azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Source 2 does not over-extend any conclusions. Would you kindly give statement saying such over-extension? We can conclude from the given data since it has been proven through statistics and trends in the research.As for source 3, you should consider analyzing the argument rather than simply looking for sources since from the statements of the website itself can their points be assessed. Again I am also not responsible for the errors of the websites since I am more focused on the scientific effects of abortion to the body rather than looking for citations.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

It would be a better argument if you just stated reasons why abortion does not have detrimental effects on the human body since that is my argument in the first place. Disputing and stating errors on websites would stray far from the topic of the debate.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

You have only stated the errors in the sources rather than the arguments present. I am not the one who created the website therefore I am not liable for its errors. & It would be a better argument if you just stated reasons why abortion does not have detrimental effects on the human body since that is my argument in the first place. Disputing and stating errors on websites would stray far from the topic of the debate.You are not liable for errors in the research you are citing, but you are liable for not substantiating your assertions with reliable research. At the point where your arguments are founded in fallible sources they do not merit refutation. I am not straying from the topic of debate; I am holding you accountable to advancing an informed opinion.Source 1 [...]This source remains unsubstantiated. The only reference it makes is to a reference made in another source to something published almost 20 years ago (which is seriously outdated); and that was in reference only to a late term abortion method not to abortion generally.Source 2 [...]I already gave you an example, and thoroughly explained it. Your rebuttal also fails to address the matters of frequent non-substantiation and internal contradiction.Source 3 [...]Do you genuinely expect me to just accept the correctness of an assertion on faith? Forgive me if my standards are not so low as yours appear to be. I will reiterate once more that an unsubstantiated claim is an empty assertion, and add that such claims have no legitimate role in informing laws restricting human behavior.You clearly have no actual evidence to substantiate your view. I am done with this farcical debate; expect no further reply.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

A fetus is a living thing and no one under ANY circumstance should have the right to take that away.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

It's a form of murder. I don't see how that's OK. If you didn't want to have a baby, you could have made that decisions in the bedroom. I think that in some cases-like rape- abortion should be allowed. If you wanted to have sex, you are going to have to deal with the consequences, not murder it. I don't see how abortion is any different than cutting off the baby's head once it is born.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

No, its murder. If you don't want the baby: give it up for adoption.The baby doesn't deserveTo lose its life because you made a bad decision. - possible add a law that there has to be proof of rape for there to be an abortion.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

It ins't murder if it is in the early stages of the pregnancy. You can't murder something that lacks consciousness, that's like saying you can murder a plant.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Only in very exceptional circumstances (when the mother's life is in danger etc.) For small reasons, such as a persons financial circumstances changing, I think that it is most definitely wrong to rid the world of someone who could contribute so much good to it: the person who could cure cancer or a new technological inovater. Furthermore, when their are so many people in the world who can't have kids of their own, adoption by a happy and loving family is a far better solution than an abortion.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Biology informs us that a living thing with a unique set of genes is an individual. If it comes from a giraffe, it is an individual of that species. If it comes from a human, it is of the human species.We shouldn't permit the killing of innocent members of the human species.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Abortions are at least as old as humanity. They are a part of our nature, however repugnant a person may find them. Consequentially, they will persist regardless of their legality. The primary difference is whether the practice is driven underground and left wholly unregulated, which opens up room for black market abuses of women, or not.The solution to the abortion issue is not to make abortions illegal, but to target the root causes of unwanted pregnancies: poverty, lack of education, poor sexual education, etc. If you genuinely care about saving the lives of the unborn then you should care at least as much about these issues (though that is rarely the case for anti-abortionists). Anything less and you are giving superficial lip service to an ideal without fully and genuinely addressing it.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

target the root causes of unwanted pregnancies: poverty, lack of education, poor sexual education, etc.- Agreed.The primary difference is whether the practice is driven underground and left wholly unregulated, which opens up room for black market abuses of women, or not.- If the fetus is a human being, then why would we make it safer for a person to kill it? Perhaps this analogy would help:If you murder a pregnant woman you are charged with the death of two people. That is a dirty business, murdering people. It isn't safe. A person who does that is often mixed up in the black market of untraceable guns which is very dangerous and a person is likely to be taken advantage of or abused, aside from becoming acquainted with all kinds of undesirable people.We shouldn't make it safer for that person or for those who are getting abortions.What we should do is make pregnancy as safe and as comfortable for pregnant women as possible.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

- If the fetus is a human being, then why would we make it safer for a person to kill it? Perhaps this analogy would help [...].The analogy does not help, largely because it non-responsive to my point. Abortion is as hold as humanity (older, probably). Criminalizing it will not make it go away; that is a fact. I am wholly uninterested in the morality of the matter, and entirely invested in the pragmatics. If we know a thing is going to happen and we do not want it to, then we should both take action to deter it and also to ameliorate its harms. I would also charge you to substantiate your claim that those who kill pregnant women are caught up in the black market, and also that those persons become victims themselves in that context.What we should do is make pregnancy as safe and as comfortable for pregnant women as possible.We should do that regardless, and whether we do that is wholly independent of whether we also permit legal abortions.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

The woman who is pregnant should be the only one making the decisions about her body. Other people should have no say in the matter. Politics need to stay out of women's bodies.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

What about the woman (or man) in the womb who cannot make decisions?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Why is it wrong to get rid of a bundle of cells? You do the same when you bite your fingernails.I bet most abortions occur when the fertilised cell has only matured to a zygote, and no further, so there is nothing to constitute an infant.Perhaps it become less moral upon fetal development, but still, imagine a baby being born into a poor family, that cannot fend for themselves as it is, or a young single mother. That is no life to live - a constant struggle. I wouldn't want a child of my own to experience such daily hardship.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Of course! I would definitely say it would be better to "kill an unwanted child" than bringing a child to the world who would live a life without security. To have parents who are loving and ambulatory is everything a child needs. No one deserves to be born into a living hell with parents who are not able to take care of them. To be born into a troubled life is something no one deserves, and I would definitely say that if thats the case, abortion should be allowed. To say that allowing abortions will cause more teenage sex and would make the teenagers not understanding the seriousness in getting pregnant, is a bad argument in my point of view. To get pregnant with an unwanted child is in any part of life a terrible mistake, but the ones who do go though with abortion have to live with this for the rest of their life, this feeling of killing a living organism, in my point of view this is a very big consequence to live with. It is the parents' fault that the child was made, but why should this unwanted child get all the consequences of a mistake their parents did?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Yes but only in the first trimester. Abortions at like 20 weeks and later in my opinion are immoral but an early fetus doesn't have brain activity so isn't a person.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Brain activity does not means thoughts, ideas or dreams, for something like that you need input first...
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I don't believe that thoughts, ideas, and dreams are being asserted here; since he's using the 20 week figure, I presume what he is concerned with is pain. We go out of our way to avoid causing excessive pain to our livestock. In those states in the US that still have the death penalty, the majority opt for the most painless execution methods possible. Partway through the second trimester, generally by around week 25 or so, the central and peripheral nervous systems have developed to the point where stimuli, including pain, and the fundamentals of emotions can be experienced. More complex emotions aren't present, but more basic primal ones such as fear are; this is evident from analysis of brain activity.Abortion in the first trimester, while still causing death, does not cause pain or fear; it is physically impossible for the fetus to feel these during that stage. Late term abortion is horrific specifically because of the things you noted- no thoughts, no ideas, no dreams, and negligible stimuli until the procedure; a fetus who is aborted late has had essentially no emotion or sensation other than pain and fear for its entire existence. It doesn't need to be a person yet for that to be wrong; that's worse than the way we treat veal calves.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

God put a person in the sperm that goes into the women body.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

What about born people without brain activity? Can we kill them too, because they are costing us a lot of money.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Yes. Life begins at birth and women have the right to choose what to do with their pregnancy. The one carrying the fetus should have the final say.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I'm not going to dispute you because I'm pro-choice and don't want to add a vote to the other side, but..."Life begins at birth" is quite possibly the most incorrect analysis one can make. Biologically, life begins at conception. Capacity to feel begins during the second trimester. Nothing particularly special happens at birth aside from the fact that suddenly stimuli are available to the fetus. Actual 'personhood,' the development of self-awareness and independent thought, however rudimentary, does not begin in most cases until well into the first year after birth.Being anti-abortion means holding that life as sacred from the moment of conception; I don't agree with this angle.Being pro-choice but opposed to causing suffering means allowing early abortion, but not late term abortion.But late-term abortion is something I can't support; if abortion is fine up until the moment of birth, then infanticide within the first few months should be equally fine. Of course, cases where the mother is at significant risk are an exception to this.I'm not trying to push women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, mind you- but if the decision is made to abort, it should be made early enough so as to not be causing pain. Cases of denial notwithstanding, it's exceedingly rare (though far from impossible) for a woman to get to the second trimester without realizing that something is up. Pregnancy tests are cheap- the Dollar Tree near my house sells them for, you guessed it, $1.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

"Life begins at birth" is quite possibly the most incorrect analysis one can make. Biologically, life begins at conception. Capacity to feel begins during the second trimester. Nothing particularly special happens at birth aside from the fact that suddenly stimuli are available to the fetus. Actual 'personhood,' the development of self-awareness and independent thought, however rudimentary, does not begin in most cases until well into the first year after birth. It is your belief that is crap. Everyone with a brain know that life begins at birth. Born infants have self awareness and you are really insulting the prochoice movement by saying that. Edit: Im the one who downvoted this my own comment.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

It is your belief that is crap. Everyone with a brain know that life begins at birth. Born infants have self awareness and you are really insulting the prochoice movement by saying that.Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this statement. Actual self awareness typically arises at around 18 months in. This has been verified scientifically both in terms of observation and ability to react to specific stimuli, as well as via EEG. I've also personally observed this shift in my own son- I do not exaggerate at all when I say that having an infant is more like having a very needy pet than a little person.And think about it for a second; what you're suggesting is ridiculous. You're implying that self-awareness spontaneously forms at the moment of birth, because otherwise you would have to acknowledge that life begins BEFORE birth. You aren't seriously suggesting that some kind of magical, high-speed developmental shift occurs through the process of labor, are you? Do babies born via caesarean section then never attain self awareness?Also: You do know that your dispute cast a vote to the pro-life side, right?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I sounded like an asshole. Can we start over please? Youre awesome and I like you. :(
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

No offense was taken. I'm well aware that this is quite an emotionally loaded issue :)
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

It is, but I want better social skills so Im sorry. Now, where were we?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

We were disagreeing over whether life began at birth, I believe. I was asserting that birth is a poor place to mark the beginning of life because it doesn't represent any particular stage of development; in fact no two babies are at exactly the same place in their development when born. My suggestion was that the beginning of life should be based on some developmental point; I noted conception as the beginning of biological life as one milestone, development of the central and peripheral nervous systems in the second trimester as another milestone (when the fetus is capable of feeling pain and fear, even if it is not actually capable of anything as complex as thought or more complicated emotions), and I noted the emergence of self-awareness and independent thought (typically around 18 months after birth) as milestones in development that would make sense to call the beginning of life, to me. I'm sure there are other milestones that could be noted- I don't believe there are any significant ones between conception and the ability to feel pain, but there are certainly some between then and full 'personhood.' I just don't believe that birth represents a developmental milestone, is all. I did throw some ridiculous hyperbole in there too, I believe.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

A question: Are you saying that born infants are not people or do i need my coffee? I dont wanna put words in your mouth.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Well, I'll need to qualify that a bit because there is more than one definition for person/people, but, that's correct- by which I mean that a newborn infant does not (yet) possess the traits that we typically attribute to personhood. In that regard, a newborn infant (just like an unborn fetus) remains a 'potential person.' The newborn/fetus is human, and alive, but not yet a person by any meaningful definition of the word.While there is certainly a difference between a brain dead individual and an undeveloped brain, thats my best comparison. A brain dead individual is alive in a biological sense, just as an infant is. But everything that made the brain dead individual who they are, everything that made them an individual, a person- is gone. An infant doesn't have these things either, though there is some reasonable expectation of these things arising in an infant over time.This is not to suggest, btw, that I am in support of late term abortion or early infanticide; I believe the line should be drawn at the capacity to feel pain and fear, rather than at something more nebulous like self awareness.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

for people saying it is murder, please go back to 1st grade.................................................
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

I say no u shouldn't,get rid of ur child u have a baby and its ur fault u have a baby u able to stop ur self from having a baby anyways
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

If abortions aren't allowed already, then they should!If you're saying that abortions shouldn't be used as a method of contraception, then you are absolutely right. There are health risks involved in it, so i agree with you.But if it was an unplanned pregnancy, and both the parents (or just the guy and the girl) are not ready to be parents yet, then you simply can't force them. It's important to remember that the parents' lives are changed forever once they have a child. if, as you say, abortions were made illegal, then every unplanned/unwanted child will be given away or left on the streets (as we know happens in asian countries). If the child is lucky enough to be adopted, then that's great! But not all kids will get to be so lucky.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Pro-life advocates are so often ignorant when it comes to the natural processes of a woman's body. The female body naturally rejects about 80% of fertilized eggs (read, the female body naturally aborts about 80% fertilized eggs) (sourcex2). So I'd love to see a pro-lifer try to drag Mother Nature into court and call "her" a murderer.That aside, abortions are a personal decision the mother, and sometimes the father, makes. It's no one's damn business what she decides to do with her body, whether you like it or not. And if you have a problem with your tax dollars going towards the upkeep and operation of abortion clinics, maybe you should either work harder to change the socialist-type economy you live in or consider relocating to an area more suited to your ideals. Because the fact of the matter is, in a country revered (outwardly, anyway) for its individual freedom, you cannot claim to support such an ideology only when it suits your personal beliefs.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Does a woman have the right to an abortion under the U.S. Constitution? If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose. If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Of course!
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

There is only one question when it comes to abortion, what is it? If it is a human being then it requires a very high level of justification to take it's life. I have simply seen no argument that comes close to proper justification for the taking the life of a innocent human being. The only arguments I have seen are those that try to take away the embryo's humanity and make it less than human.Roe vs Wade was a very poor decision by the Supreme Court because it introduce a major contradiction in the law. The unjustified taking of a human life is considered murder under current law and we have different degrees to further define it. Consider the fact that if you kill a woman with child; you will be charged for two counts of homicide. But if a doctor kills only one of those persons; no charge. The Supreme Court by their ruling overturned the law they were supposed to uphold. The right thing to do would be to overturn this erroneous ruling and restore our rule of law.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Brilliant. That's it. Abortion is WRONG, and I don't know why some people can't get it through their thick skulls. Hmmm if you were a baby and were going to be born and you were aborted, you probably would care.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

"if you were a baby, were going to be born and were aborted, you probably would care" this statement is all about "if". In reality, the fetus has no mental capacity to care about anything. Before it could survive outside of the mother's womb, it should be entirely the mother's choice, not society's. I believe this is about 20 weeks into the pregnancy.