course you do not have to take this into effect...
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

To ask people on a debate about a scientific issue to form arguments that are not reliant on empirical facts is to ask them to debate a scientific issue in a non-scientific way. What's the point of debating science if you are going to ask people to dismiss empirical evidence?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Your every where.................................................
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Locke-J's opinion is stated when they picked this side of the debate even after seeing all the data.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

My remarks on Lock-J's comment were purely on the way in which the debater goes about making arguments not on what may be his or her 'opinion.'
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

But you want LockeJ to use less facts and statistics??? I don't understand.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

As is very often the case here on CD, I notice that the Debate thread title and it's description are not specific enough.There can be absolutely NO doubt that the Earth's climate has changed fairly significantly over the past couple of decades or so. There can also be no doubt that during that period--which, BTW, is incredibly brief when compared to geological time--we have seen some perplexing aberrations in our weather.But the Million Dollar Question is: Why?That is to ask: Are these changes simply a part of the Weather Cycle? Since, after all, almost ALL things in nature DO work in cyclical fashion.Or, rather, are these changes man-made? Has our pollution and Co2 emissions, our fossil fuel usage, actually altered the global atmosphere and caused, or at least exacerbated these climactic changes.So, Debate Author: If you kindly elaborate on your debate title, I will offer my thoughts on this topic. I am assuming you are asking us if we think GW is due to us. Mankind. But I am not sure.Meanwhile you might want to check-out this link, as it offers some nice perspective and insight on issues regarding climate change, as well as global warming.................http://www.earthhour.org/blog/10-myths-climate-change-busted-part-1
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Thank you for your comments. I struggled with creating this debate. Unfortunately, CD only allows for a set amount of characters when you create your question. But, I will see if I can add the man-made piece. That is definitely the view I intended for this debate.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

There is a section called "issue description" in the debate creator interface. You can use that to clarify the debate prompt.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

“Punta Arenas authorities have recommended the local population to take the normal precautions for this annual phenomenon basically limiting time exposure to the sun, long sleeves, wide brim hats, UV protection sunglasses and sun cream.They also cautioned that even with cloudy skies UV rays are equally intense and dangerous since radiation equally gets through.Claudio Casiccia, head of the Ozone Laboratory said that the high UV indexes can be explained for two main reasons: first as the summer season approaches, the ozone angle becomes more perpendicular, particularly from September until January. Secondly, for the next five days the Antarctic Ozone Hole will be marking its peak approach to the south of Chile (and Argentina).The regional delegate from the Chilean Health Ministry Maria Isabel Banciella called on parents to pay special attention to children and teenagers whom must be protected from sun exposure and unexpected radiation.”This statement is from a new article regarding the radiation exposure in patagonia, due to the hole in the Ozone layer.The Ozone layer’s structure is particularly vulnerable to CFC’s produced my aerosol, & refrigerants. This is due to human activity including Spray cans & well refrigerant, Antarctica had previously weak Ozone protection but when human kind produced these CFC’s in mass it scorched to the weak antarctic zones to puncture/deteriorate the slim remnant causing this alert to take place
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

People need to stop burning dead dinosaurs. It is bad for the air cats. The north pole is being destroyed by dinosaur fumes. Please stop making St. Nick mad. He will not give you presents this year if you continue to breath bad dino fumes on his home. Listen to the Illuminati people. They will tell you how to live.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

St. Nick will drown in the murky depths of the melting ice caps. If we keep doing what we're doing, we will never get presents again, for he will be DEAD. It's time we help save that jolly old man like he saved our souls from satanism (with the exception of a few, Natasha.) It shall essentially be our primary goal to end this wretched stench of our becoming deaths as well as his.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

This entire conflict has risen to notice since the industrial revolution. Considering that our population is constantly rising at an extreme rate, 7 Billion people create a lot of harmful gases. They need a home(which calls for wood and heating), a car(which calls for gas and oil), and food(which calls for farming with excessive amounts of nitrogen being released from manures). Not to mention businesses with factories releasing these harmful gases, not worrying about the footprint they leave, in an attempt to make a profit. Humans have made the companies, cars, homes, and everything else that is a main contributor to Climate Change. So while it is not 'technically' coming from humans, we created these things so it's indirectly coming from humans.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

The greatest of conflicting dilemmas facing a race known as man: overpopulation.I agree to the relative point you made.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Well, yes.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

I'd appreciate if you please state your sources and arguments so I may actually have a good argument to base my specific views off of and discuss with you.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Click the yes, it will send you to a link.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

I realize he has an article, but he doesn't state his exact thoughts of the article. If I am to argue with another civilian I'd like to know the EXACT way they are processing certain information by using one's own conversing thoughts.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

How do you know that isn't his exact thoughts?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

From the perspective that is my own, I would say that what it seems that Nana-Ilama was trying to infer, that Jace was not offering any considerations from the evidence that was cited. Nana-Ilama was- as would make most sense- making note that to there self it seemed as though Jace did not interpret the text to fit specified thoughts that are original to Jace. Example: I may read a literature text and say that certain points made by the author through the medium of character representation are correct but I have just based my basis entirely on what the author told me. Just stating yes to a argument is not applicable to making a well thought out argument-- according to what may be Nana-Ilama's thoughts.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

He posted on the side "Climate Change is True", gave a statement of affirmation, and provided evidence that supports said affirmation.So basically, he did state his thoughts of the article.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

There was no need to elaborate beyond the link. The question posed is whether climate change is false or true. The answer provided by this article to that end is in line with my views.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

"Manmade" is a stretch. Man "stimulated" and guilty of making a bad thing MUCH worse is not, in the least, a stretch! Choosing to ignore the responsibility of his part, and refusing to try to correct those mistakes, is treasonous against mankind AND is an abuse of "Gods Creation" (if you must)!