azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

I don't believe that life begins at conception. That idea stems from the Christian idea of the soul, a belief that is baseless and irrational.I believe that there is a continuum whereby a fertilized egg gradually becomes a human. I believe there is certainly nothing wrong with destroying a single fertilized egg.However, I do believe that aborting a fetus toward the end of a pregnancy (say 8 months) is in fact murder. You are taking a human life (or at least something very close to human), and that is certainly against the law.A woman should not have a choice about whether to have a late-term abortion for the same reasons she should not have a choice to commit the murder of an adult.Our laws need to take this progression from potential life to realized life into account.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

OK let me get this straight, you're in favor of laws that recognize that a fetus is in fact a future baby; is in fact human life. But you're against outlawing abortion outright? Look there's no gray area in this issue. Either we allow abortions or we don't. Just because a fetus at 8-months looks more like an already born baby doesn't mean that it's any different from the embryo that was formed in the mother's womb 8 months earlier. I don't see how there is any difference between a late-term abortion and an abortion the morning after. In both cases a human life is being extinguished before it ever had a chance to be born.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

I assume your position is this: At the moment an egg is fertilized, it has been infused with a soul -- it has been "touched by God" and therefore destroying it is a kind of blasphemy.Well I don't believe in God and I do not believe in the Christian version of the soul, so this framework doesn't work for me. The way I see it you do not have a "human life" until the entity can think and feel. Since a fertilized egg or an embryo can neither think nor feel, it is for all practical purposes no different than a clump of dirt out of which life can spring. There is nothing wrong with destroying a potential human, but there is something wrong with destroying a realized human. So where is the line between a clump of cells that can neither think nor feel and a human being? Well, the fact is, it's not a line, but a continuum. I'm saying it's a difficult moral problem and our laws should reflect that complexity.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

So, since you are pro-life, how many children have you adopted?
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

So considering I'm barely an adult and couldn't possibly support a child I think that it's a non-issue.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

If you have an opinion on abortion, then you must have an opinion on why you/your family/your parents/etc do not have any adopted children. I'm interested where anti-abortion groups want all these adopted children to go, since most "pro-lifers" do not adopt.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

Where do you draw the line (8 months)? Why 8 months? If we are a "continuim" than why can't it be 9 months gestation or even 1 day old? With your strain of logic the whole issue of pro choice becomes even more subjective than before. You are saying that you are autonomous & you can decide when life really begins for you and I can decide for me. There are even schools of thought out there (google it) that believe that a woman should have 30 days after she gives birth to decide whether or not she wants to abort.And, furthermore why would you concede that abortion in the last trimester is considered murder? By what standard can you make such a claim? Why is murder wrong? You could appeal to the fact it is written in our laws that murder is a crime, but where did that come from? I would encourage you & anyone (pro-life or pro choice) to really study the beliefs & standards your very founding fathers stood upon. The very reason that we can have this debate rests on a freedom that was handed down to us. The very least we owe those that have gone before us is to study & listen to their reasons for establishing this nation. I guarantee you that they believed we all have a soul.One last comment & I'll be through.....if we don't have a soul then we do not have a real hope. This topic is a completely different debate, but I believe that as our culture embraces your line of thinking more & more (that we do not have a soul) we will become more & more obsessed with youth & become so self obsorbed to the point that we will no longer procreate b/c of our own hopelessness. Just a thought....
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

as the Feminazi boomers say "It's like taking away our right to vote".
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

Huh? How does that follow?Late term abortion = taking a human life = murder.How do you get around that?Also, must you use the term "feminazi?" Equating anybody with the Nazis is pretty damn harsh.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

i don't know, that's what they say. feminazis have actually made it a case that taking away any abortion rights is like taking away their right to vote.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

i think it is OK to be pro-choice as long as you give the baby the choice to live or die. another good pro-choice is abstinence, birth control, and adoption. if you don't want to have a kid chose one of thoes
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

I am PRO-LIFE. Life begins at the moment of conception. However, I find it diffucult to understand the justification of pregnancies from rapes and molestations. Not just 'mistakes'. I believe that if it is going to cause harm to the baby, that is when an abortion should be considered. I'm not saying abortion for down-syndrome children. That's not an exception. However, if the baby will live ONLY in misery, without any moment free of pain. You want what is best. It's a sensitive topic. With lots of controversy, but DO NOT tell me it's the womans 'right'. I will NOT tolerate such absurb comments.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

Do you mean to say that you cannot justify an abortion if a woman was raped or molested? If so, do you also rule out abortion for a 12 year old child or a mother who might die giving birth? The only point I can possibly agree on is that it's NOT an inherent woman's right but a question that has been passed into law making it a right. But it is, no matter what, a woman's choice...and I mean a WOMAN, not a child.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

Oh my, here I go again. Listen buddy, if your going to start contradicting EVERYTHING I say PLEASE have the courtesy of reading the article! Dimwit. I said I'm not sure on how to approach that. If it endangers the life of ANYONE that time, and ONLY that time should abortion be even considered. I am pro-life when a woman becomes pregnant by 'mistake' then you should either have the child and care for it to the best of your ability or give it up for adoption. Something I find interesting about your uhh shall we say 'rebuttals' is that they contain no stance of your own? So, tell me. Are you another narrow-minded liberal, or can you stand to hear me out and possibly change you beliefs??? I bet I could tell you...Well, since currently you are boring me I will bring this one to a close...TaTa
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

Allow me to set you in the right direction.1. I am NOT your buddy and I haven't begun to contradict EVERYTHING you say...yet! 2. Since YOU, as the creator of this debate, did NOT allude to an article nor give us the courtesy of providing the URL for it, it's good I've already apprised myself of their differences. 3. NEVER call me a dimwit or any other name!4. You specifically stated it was the life of the baby and not ANYONE if endangered.5. You find it interesting that my rebuttals contain no stance of my own. Even though I didn't register a true argument in this debate I did choose to rebut your ill-advised argument. You may see my argument in due time and when I have time. 6. I would again suggest that you stop or, at the very least, curtail your use of name calling when someone calls you on something. It is nothing more than a tactic as is your feigning boredom then dismissing the individual.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

Ok let me continue this pathetic exscuse of a debate (oops, that doesn't offend you does it?)1. I use buddy sarcastically my uhhh friend. Trust me when I say you are the farthest thing from either a friend or a buddy. That clear? I guess I didn't realize you that you didn't have the ability to recogonize sarcasm?? I'll try to point it out if I use it again...2. By article I mean my ENTRY, my WRITING, whatever you call it. Lack of communication there...3. I am sorry I offended you. However, you show no reason for me to think otherwise. I apoligize for writing that, but not for thinking that. I am WAY too opionated for my own good.4. Huh? No, not specifically. By the way when I say endangered I mean having over 50% chance of losing their life, OR causing permanant damage.5. When you have time? If you had the time to write this far-fetched argument, why not enough to take a stand???? Hmm, is your name by any chance Obama?6. Ok, I uhh again shall state: I apoligize for the dimwitted comment (haha..get it?) BUT you didn't call me on anything???? It is no tatic my ally (SARCASM ALERT) but it is just an expression of my anger towards you. 'feigning boredom' I love that! So original! So unique! So wrong! I not only called you a dimwit (maybe you could use some thicker skin?) I gave other details to support my argument...So I guess my 6 addresses your 6....How neat (SARCASM ALERT) Well, nice to have this chat.I will change my stance on one thing I said. You are no longer boring me! I am intriguied by your very liberal ways...C ya!
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

So sorry, now that I know how old you really are, I must tell you I don't waste my time speaking with children in these matters...and most especially not one such as yourself. AMEN!
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

awww how sad...You think that's my REAL age????Hmmm...Even if I was 14, I could still win any debate it seems.Not that you know, care to say something interesting?
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

I'm curious why you believe that life begins at the moment of conception. At that point all you have is a single cell, similar to the ones that are everywhere on your body, thousands of which die every day. I guess my problem is that you think that a sperm and egg separately are nothing, but when they are combined, life magically starts. At that point, the cell can't see, can't hear, can't even think. There is no consciousness, no feeling. The only thing it can do is multiply and eventually the cells that multiply specialize. To say life starts at conception is a fairly simplistic view. There is no specific moment where something not alive becomes alive. In fact as far as we know, this only happened once: during abiogenesis.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

Absolutely agree. A more significant milestone would be the point at which a fetus can start to feel pain. Before this point, what significance is there in getting rid of a collection of cells that cannot think, feel, hurt, sense, etc? Scientific consensus on this issue is that the establishment of thalamocortical connections is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain, and this happens around the 26 week mark.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

"At that point all you have is a single cell, similar to the ones that are everywhere on your body, thousands of which die every day."No, there is a severely big difference - the cell is fertilised with someone elses DNA and can become a functioning, multicelluar organism."At that point, the cell can't see, can't hear, can't even think. There is no consciousness, no feeling. The only thing it can do is multiply and eventually the cells that multiply specialize."The fertilised egg divides and specialises until it becomes a functioning, multicelluar organism. A skin cell cannot do this."To say life starts at conception is a fairly simplistic view."So? Why not say life starts at conception? Seems a fairly logical place to define it. Life begins when two organisms' DNA combines and leads to cell division - how about that? No room for fuzzy wiggling there."There is no specific moment where something not alive becomes alive."Is that not a separate argument?
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

I don't appreciate your patronization... I am very aware of the difference between a skin cell and a fertilized egg. My point was that, like a skin cell, a fertilized egg cannot see, feel, think, or do any of the other fun things multicellular organisms can. As far as your question "Why not say life starts at conception?" I think that's pretty obvious, it doesn't! Let me give you the scientific definition: organisms are capable of reacting to stimuli, reproduction, growth and maintenance as a stable whole. It's funny that a sperm cell actually meets as many, or arguably more of these criteria than fertilized eggs do. Let's make a checklist:Reaction to stimuli- Fertilized egg: yes, Sperm cell: YesReproduction - Fertilized egg: Yes, Sperm Cell: It's debatableGrowth - Fertilized egg: Yes, Sperm Cell: Yes(Looking good so far)Maintenance as a stable whole: Fertilized Egg: No, Sperm Cell: YesThe issue is that the egg cannot survive outside of the host. Now I admit that the fertilized egg has the potential for life, but so do an unfertilized egg and sperm cells next to each other...that doesn't mean anything. My overall point is that the issue is complicated and a simplistic view that states there is a single moment where "life" starts is an inadequate way to resolve the issue.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

Being a Christian I believe that God has a purpose for that particular sperm-egg ferilization...Seeing how this country is 'One nation under God' my beliefs should be justified....I see your point though...I think...
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

"Seeing how this country is 'One nation under God' my beliefs should be justified"Nope, "one nation under God" was added during the cold war as a response to "godless commies." There is a separation of church and state in this country so...no... your religious beliefs don't mean shit.1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

Nope, "one nation under God" was added during the cold war as a response to "godless commies."I didn't know that! I always thought it was just the founding fathers being hypocritical. My respect for those men has gone up a notch.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

OK then. Why did we keep it? Obviously it isn't wanted, so why not just erase? That doesn't make any sense...My religious beliefs do mean something. To me, not you. America supports MY RIGHT to believe how I want to....Regardless. So...yes...my religious beliefs mean alot...Maybe not to you...
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

In case your unaware many groups have tried to get "under god" removed from the pledge of allegiance, but unfortunately many conservative Christians have opposed this. America does support your right to believe, but not to force your beliefs on others. By making a law based on a religious belief that is what you are doing, forcing your religion on others.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

Yes, I know...That was kinda my point hotshot...What I'm saying is:THAT WENT NO WHERE!!!!!See, now your singing a different tune...Also, you make a good point. A law based on religious belief would be absurd! rolls eyes sad country...BTW...are you my enemy now????
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

How does that make since? Just because I'm PRO-LIFE I have to adopt children? Lots of children are adopted by loving homes...It happens!
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

I've no idea how anything makes "since" but my suggestion makes perfect sense.Refusing to provide the choice for abortion means more orphans. Obviously, someone has to take care of them.If those who want to ban abortion are not adopting the unwanted children, who is?
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

well sorry bout the since..I hate my google spellchecker (haha)This is too religion based...I regret making this debate...That is all I will say because I do not want to appear as if I am forcing my religion (Christianity) on you.... Farewell!
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

PRECISELY!I'm glad you understand that government is separate from religion. Therefore pro-choice is the only way to be. :)
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: goverment or religion

Well, yes...and no....I don't know if pro-chice is the ONLY way to be. or everyone would think that way...However, goverment and one's convictions are NOT the same, and should NEVER be lumped together. It is interesting to hear the strong arguments presented here.=]
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

If life began at conception, every woman who miscarried before implantation would be a murderer. Nearly every woman has conceived without becoming pregnant at some time or other. Millions of women around the world would be the worst sinners of all. Sorry, anyone who believes in a loving, forgiving God cannot possibly take that stand.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

That doesn't make any sense at all. The difference is that mothers don't plan on having a miscarraige - it is a tragic accident. The idea is that murder involves some willful intent. Per Wikipedia, "Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification."
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

OK so you think it's homicide to have a miscarriage or 'spontaneous abortion.' You going to charge me and millions of other women? Have us serve time? Or change the law to accommodate your religious perceptions--as opposed to scientific and medical evidence?Please note the definition says "elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification." Abortion is never malicious, always has justification, and is lawful.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

abortion doesn't make you "unpregnant". it just makes you the mother of a DEAD BABY.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

holy shit... that was AWESOME!
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

just how i see things [:
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

Nice cliche but I cannot agree with that line. The issue of when a fetus actually becomes viable continues to be argued. I see that you are Catholic and probably believe that a baby is viable from inception. This, I strongly disagree with but you are entitled to your opinion and I will not talk you out of your belief.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-LIFE

why does everyone assume that my catholic beliefs tie into my opinion ? while it contributes to what i think is right, i was prolife since i was little nd back then i didn't know that it was also an opinion my faith agreed with.do me a favor and don't even talk about fucking religion in this debate. i'm tired of having to talk about religion in a subject when that can simply be avoided.
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

No one answered you but myself so not EVERYONE assumes anything about you! I happened to look at your profile when you wished to add me as an Ally yesterday...without knowing me nor I you, under this name. People speak about the things they believe in and religion enters into the abortion dilemma to a very large degree. No one is chastising you for being a Catholic but Abortion IS something they feel very strongly about. If you have believed in being pro-life since you were a little kid I don't think you could have possibly known or understood all the ramifications of both sides of the issue. Adults struggle with it and always have! And there's no need to be crude in describing religion...not yours not anyone's. If you don't care for the ways in which people frame their opinions or arguments then you may wish to avoid those in which religion is mentioned. Why do I have the distinct feeling I am dealing with someone I've dealt with in just the past two days? Let my get out my Psychic crystals and guess you've re-entered CD under a new name and the name you had prior to this one was Repubgal!
Debate: PRO-LIFE vs PRO-CHOICE (OBAMA vs McCAIN VERSION)
Side: PRO-CHOICE

Life begins when the fetus is able to live outside the womb. If it can't live on it's own there is no baby. While no one likes abortions, it is a mother's right to chose. She is the one that will have to live with her decision.
Debate: Quebec Separation
Side: Quebec should secede

The main reasons why I think Rena Levesque wanted to breakaway from Canada was that he wanted his city to be independent and wanted his city to initiate its particular coinage. I also think that he though it would be vast to concede Quebec to retain their unique language and cultural interest . I think the elan city of Quebec should secede from the subordinated country of Canada because British made their own laws, the French colonists that were settled tranquilly in Quebec perceived that the innumerable of these regulations were biased and unjustifiable. For illustration, hordes that were Roman Catholic could not have an occupation reining a government job. Why does Quebec have a disadvantage you ask ,because most of the inhabitants that sojourn in Quebec are Roman Catholic. Also, if Quebec dispenses from Canada then they could discourse their own language .This was a predicament for Quebec because the unjustifiable and injurious Canadian government cherished the English language more than the rooted language of French. French was mainly spoken in Quebec with eminent emblems of bourgeois speaking it. If Quebec seceded from Canada then the denizens of Quebec could follow through their endemic language and cultural existence and intimation. The protracted citizens of Quebec would be able to make their own laws , have their own deduced constitution , their own altered rights , and still annex their own cultivation and language lateral. In Quebec they would gratify themselves interchangeably and custom each unit the same. Rene Levesque is a great leader and will lead Quebec to have more pros than cons about why Quebec should audacity Canada so they can live their esprit's and creating ways to earn currency .
Debate: Quebec Separation
Side: Quebec should secede

I think that Quebec should secede because if their country is treated unfairly they should have the right to not be part of the country. Everybody in the world should be treated the same. They have freedom so they should be able to not be part of that country anymore.