azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

They are alike in the fact that they both require care. An infant cannot provide for itself, just like an embryo can't.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

If a mother doesn't want to take care of her infant, someone else can take care of it because it is not physically attached to her. If a mother doesn't want to take care of her embryo, no one else can take care of it because it is physically attached to her.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"If it's mother doesn't feed it, it will die."Self sufficient does not mean you can survive without food. Dumbass. You could not survive if you were not fed either.However, an infant can survive without being attached to the mother. It requires sustenance, as does any other living thing, but does it is not attached to the mother, nor dependent on the mother for medically vital functions such as digesting food, breathing, etc.also, there is a world of difference between an embryo and an infant.I found the argument you plagiarized off of- http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.htmlnote that it is from 1998."humans don't become intrinsically sentient until they are 18 months old"actually, by 18 months a human baby is already capable of recognizing itself in a mirror, which measures self-awareness (not sentience).http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/m/mirror_test.htmhowever, even the basic measure of sentience is impossible without a sustainable brain-which only develops after 23 weeks (which is past abortion limit)http://books.google.com/books?id=m7USFu5Z0lQC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=first+sign+of+"neural+activity"+fetus&source=web&ots=EeWQy- 8kEy&sig=mRV7a7O9_2XieapUrwLv1HoaiQ8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Self sufficient does not mean you can survive without food. Dumbass. You could not survive if you were not fed either.My point is that it does not have the ability to provide for it's own basic needs. And the usage of the word "Dumbass" does not strengthen your argument.Furthermore, plagiarism is when when a person implies or states that they have produced their own information or research when it was actually done by someone else. I simply reiterated, I did not plagiarize by simply failing to cite a source. actually, by 18 months a human baby is already capable of recognizing itself in a mirror, which measures self-awareness (not sentience).A dog can recognize itself in a mirror too. But a dog will never reach what an infant (or embryo) can in terms of brain function.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

'And the usage of the word "Dumbass" does not strengthen your argument.'You actually thought I meant self-sufficient as the ability to provide for ones own basic needs? I thought you were being facetious. my apologies."My point is that it does not have the ability to provide for it's own basic needs"This is incorrect. A baby's most basic needs is the ability to pump its own heart, digest its own food, inflate its own lungs. The mother provides sustenance. Many teenagers, too, require mothers to do this as well, albeit in other forms."A dog can recognize itself in a mirror too. But a dog will never reach what an infant (or embryo) can in terms of brain function."You claimed that an infant is a conscious being at 18 months, with no evidence whatsoever. Upon investigation, I found that an infant is capable of self-conscious at 18 months (as in, it is aware of itself, not that is is concerned by its weight)."A dog can recognize itself in a mirror too."no. they cannot. Dogs, cats, and young children all fail the mirror test.http://books.google.com/books?id=gbZXYnE2KlgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=how+dogs+think&hl=en&ei=f9tVTYiYIYGdlgexwZmjBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false "But a dog will never reach what an infant (or embryo) can in terms of brain function."an embryo has no brain function until past the second trimester. It is illegal to abort an infant with any semblance of a brain.and a mature dog, in terms of intelligence, is roughly the equivalent of a two year old child. So, it would appear that a dog can reach past what an infant is capable of, and achieve the brain function of a toddler.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810025241.htm did you even bother to look any of your information up?please, try and do research. I understand that you are not a scientist. I am not either. But rather than make up erroneous facts, it helps to research and give correct information.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

A fetus is clearly human IMO. It has human genes. Also I think fetuses deserve person-hood. I see no difference in the survivability of a 9 mo fetus versus a 1 second old baby. Also, killing a fetus by, lets say, punching the mother, is considered murder. But yet if it's ripped out by a, "medical professional" it's totally legal and even supported with taxpayer dollars.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

likewise, it is illegal to kidnap someone's child from their house, but it is not illegal to put your child up for adoption. The difference between the first and second situation in both adoption and abortion is the motive.the fetus does not die in the process of being removed. It dies because it is not a self sustaining organism.and, despite any right to life you claim it has, why is the mother responsible for taking care of this burden?If the fetus were not a parasite incapable of living without leeching off of the mother, then it would not 'die' when it was removed.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

People SHOULD NOT have abortions. It doesn't matter if the baby is technically a child yet or not. It's the idea that there is the oppurtunity for life to happen and you are taking that away with abortion. There are always other options.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

Does this also take into account the millions of aborted cow, and pig fetus'? The question is should people have abortions...People can have their own or have some on other species. What makes one more valuable than another? Genetically all are dramatically similar. Except that one is farmed and collected as a resource and a large scale.The opportunity for life only applies to human fetus' . If you believe that you take away the opportunity of life to happen............We do this every day to other species of life. So you must agree that you are biased on "some life" should be allowed to live..which is also pro-choice thinking. We must have our babies but other species can be destroyed at will. Or....you are a vegan and your argument may be possibly valid.Unless you are vegan, those of you against abortion are all pro-choicers and kill other species at will, fetus or not.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

There shouldn't be something like abortion. It's like murdering someone. If they don't want a baby they should have prevented while the intercourse.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

It is possible to become spontaneously pregnant. it occurs in about 2% to 7% of women with Turner's Syndrome.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15749515 No intercourse. What, then, is your insight on these situations?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

WHEN IT GETS IN YOUR STOMACH IT MAY NOT SEEM ALIVE BUT IT IS COMPLETELY ALIVE SO HAVE IT THEN GIVE AWAY DON'T KILL IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

you realize that if a fetus were in your stomach, you would be digesting it, right?And, by the same coin, cancer (which, ironically, actually can be in your stomach) does not seem alive but it is completely alive- in the same sense as a fetus. Should one 'have [cancer] and then give [it] away'?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

It get's in the stomach? eeek! I guess no one needs a uterus if that's the case.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

We shall take the time to thank you for your use of capital letters. If your philosophy were not so unique and aspirant as to transcend grammar, we might think you a fool.WHEN IT GETS IN YOUR STOMACHForgive our ignorance, we have not the pleasure of understanding you. Of what do you speak? It seems to be some form of chest-bursting alien.BUT IT IS COMPLETELY ALIVEThat is not our understanding of the contested issue. It is rather debated whether it can be considered a person or not.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

It is a human tell me you were in the womb yet your mother had an abortion you wouldnt be here right now. now doesnt that mean a human is missing in the human population.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

It is a humanWe have made no contrary statement.you were in the womb yet your mother had an abortionIf your intelligence were not so "aspirant as to transcend grammar", we might mistakenly believe that you have declared us to be dead.now doesnt that mean a human is missing in the human population.We see no purpose to this statement. We are fully sensible of the consequences of abortion.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

on the other hand, if your mother never got pregnant, you would not be here right now either. So, even using abstinence as birth control, there would STILL be a 'missing' human.by that logic, the only way to not murder anyone is to constantly pop out children, because if we let even a single egg go to waste we are MURDERING that child by never conceiving it in the first place.Unfortunately, since the human population is suffering from over-population, that does not seem like a viable idea.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

First of all, scientifically an embryo is alive and our bill of rights say that we all have THE RIGHT TO LIFE. Therefore that right should speak for the embryo which cannot speak for itself.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Citizens have the right to life.Fetuses are not citizens.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

so you are saying that when ou where in the womb you weren't human go to ur ultra sound picture and tell me that isnt a baby
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Yeah, that's not what I said at all.I am saying they are not citizens. This is a fact; legally, fetuses are not recognized as citizens of the United States. This does not happen until they are born. The US grant rights to US citizens, and fetuses are not citizens, so they do not have legal rights to anything.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

exactly. Citizens can either be native-born, born to citizens, or naturalizednative born citizens are born in the countyborn to citizens must have at least one citizen as a parentnaturalized must be of 18 years or older, lived in the country for 5 years, and pass a testFetuses are, by definition, unborn: and so were not born in any country or to any parents of any nationality.They are also under 18 years old.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

So could you abort a child that is about to be delivered? By your logic you can. Sounds like you could abort a child that is 17 who was born in international waters.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

No- that 17 year old had parents who were citizens, their citizenship is inherited. Do you have the slightest idea how citizenship works? it is different for every nationality. I am Brazilian because my mother is Brazilian. I would be Brazilian no matter where I was born-even in international waters-simply because of the nationality of my parents.besides, I was simply backing up zombee on her citizenship argument. I hold to my other arguments for why fetuses are not alive, in addition to not being citizens.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Although, not being citizens is kinda of totaly unrelated to whether they deserve life or not. A human being, citizen or not, grown up or not, fetus or not, deserves as much life as a chicken or cow or a seal or a bear. I mean by this that any living being deserves life.The only thing that makes me sustain the opinion of somewhat pro-abortion is when the baby will not be born with enough resources for a decent life. After all, we are just another animal in this ball of mud and kill living beings without mercy all the time, for meet and clothing, its not a human fetus that's gonna break the balance that already doesn't exist.I only sustain this opinion up to the 3rd or 4th month of pregnancy. The 17 year old person (not child anymore), has already had a living time that I personaly value, and will have even more. Furthermore she has perception of all she is going through, in contrast to a fetus. Again that citizen crap is complete nonsense.Tell me, if you have a pet, is it ok that someone kills it just because it isn't a citizen?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

the 'citizen crap' was specifically against the fabricated right to life of a fetus- it was a ridiculous response to a ridiculous statement.as for the pet- it is not ok for somebody else to kill your pet, just like it is not okay to abort a baby against the mothers will.However, it is extremely common for people to put their pets to sleep- a post natal abortion if you will- when they do not want/ cannot have a pet.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

you realize that, just because you say something is 'scientific' does not make the argument valid- especially when the term life is so widely debated even in the scientific community.Consider Iron Sulfide. Under extreme temperature and pressure, such as a volcanic vent, it has the ability to form a membrane around itself, crystallize (if it is at critical mass), and then split. It is hypothesized that Iron sulfide particles are the abiotic precursor to life. Is it immoral to use iron in structures since it has the potential for life?Also, body tissue is considered to be 'alive'. Should I not have my tonsils removed, since I would be killing the tissue after I remove it? It is, after all, a mass of living cells- just like a fetus. If that makes it alive, well, that is what is being debated at the moment.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

You can't seriously compare human life to minerals. Living tissue is just that tissue. Cutting off your finger, that tissue can't grow into a child. The embryo is human life in the making. Nothing compares to it.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"You can't seriously compare human life to minerals"First of all, yes, i did just compare human life to minerals.Iron sulfide particles are thought to be the abiogenesis of life on earth.its heralded by the scientific community as Iron Sulfide World TheoryAnd I could not find any points of yours to retort, as the only thing you did was to say I cannot make that comparison: i suppose the proper response would be to say that I, and other intellectuals, have, did, and will continue to do so.Besides, what is an organism other than an intricate sac of hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, and various trace materials? Those elements are found as solid chemical substances (aka minerals)."Cutting off your finger, that tissue can't grow into a child."in more coherent terms:if I remove a finger from the hand, it dies-rather than turn into a child-therefore it is not 'living' by your definitionIf I remove an embryo from a uterus, it dies-rather than turn into a child-there it is not 'living' by your definitionA finger is just as alive as an embryo: they are living tissues whom depend on a another/the rest of the body to survive.potential for life is not the same as living.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

As a women, I think we must let women decide on their bodies, it is one of the basic rights a women should have, no doubt.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

What is the child's choice? It's their life can they decide to live if they want too.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

ADOPTION IS BETTER do you want to see a baby when it is aborted. and if you were aborted you wouldnt be here right now.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

abortions should not take place - a child can be aborted for up to 24 weeks old - a baby can be born then - so that is killing a living baby and is very wrong.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

If one is considered dead when their heart ceases to the beat why are they not consider alive when their heart begins to beat?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

A fetus's heart does not beat of its own accord.The mother acts as life support for the fetus.That places a fetus in a similar category to a vegetable.If it is ethical to pull the plug on a brain dead patientit is ethical to pull the plug on a fetusespecially when YOU are the plug
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Someone who is brain dead will most likely never regained consciousness. Most unborn children will be born in less interfered with.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

this is not a matter of who will become alive, or will not become alive.even sperm will become alivethe question at hand is who is alive, or not alive.unborn children will only be born if they are constantly given nutrients, oxygen, and antibodies by the mother.that is interfering.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

If you have do something you need to deal with the consequences. You shouldn’t be allowed to take the easy way out. Thing about is before you go off and do something with someone.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Abortion is a consequence, and it is not 'easy' .
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Not at any giving time is an abortion acceptable. Before anyone pops off at the mouth about something they know nothing about, maybe you should do your research. Abortion clinics, for one, don't give a rats @ss about you or that baby. They are in it for the money. They won't even let the mother's look at the ultrasound screen to see how big the baby is when doing the initial check to make sure they are pregnant. They know they will change their minds if they see it. There is an abortion clinic, which also does late term abortions, in Kansas. Right across the street is a Prolife group that offers the mothers a 4d ultrasounds. Out of all the mother's that have agreed to talk to them before having the abortion only 1 has actually went through with it. Fetus' do have feelings. Mothers that get saline injections to kill the babies feel their dying baby kicking as the saline eats away at their unborn flesh. A 12 WEEK fetus has been noted on an ultrasound to pull away and try to escape the suctioning machine as it's being ripped from the womb at one mother's abortion. Life beings at conception, we are just in different stages of growth, such as a newborn from an adult. Nonetheless, we still harbor the same DNA and potential no matter what stage. Whether you are raped or irresponsible, we are all here for a reason. Both of my daughters were unplanned. I even had one at 17, but I couldn't imagine her not being here. The psychological effect on a woman who has had an abortion is tremendous. Trust me, b/c I know... nothing good comes out of an abortion. You are ripped of everything that God has given you the right to have. Put yourself aside for 9 months, which is clearly not forever, and give your baby a fighting chance. This should not even be a debate. Adoption is far better then living with the fact you selfishly killed your child.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"Before anyone pops off at the mouth about something they know nothing about"I agree so far. So, why did you keep talking?"Abortion clinics, for one, don't give a rats @ss"what was that about doing research?I could not find a single source that even hinted at any minute possibility of this being true."They are in it for the money"according to my source, the abortion clinic profited $831 million for 1.21 million abortionsthat is roughly 686 dollars per childa 100 pack of diapers costs $35at an average 14 diapers per dayand the baby uses diapers for two yearsJUST the diapers for for less than half a year (137 days) costs more than an abortionleaving diaper profits, alone, at $3650that is $2970 more than an abortion per baby.if abortion advocates were only searching for money, baby care is far more lucrativehttp://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_for_profit/ http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=12024959&findingMethod=rr http://www.diaperdecisions.com/pages/cost_of_cloth_diapers.php (because I actually do research)
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

i don't think it's right to kill an unborn child. they did't even get the chance to experience life. they have fingernails within the first month. it's murder. they have a heartbeat within as little as 18 days.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

1) they never had a chance to experience life because they are not alive.2) since when does a build up of keratin qualify anything as 'living'?3) "its murder" is contrary to my other two statements, and is not in and of itself an argument4) their heart beats, but they are not functional. They cannot transport oxygenated blood.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I think that if you have sex to get pregnant then you should have to deal with the consequences. i don't think it's right to be able to throw a life away before it even has the chance to be someone. I am 100% against abortion and nobody could change my mind. Some people say they are against it unless it was rape, but i say that even if it was rape then you should still have it and give it up for adoption. I for one was actually in a situation like that. I didn't have the choice to get pregnant, but i wouldn't have gotten an abortion. I didn't get an abortion.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

I don't believe that we should get the choice weather or not to end a life. Who cares if it isn't a full baby yet? It's still one less chance we have at finding the cure for cancer. Or maybe it's the next Martin Luther King? Who knows if you have it aborted right? And if you didn't want to have the child, then maybe you shouldn't of had sex in the first place. If you're a rape victim, i apologize for what i just said. The only time i ever see it fit to get an abortion is if the child is killing the mother.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

jdfkfmdxmccnmcnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnncbcbcbcbcbcbbcbcbcbskas;dkmf
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Knock it off.Jesus Christ. 'like a goddamned child.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

What did I say wrong?! I just stated my opinion! This is blasphemy!!!!!!
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I just stated my opinion!A man might call the sky green,And that is his view of the hue.But if one sees what is to be seenOne can but say it is blue.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

A man might call the sky green,And that is his view of the hue.But if one sees what is to be seenOne can but say it is blue.HOMO!!!!!!!