azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

You nailed it. Though I don't see it as pro-life reasoning. For me it's just reasoning - period.I can't tell you how many times I have wished that the facts would lead me to conclude something other than the fact that an abortion kills a child... that their rights are being denied, etc.It's reasoning that leads me to 'pro-life' conclusions but the reasoning itself is just that. Reasoning.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

Yes I am not using the typical pro life reasoning begins I am not using the "life begins at conception argument" . And obviously that also explains the rights thing because I never said that.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

but the numbers will change when EVERY SINGLE GAY PERSON can get married. (this will take a long time, longer then 8 years)When can we expect to see the decline in the population of Canada then? Anyways, your claim that the human race will go extinct because of legalizing gay marriage is ridiculous. There is no evidence that this will happen, just grossly exaggerated evidence lacking speculation. It is going to be a person, it is in the process of becoming a human. A life is a life no matter what stage its in.If it's going to be a person, but it's not a person yet, then an abortion is not the murder of a person.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

"When can we expect to see the decline in the population of Canada then?"I don't really know the exact numbers if that is what you are asking for. I am saying over a long number of years. Maybe 40 or 60, I really don't know for sure. My point is that there will be a significant change.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

"When can we expect to see the decline in the population of Canada then?"I don't really know the exact numbers if that is what you are asking for. I am saying over a long number of years. Maybe 40 or 60, I really don't know for sure. My point is that there will be a significant change."Anyways, your claim that the human race will go extinct because of legalizing gay marriage is ridiculous. There is no evidence that this will happen, just grossly exaggerated evidence lacking speculation. "I do agree that I was getting a little ahead of myself and I take back what I said about extinction. Although I still stand by the belief that the population will change."If it's going to be a person, but it's not a person yet, then an abortion is not the murder of a person."I don't know how else to explain that it is still wrong to do this, because it is a LIVING ORGANISM. Even if it isn't a PERSON it is still a living thing that will soon be a person. There is no other way to explain it. It is wrong, because you are denying it the chance to have live a real life.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

"It's not even a person yet. They're living, but they're not people yet until later in the pregnancy"So adults are more human then a teen, child, or infant? No, a fetus is just another stage if life. For some reason an exit out of the womb suddenly makes you gain rights, but the ones that don't are allowed to be killed. Why is exiting a womb the giver of rights?
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

So adults are more human then a teen, child, or infant?I didn't say this. For some reason an exit out of the womb suddenly makes you gain rights, but the ones that don't are allowed to be killed. Why is exiting a womb the giver of rights?I didn't say this either. I don't support abortion at the last week of pregnancy. I support it up until perhaps 20 weeks.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

I didn't say you did, I was making a point. That group of cells has the DNA of a human, its a human, just at another stage of growth than you.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

"I didn't say this either. I don't support abortion at the last week of pregnancy. I support it up until perhaps 20 weeks."Why do you support it until 20 weeks?
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

Based off of our current evidence, that is the earliest that some form of fetal sentience can arise, enough to give it the title of "person" at least.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

Because it changes from being completely dependent on the mother to being an actual individual.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

Science (and law makers) have determined that it is an actual individual, even during the time it is depending on the mother for survival. Just like conjoined twins.... the fact that they are sharing a body doesn't take anything away from the fact that they are living separate lives.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

Abortion!!!!!!,didn't even have to think about it :)
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

Ummm this is a toughie for me. The positive in both sides is that they wont (naturally) have children? So they use less of earth's valuable resources. But, 50 million potential super geniuses or 50 million potential x-men like mutants is the bigger crime. I just don't see gay marriage effecting physiological evolution.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

you forgot to add 50 million Hitlers or 50 million more Chuzzys
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

I have some really great ideas for new debate topics that might interest you. Here is the list.1. Abortion2. Abortion3. Abortion4. Abortion5. Abortion6. Abortion7. How to beat a dead horse.Sorry, I just couldn't resist :)
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

What can I say? If you seriously think it's a crime against humanity? You tend to act like it's a crime against humanity.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

I don't fault you for feeling strongly about a topic. I was just teasin' you. I may not agree with you on the topic, but I admire your tenacity and passion to fight for what you believe in.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

It's a fair point, I suppose.... But I have to wonder how you or most anyone else would act if you became as convinced as I am - that it's a crime against humanity? How does anyone expect me to act? Or to put it another way.... If you knew of a place not far from your home where children could be legally violated and killed and no matter how many times you tried to speak out against it to stop it, you just get ridiculed or shouted down for it... What would you do differently from what I am trying to do?
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

I don't understand why people are down-voting you. Nothing you said was worthy of a down-vote. Someone must have a beef with you. If I agreed with your position I'm sure I would be right there alongside you fighting to stop abortion. I think the biggest stumbling block that you are running into with the abortion debate is that most of the arguments I've seen you make seem to rely on word play more than addressing the core issue of the debate, which is, why is terminating the life of someone wrong. I think killing someone is wrong because it causes pain and/or emotional distress to the victim and their loved ones. If a fetus hasn't developed to the point where it is able to feel pain or emotion I don't see anything wrong with terminating the pregnancy. Once a fetus reaches the point where it can feel pain and/or emotion I don't think abortion should be an option unless the mother's life is at risk. Your next argument will probably be something along the lines of, Is it okay to kill someone if you can do it without causing them pain or emotional distress, like if they are in a coma and on morphine? My answer would be no, because you will still be causing emotional distress to their loved ones. Your next argument will probably be, what if they don't have any loved ones? To that i would say, they may still have other people that depend on them, such as employers. Your next argument will probably be, What if they are in a temporary coma, on morphine for pain, have no loved ones, and killing them will have zero impact on anyone else; is it okay to kill them then? That person may have goals that they wanted to accomplish during their lifetime, so killing them would prevent them from doing that. A fetus that hasn't reached consciousness doesn't have goals, doesn't have anyone that depends on them, and can't feel pain or emotion. That's why I'm on this side of the debate.The other argument I often hear is that by aborting a fetus you are destroying their future potential. This argument fails to consider that their future potential could be bad. They might become a drug dealer, a child molester, or even the next Hitler. So, if you are going to factor in future potential you can't just look at the good potential and ignore the bad. If future potential is a factor, then that same factor needs to be considered in other issues. For example, if a parent doesn't buy their kid any play-doh, they may have just destroyed that child's future potential to become an great artist. You also need to consider that having an unplanned child could destroy the future potential of the mother.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

"The other argument I often hear is that by aborting a fetus you are destroying their future potential. This argument fails to consider that their future potential could be bad. They might become a drug dealer, a child molester, or even the next Hitler. So, if you are going to factor in future potential you can't just look at the good potential and ignore the bad. If future potential is a factor, then that same factor needs to be considered in other issues. For example, if a parent doesn't buy their kid any play-doh, they may have just destroyed that child's future potential to become an great artist. You also need to consider that having an unplanned child could destroy the future potential of the mother."I would argue that to kill someone based upon their "potential" to do evil, ventures directly into the territory of "thought crimes." Is it ok to criminalize someone who has the "Potential" to perform a crime?What if they are inclined to perform crime, but haven't yet? Should we lock them up to ensure they never perform the crime?Both times they are not guilty of any crime, except the thought, or potential, which exists in all of us.To murder a fetus because it has the "potential" to grow up into the next Hitler, is the same as killing you right now, because you have the "potential" to go into a violent rampage in the future. (example)Such an argument only ends with the extinction of the entire human species, because all people have the potential to do evil or perform crime, regardless of their age.As for a child destroying the future potential of the mother, that is why I support sex only within marriage. Because then it there are no unplanned pregnancies causing problems for the mother, and both mother and child can be supported by the father. It's unfair for a child to be murdered, as it is also unfair for a child to be born outside of wedlock.Not buying play-doh doesn't result in someone's death, so that argument is void. Even ruining a potential to be a great artist, the child still has other options they can go after; not so when the child is dead.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

I would argue that to kill someone based upon their "potential" to do evil, ventures directly into the territory of "thought crimes."I think you misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying we should abort babies because they have a potential to do evil. I'm saying future potential shouldn't even be a factor in the abortion debate. If future potential is going to be a factor, you can't pick and choose the future potential that favors your side. They have to accept that the future potential could be good, bad, or anywhere in between.Not buying play-doh doesn't result in someone's death, so that argument is void. I wasn't using the play-doh argument as a comparison to abortion. I was saying that if we need to factor future potential into the abortion debate, then we should factor it into other things as well, such as the play-doh scenario.Even ruining a potential to be a great artist, the child still has other options they can go after; not so when the child is dead.or they could wind up becoming a crack whore because they never found a job that they loved. This is exactly the point I was trying to make with my original argument. If future potential is going to be used as a factor you have to look at both sides, not just pick the one that supports your side. Future potential should not be a factor at all because there is no way to know what that future potential will be.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

I do not admire antichoice people. .
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

Banned for trolling. Better late than never.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

I honestly think there is no issue with abortion, they don't allow abortion before the fetus is at all sentient, abortion is no more immoral to me than chopping down a tree, in fact chopping down a tree is worse cause too much and you are damaging the health of mother nature. While homosexuals, are being taxed more for being homosexual, and being excluded from a tradition that is acknowledged by most of society to make love official. The latter is actually somewhat harmful to sentient life.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

So, the only reason that abortions are not immoral to you is because the child is not yet sentient? Nevermind the fact that they (unlike a person in coma) will be sentient if they are left alone unmolested - right? What about people in comas or people like my wife with a brain injury? People with downs or some other thing that causes retardation or autism? Is it okay to kill all or any of them too?
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

Nevermind the fact that they (unlike a person in coma) will be sentient if they are left alone unmolested - right?The fact that they will become sentient is not at all relevant to me. What do you consider unmolested? I do feel that a fetus becoming sentient is natural (though natural is subjective to a degree), and I do see that as "unmolested" I don't see that objectively. It is highly likely that a fetus will become sentient, it is expected, it is the purpose of our body creating that being. However the fetus if left alone won't necessarily become sentient. The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to it, there is nothing to harm. You are harming an unconcsious, non-sentient being, nothing more than a bunch of cells. You can't harm a potential being, a future being, cause that future being doesn't truly exist, it may come into existence but it hasn't yet.What about people in comas.People are capable of feeling and percieving, it has merely been shut off temporarily, but the capabilities are there, fetus's however are not yet capable of feeling and percieving, and have not started feeling and percieving. They aren't conscious capable yet, they are slowly developing to be concsious capable, but aren't in that moment. It is different with people in a coma, because they are capable of sentience, it has merely been turned off and they have existed as a unique sentient being prior to the coma. or people like my wife with a brain injury?She is sentient... she is able to feel and percieve, she is conscious capable, able to have feelings and thoughts.People with downs or some other thing that causes retardation or autism?Again... sentient and conscious capable.Is it okay to kill all or any of them too?No. I explained the coma thing as we have gone over than again and again and again in the past, but being your typical close-minded person that you are, you never actually thought about that, or hardly ever acknowledge that fact, otherwise you'd know my counter argument already and explain to my apparently "in-denial" self (whom actually remembers your counter arguments and thinks about them unlike anyone whom you could consider "in denial") how I was wrong. The people with brain injury, your wife with her disorder or whatever, and retards and autistics are by common sense sentient and conscious capable, unless you didn't know what that means, which again shows how much more open-minded you are that you would refute an argument without first clearly understanding what it means.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

The fact that they will become sentient is not at all relevant to me.Do you understand that it's not about you? Lawmakers (and the doctors that lawmakers consult) do care about a patients prognosis and they do take thing like that into consideration when making laws and regulations.  The fact of the matter is, when it comes down to it, there is nothing to harm. You are harming an unconcsious, non-sentient being, nothing more than a bunch of cells. You can't harm a potential being, a future being, cause that future being doesn't truly exist, it may come into existence but it hasn't yet.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

fetus is not considered as a human until it's born. Sick people has been born and then broke... a.k.a they were human before that condition.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

I do not believe that the mere act of an abortion at less than 20 weeks of pregnancy is a crime. Most abortions happen within the first 13 weeks anyways. Just for extra info:"Week Thirteen: Baby flexes and kicks You are 13 weeks pregnant. (fetal age 11 weeks)The fetus has grown to about 3 inches (8cm) long.Weight approximately 1 ounce (25 grams)."
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

I think abortion is a crime so this one was easy for me to decide on. I honestly have no idea,why heterosexuality is considered more 'normal' than homosexuality. The idea that something is wrong about homosexuality is rooted in nothing but primal disgust of what is different - and guess what? If you think brute animal instinct should govern the way we structure society, then a huge burden of proof is on you. For obvious reasons we have to rely on something a bit more sophisticated and that would be philosophy. There's no solid ethical ground that allows for an inference from sexual orientation to a distinctly different set of rights. There simple is no reason for not recognising gay marriage, so until a reason is given, every attack against this right is utterly pointless, but it is not without force. Most people are very sensitive about their sexuality, and to be told (indirectly anyway) that something is inherently wrong about it hurts. I don't know what a crime is, but I know that not recognising gay marriage is a pointless degradation human people. A fetus has about as much mental clarity as a chicken, and we seem to have no problem mass slaughtering those, so I don't really care too much about what a fetus feels. Furthemore we have to consider the context in which we would deny women their wish to deal with an unwanted child. Overpopulation is a problem way more serious than any moral problem associated with abortion. It makes absolutely no sense to deny the right for abortion, when we have enough people on this planet already. Not recognizing abortion as a right is the crime, not the other way around.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

1. Do you consider yourself to be a proponent for equal rights?2. What are your thoughts about age discrimination?
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

1. Yes. 2. I think everyone should be taught to be a respectable person by being treated, regardless of age, with respect. Why is asking two questions enough to dispute me?
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

Why is asking two questions enough to dispute me?Right now I'm just trying to see how consistent you are with your answers.Can you see why I and others might see abortions as an act of age discrimination?
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

I do now. That dilemma can be avoided if one can argue that the fetus can't be considered a person in the same sense we are. The fetus is ina very real sense a part of the mother, given that it gets all nutrition and oxygen from the mother. Now if the fetus can't be considered a person like you and I, then we have to be careful about applying the same reasoning about them as we do to us.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

Can you see why I and others might see abortions as an act of age discrimination?I do now. That dilemma can be avoided if one can argue that the fetus can't be considered a person in the same sense we are.But they are persons in the same sense that we are. Our Constitution prohibits discrimination against anyones basic rights for any reason.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: No Recognition of Gay Marriage

Please respond to my actual argument instead of simply denying my conclusion.
Debate: Which is the Greater (bigger) Crime Against Hummanity?
Side: ABORTION - 50 MILLION KILLED

I did respond to your actual argument. You said that we could sove the problem by denying some persons their rights and I reminded you why we can't do that.