azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Your reply was a mix between a kkk member and a squirtle attacking a Warturtle.both bigoted and ineffective.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

squirtle attacking a WarturtleBlastoise, surely?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Your reply was a mix between a kkk member and a squirtle attacking a Warturtle.both bigoted and ineffective.I can assure you, I hate the KKK.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

hating a gate group.Funny.except for the fact that you, my dear sir, are prejudiced.And THAT is no laughing matter.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"jdfkfmdxmccnmcnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnncbcbcbcbcbcbbcbcbcbskas;dkmf" is not an opinion.And a blasphemy is irreverence against a holy figure.So you are either incredibly unintelligent on two accountsor you have the largest ego known to mankind- and are incredibly unintelligent on the first count alone
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

And a blasphemy is irreverence against a holy figure.So you are either incredibly unintelligent on two accountsor you have the largest ego known to mankind- and are incredibly unintelligent on the first count aloneDo't judge me!
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I would do no such thing. As a debater, I let judges do the judging
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: No the current laws are OK

Selective abortions have always been permissible, mothers life being in danger and the baby being stillborn being the two extremes. The issue is more should casual abortion be allowed in place of shouldering the responsibility for your own irresponsible behavior? The answer there is a definitive no. If you don’t want to have kids then use contraceptives or be responsible. People hide behind excuses like “Oh, what about a rapists child” or “it’s my body.” A rapists child is still a child and you’re the states “human farm” not your own individual. There are always places things can be done at your own expense –this should be one of them if your country doesn’t allow it. Having taxpayers back and fund such matters when there are more sensible things to be spending money on is not helping anyone in the long run.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

It is commonly assumed by pro-life people that the only women who ever opt for an abortion were being promiscuous or irresponsible. This is false, and in fact, the majority of aborted pregnancies occurred with at least one form of birth control in place, and nearly half of all pregnancies in America are unintended. you’re the states “human farm” not your own individual.Not only is also not true (as abortion is legal), it is a terrifying prospect and avoiding it is exactly why abortion should continue to be legal for whatever reason.http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Nearly half are unexpected? Where is this statistic? The human farm then what is the baby who is going to worry about them. You have sex for procreation that is its intended purpose. A child is not a byproduct it is the goal of the act.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Nearly half are unexpected? Where is this statistic?http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/fast-facts-unplanned-key-data.pdf The human farm then what is the baby who is going to worry about them.Please restate this, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You have sex for procreation that is its intended purpose. A child is not a byproduct it is the goal of the act.If this was true, there would be no such thing as orgasms, and women would not exhibit such low fertility rates (25% chance of conception per cycle) or concealed ovulation. Sex is a stress-reliever and a valuable bonding tool for couples. Only a tiny fraction of the time is pregnancy actually the goal of sex. The rest of the time, it's because it's fun.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

• About one in two pregnancies in America are unplanned.(i) 1• That is, over three million of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States annually are unplanned.1 Moreover, about two-thirds ofunplanned pregnancies—two million—are unwanted.(ii) 2 In other words, about one in three pregnancies are unwanted.• The rate of unplanned pregnancy remained constant between 1994 and 2001 at 51 unplanned pregnancies per 1,000 women age15-44.1 During the same time period, the rate of unwanted pregnancy increased slightly (4%)—from 31.9 to 33.2 unwanted pregnanciesper 1,000 women age 15-44.3How do we arrive at one in every two pregnancies is unplanned? When the statistic is 51 to 1,000 women. What was the demographics of their sample? You had talked about women being a human farm and I simply wanted to advocate for the child. Let's look at the orgasm shall we. When a man orgasms he releases his sperm into the woman. When a woman orgasms her cervix contracts to absorb the sperm that is expected to be there. The desire to procreate is in humans and animals alike. It may be fun, but its intended purpose is clear.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

• About one in two pregnancies in America are unplanned.(i) 1• That is, over three million of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States annually are unplanned.1 Moreover, about two-thirds ofunplanned pregnancies—two million—are unwanted.(ii) 2 In other words, about one in three pregnancies are unwanted.• The rate of unplanned pregnancy remained constant between 1994 and 2001 at 51 unplanned pregnancies per 1,000 women age15-44.1 During the same time period, the rate of unwanted pregnancy increased slightly (4%)—from 31.9 to 33.2 unwanted pregnanciesper 1,000 women age 15-44.3How do we arrive at one in every two pregnancies is unplanned? When the statistic is 51 to 1,000 women. What was the demographics of their sample? The origin of this statistic is clearly cited. If you doubt it, feel free to look it up and some of your own research, because I am not going to offer you sources on sources on sources. I am sorry the statistics say something different than what you would like to see. Let's look at the orgasm shall we. When a man orgasms he releases his sperm into the woman. When a woman orgasms her cervix contracts to absorb the sperm that is expected to be there.When I said orgasm, I should have been more clear in that I meant the pleasurable aspects of orgasm. It is what leads humans to seek sex when one or more of the partners is infertile. Pleasure is completely erroneous to conception and the evidence suggests it is a feature of sex that is unique to very intelligent animals like humans, some great apes, and some cetaceans.The desire to procreate is in humans and animals alike. It may be fun, but its intended purpose is clear.The desire to have sex is not synonymous with the desire to procreate; this should be self-evident because people have sex when they have no intention of creating a baby.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

What I am saying to you is the pleasureable effect of sex is to create a desire to procreate. Of course humans want to have sex and not have babies, but that doesn't change the biological desire that is there. Your body enjoys sex because it wants to pass on genetic material. You may want to have sex because you think that guy at the bar is cute. You only "biologically" desire him to procreate. Is that simple enough for you.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

What I am saying to you is the pleasureable effect of sex is to create a desire to procreate.Not necessarily. As I said before, sex for pleasure is unique to only a few creatures on earth. The vast majority of living things engage in sex in the absence of pleasure and, in some cases, even when it is painful. I understand what you are trying to say and I am not denying that sex evolved as a mechanism for passing on genetic material. However, for humans, the purpose has clearly evolved. It is no longer used purely for creating babies, and in fact that is a relatively uncommon outcome of the act.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Just because we humans may use sex for pleasure, doesn't change the biology that makes us desire to do it. Sex is not in the mind. It is in the body and chemical/hormonal effects that give us the desire to seek it out. You as an aware person may not want a child, but your body does this fact is not disputed. You can't wish on yourself to not have a child when you have sex. Your body knows the purpose of the act. If sex has evolved to simply pleasure then why do women still get pregnant. An unplanned pregnancy is an oxymoron when you have to participate in intercourse for it to happen.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

You are simply restating yourself. The fact of the matter is humans rarely use sex for reproduction, and pregnancy is a rare outcome of sex. An unplanned pregnancy is an oxymoron when you have to participate in intercourse for it to happen.An unplanned car accident is an oxymoron when you have to participate in driving for it to happen.An unplanned food poisoning is an oxymoron when you have to participate in eating for it to happen.An unplanned sunburn is an oxymoron when you have to participate in sunbathing for it to happen.Just because you engage in an action does not mean you are consenting to let the occasional unwanted side effects of that action run their course without you trying to prevent them, or mitigating their effects as best as you can. Sex and pregnancy are no exceptions.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Do you understand what an oxymoron is? You have sex for procreation that is an undisputed fact. When you drive a car you are not trying to get into an accident. The chemical/biological functions of sexual functions, hormones, drive are all designed to make children. Just because humans have perverted it into something else does not change the physical implications of the act. You are viewing this subject from a secular worldview where you believe your wants, and desires are more important then another human's life.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Do you understand what an oxymoron is?Oxymoron: a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.” Considering there is nothing inherently contradictory about the words 'pregnancy' and 'unexpected', I would say you are the one who appears confused about the meaning. Pregnancy can very much be both surprising and unwanted.You have sex for procreation that is an undisputed fact.You continue to say this and it continues to be untrue, strictly speaking. Is this truly such a tough point to comprehend? Sex boosts immunity, relieves stress, and helps couples bond. We have found more uses for it that creating babies, and considering how rarely it actually creates a baby, I am unsure why you are still clinging to this statement. You appear to be presuming to tell me (and people in general?) why they have sex, when you are absolutely incorrect about it. Mostly, people have sex for fun, and this is a painfully obvious fact when you compare the average number of children per person to the average number of sexual partners over a lifetime, let alone the estimated number of actual sexual encounters. Infertile people have sex and homosexuals have sex. Neither of these situations has any capability of producing a baby and yet they continue to do it and enjoy it, for the same reasons that fertile heterosexuals do; it's fun and if you're careful, it is incredibly unlikely that it will end in pregnancy.When you drive a car you are not trying to get into an accident.Generally, when people have sex, they are not trying to get pregnant. I should think this, too should be fairly obvious, especially considering the lengths people go to in order to prevent this.Nevertheless, it happens, in spite of all the efforts put in place to stop it. Just like a car accident. You are viewing this subject from a secular worldview where you believe your wants, and desires are more important then another human's life.If that human is a) dependent on a woman's body as life support system and b) lacking anything that might be called a consciousness, then of course her interests should take precedence.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

At conception life has a chance whether self aware or not. The sex acts you cite are examples of the perverted nature that we as people have transformed the purpose of the act. This does NOT change the METAPHYSICAL purpose of sexual desire. The reason it is enjoyable at all is because PHYSICALLY our body wants to procreate. No matter what your perceived mental reasoning is for sex it is designed to make children. Like I have said since the beginning of this argument, our sex drive is DESIGNED for us to procreate. Even if you don't want to have a child you can get pregnant. This is the BIOLOGICAL design of the act itself. Women and men can't simply wish to not have a kid during sex, and then expect that to prevent pregnancy. An individual's reason doesn't change the purpose of the act.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

At conception life has a chance whether self aware or not.Why do you think this life, no more aware than the egg that made it, deserves a chance at the expense of the mother who doesn't want it?The sex acts you cite are examples of the perverted nature that we as people have transformed the purpose of the act.Are you saying that, every time someone has sex for fun over procreation, it is perverted?The reason it is enjoyable at all is because PHYSICALLY our body wants to procreate.If this is so, why is this a feature of sex unique to so few species? And why do humans exhibit concealed ovulation, facilitating sex when there is a 0% chance of it resulting in conception? Why do humans continue to be sexually receptive long past their childbearing years? The answer is that sex has come to serve another purpose, and this has been reflected biologically as well, not just with 'perceived mental reasoning'. Like I have said since the beginning of this argument, our sex drive is DESIGNED for us to procreate. Even if you don't want to have a child you can get pregnant. This is the BIOLOGICAL design of the act itself. Women and men can't simply wish to not have a kid during sex, and then expect that to prevent pregnancy. An individual's reason doesn't change the purpose of the act.All you are asserting in this statement is that, if a sperm reaches an egg, pregnancy will probably occur. Yes, thank you, people know that. That is why most of their do their best to make sure this doesn't happen, and most of the time, it works out pretty well., which makes pregnancy a very unlikely outcome when safe sex is practiced.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"Are you saying that, every time someone has sex for fun over procreation, it is perverted?"sex has been tuned passed mere reproduction.Intercourse, and the subsequent release of oxytocin, is one of the ways that people establish personal attachments to their partner.QED you have sex with people you feel close to in a special way, even if you do not have the urge to mate, simply because of the hormone signals
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

The author Desmond Morris makes a lot of points about the practical value of sex beyond reproduction in quite a few of his books. Human infants are high-maintenance, and have historically had a much higher chance of surviving with both parents around to care for it. He theorizes that concealed ovulation, continuous receptivity, relatively low fertility, orgasms, and the release of chemicals that you mentioned, all developed as mechanisms to help a couple bond and stay monogamous through the stress of childcare by having sex for fun. Even if Morris is incorrect about his assertions, in humans, sex is inefficient, wasteful of time and energy, and actually unlikely to result in pregnancy. These 'extra' features of it would not be so if it was purely meant for reproduction. I kind of wonder if Genesis is just busy or if he's given up. There are a lot of questions he does not seem to be able to answer on a variety of topics.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"continuous receptivity"this is probably the largest argument for procreational intercourse.After all, if a woman can only be impregnated for a very short amount of time each month, why is the urge to procreate present for more than just this time?and during pregnancy, hormone surges make a woman's sex drive even more powerfulperhaps to strengthen the bond between her and her mate during the difficult process of having a child?because, with one bun in the oven, they surely are not trying to get pregnant again."I kind of wonder if Genesis is just busy or if he's given up"hopefully the latter. It is an important quality to know when your arguments are lost"There are a lot of questions he does not seem to be able to answer on a variety of topics."I am not surprised: considering some of his statements (i.e. apples are not organisms) I did not think he would continue for as long as he has.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

So? It doesn't legitimize killing someone. The debate should really be about whether a fetus has a right to life. I think it does.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

If that that right comes at the expense of the rights of actual, conscious, thinking, feeling persons, then I strongly disagree.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"baby being stillborn being the two extremes"you realize that, in a stillbirth, the baby is both1) already deadand 2) carried out to termmaking that argument inapplicable on two platforms.also" Having taxpayers back and fund such matters when there are more sensible things to be spending money on is not helping anyone in the long run"This thread is not about public funding of abortions. It is about abortions. I actually agree that abortions should be privately funded- but that they should be allowed.after all, "its [her] body"which, upon thorough examination of your argument, I could not find a definitive argument against it.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

It's her body, but it's also the child's potential to develop into a fully functing human being.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

so the fetus has the potential to become a living child. That is not the same as the fetus being alive.I feel like I am repeating myself, but i will use these examples yet again.1) I have the potential to commit a crime. I am not criminal for having the potential to become a criminal2) Babies come from fetuses which come from blastocysts which come from sperm and eggs. Should it be illegal for a man to sit in a hot tub, simply because this kills sperm- which have the potential to become fetuses- which have the potential to become babies?3) If a fetus is unwanted, it is essentially an uninvited guest. Are you burdened with taking care of a starving homeless man who wanders into your house when you left the front door unlocked, or can you kick him back out to the curb- even if he will die of hunger?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

but thats still murder + ITS YOUR OWN BABY YOU ARE KILLING YOUR OWN BABBY
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

An embryo has a heart beat after eighteen days after conception. EIGHTEEN DAYS!! You don't even know you're pregnant at that time. If you abort, you stop a heartbeat. That is killing, murdering.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Absolutely NOT! Only in the cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is at stake.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Adoption.Rape cases are no exception, you have the kid, it goes to adoption, victim is compensated by the state and the rapist is condemned to a hard labor camp.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

There is substantial evidence that explicitly supports the claim that the unborn are indeed life forms, and they should be treated as such. For instance, consider the limited differences between humans and the unborn. The primary one is lack of development. As humans are considered to have moral equality despite their age (and hence development), there is no reason why fetuses should be treated any differently.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

if you aint ready to be a mom adoption should be your only choice but to start it of if you aint ready to be a mom in the first place why you having sex ?
Debate: Should people use the word "Gay" as a derogatory adjective?
Side: yes, its not hurting any body.

There's a difference between "should" and "allowed".Should they? Free country, their choice.Be allowed to? Of course, as I said, free country.I use gay to describe things that are lame, usually. No one says lame, though, so gay is just a better word. Considering that it has about 3 other definitions, adding lame really isn't that big a deal to me. I mean, gay means happy, colorful and homosexual. And with modern youth, it can also mean lame/stupid.