azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

"You correctly enumerated a few privileges but not one thing you claimed is a right."Let's see. The 15th Amendment says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The 19th Amendment says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." And the 24th Amendment says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." Funny, I don't see the word "privilege" in there at all.In Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), SCOTUS said that marriage was "a fundamental right" -- not a fundamental privilege, but a fundamental right. A corporate merger is not a fundamental right, nor does it bestow the same rights and obligations as does a marriage.The right to serve on a jury is part and parcel of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial -- except of course that only natural persons, and not corporations, can serve on juries. The Sixth Amendment, again, does not say "privilege of a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury." It says "right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."I could go on, but I think I've made the point.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Next, you need to cite corporate law. Nothing you claimed denies the rights of a corporation to do so likewise, provided that the corporation is capable of exercising said right. Remember, that which written law does not forbid is permissible.As a help, you must find a law that forbids corporations from doing that which citizens are allowed. That is your burden of proof.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

No, next you need to back up your position, because I've already backed up mine and proven yours wrong. So now it's your turn to cite corporate law that asserts that corporations do have the aforementioned rights.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

You are asking me to prove a negative. I am not an idiot as you pretend I am. There is no law that proves corporations do not have the same rights. Sorry! you chose to take your position of your own accord. I'm surprised the law prof. has not taught you that axiom.Your supporting argument did not in no way or form deny that a corporation has the same rights as a human. Your argument only affirmed the rights of a citizen! Therefore, you have failed to prove your own argument!Don't let your law prof. read your debate, you may be fired for such.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

You sure seem like an idiot. Here's your debate strategy:You: Grand assertion!Other: That's wrong.You: Prove it!Other: Here's proof.You: Red herring! Straw man!Other: Okay, support your point with a counter-proof, then.You: No! I can't! That must mean I'm right anyway! Instead of proving my point, since I can't, I'll just spout a few gratuitous insults.Other: Are you like, four years old?You: Red herring straw man you fail! Red herring straw man you're fired! I know you are but what am I! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Lookit lookit lookit lookit mom! Mom! Mom!. . . and so forth.Sorry -- that may work well at your pre-school, but it doesn't work with thinking adults.And actually, it was you who asked me to prove a negative: "find a law that forbids corporations from doing that which citizens are allowed" or in other words, "find the absence of a right." I told you to begin by proving the contrary affirmative -- cite some law that proves the existence of the aforementioned rights as applied to corporations. Since you can't, because there isn't any, you got pissy and insulting. So again, your behavior sure looks like idiocy to me.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

So who is the idiot?You have explicitlydemonstrated that your supposed discourse with a pre-school idiot has reduced you to nothing more than a babbling thinking adult who no longer can control your emotions and who also submits an argument: You: Red herring straw man you fail! Red herring straw man you're fired! I know you are but what am I! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Lookit lookit lookit lookit mom! Mom! Mom!. . . and so forth.Sorry -- that may work well at your pre-school, but it doesn't work with thinking adults.You have much to learn.You have lost the debate. And your own babbling evidences that fact. Grow-up and move-along!
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Well, you didn't convince me, and you didn't convince anybody else, of anything other than the fact that you are infantile. I gave proofs, you slung insults. So I can't say I'm deeply moved by your opinions on who lost this debate, or on who needs to grow up.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Because you failed to identify the subject of your argument, you have unwittingly revealed your ignorance of the subject at hand. The term, something, indicates you know not the subject of your argument.Fine if you want me to use specific word: fetus or embryo.#1. All corporations of the United States don’t think, feel, see, or do anything that makes them human. However, they have the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl.Irrelevant to this debate.#2 All humans are human because they originate from the womb of a female homo sapien. That is what makes all humans human!Is menstrual blood human by your definition? Or an ovum? Cervical mucous?#3 I can argue whatsoever I want, but your red-herring is laughable!Not actually an argument.Clearly there are two distinct life forms, the girl and the human embryo and later a human fetus.Try separating these two distinct life forms and see what happens.Allow me to explain my position more fully since you haven't seemed to grasp it (despite your claimed experience in debating this matter).Before a sperm and an egg come together, there is no doubt that they do not deserve any of the rights awarded to people. Would you agree with this?After a baby comes out of his mothers womb, that baby has essentially all the rights that are afforded to a person, agreed? So obviously during the 9 months of pregnancy there is some point at which the embryo/fetus gains these rights. The two extremes are:-The moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.-The moment that the baby leaves it's mothers womb (or really more commonly, when the baby can survive outside the womb.)As for the first, I think that it's ridiculous to assume that a one celled organism should be afforded any rights, and as for the second I would think that mere physical position (inside rather than outside of womb) shouldn't be the determining factor.Instead there should be some type of middle ground in which the embryo gains rights over time as it develops. When certain rights should be afforded is obviously something for debate, but this debate becomes meaningless when people assign supernatural characteristics to an embryo, like a soul (not that you have done this).The doctor has been given a legal right (by seven individuals) to terminate the life of a human embryo and a human fetus. The little girl’s choice is secondary!So you think there are doctors out there who are finding little pregnant girls and giving them abortions against their will?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Irrelevant to this debate.Excuse me? My reply is the logical contradiction of your original statement! Why are you ignoring the irrelevancy of your own statement? And again, you have claimed that one of my statements (your red-herring is laughable) is not an argument, which is precisely what irrelevant means in the term red-herring! I see! You ignore the irrelevancy or your own points when the opposition relevantly contradicts your irrelevant statement/s. #2 All humans are human because they originate from the womb of a female homo sapien. That is what makes all humans human! Is menstrual blood human by your definition? Or an ovum? Cervical mucous?Logic is not your strong point. Had I stated that all that originates within the womb of a female homo is human then your question would be valid. If you carefully read my statement you will discover that your question is an attempted red-herring, again. For clarity, I did not state that all that originates in the womb of female homo is human, so stop drawing invalid inferences and asking irrelevant questions. Definition? I certainly hope you do not think I have defined anything according to my #2 statement.#3 I can argue whatsoever I want, but your red-herring is laughable!Not actually an argument.I addressed this absurdity in the beginning of this post.Allow me to explain my position more fully since you haven't seemed to grasp it (despite your claimed experience in debating this matter).My experience in debate concerning this question has nothing to do with countering your series of invalid questions and accusations. You have not made clear, even partially, your position. So, I am not the one at fault, you on the other hand are responsible for informing me of your position. Unless of course you would prefer that I attempt to draw invalid inferences from a series of questions and invalid inferences you have submitted. So you think there are doctors out there who are finding little pregnant girls and giving them abortions against their willAnother red-herring in the form of a question!The term, secondary, should not be understood by any person as involuntary. Read my statement and you will not find any justification for considering that I affirmed that which your question implied!Lest I forget, there are many species of fetus and embryo, I recommend you vigilantly clarify which species thereof you are referencing. Human fetus Human embryoAsk yourself both of the following questions:• Am I justifying the killing of a human fetus or embryo?• Am I willing to kill a human fetus or embryo?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Are there laws about ending the life of corporations? No? Then it's not relevant.You said what makes us human is that we came from the womb of a human being. This is more a symptom of our humanity then the root cause, but I still don't really see the point.You keep using the term red-herring, but I can't say that you're doing so correctly.Allow me to explain this again since you seemed to ignore the important part of my last argument:-The moment before fertilization = no rights-The moment of birth = all rightsSomewhere in between rights are gained. I submit that this should be gradual, and not at the point of conception or the point of birth for reasons I have already stated.Finally, another point you cannot grasp: a human fetus is not a human person. There is a difference (similar to the difference in rights of someone age 12, and someone age 25) and the law should certainly recognize this.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Are there laws about ending the life of corporations? No? Then it's not relevant.Not true! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_law  You said what makes us human is that we came from the womb of a human being. This is more a symptom of our humanity then the root cause, but I still don't really see the point.I did not suppose you would. You were too entangled in refuting that which I never asserted. Allow me to explain this again since you seemed to ignore the important part of my last argument:-The moment before fertilization = no rights-The moment of birth = all rightsSomewhere in between rights are gained. I submit that this should be gradual, and not at the point of conception or the point of birth for reasons I have already stated.I was never debating anything that can be inferred as my attempt to determine rights of a human fetus or embryo. And consequently I am not compelled to engage in a separate debate. So yes, I concur that I intentionally ignored the red-herring argument.Finally, another point you cannot grasp: a human fetus is not a human person. There is a difference (similar to the difference in rights of someone age 12, and someone age 25) and the law should certainly recognize this.You keep using the term red-herring, but I can't say that you're doing so correctly.Because you are arguing the rights or the absence of rights of a human fetus or embryo as a response to my argument of the little girl’s right you are changing the subject of the debate. Likewise you also argue that I have asserted that a human fetus is a human person when in fact I did no such thing. That too is a red-herring argument. If you still dispute my claim of your red-herring assertions I will gladly share more information.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

From the wiki article:According to the American Professors Hansmann (of Yale University) and Kraakman (of Harvard University), the five defining characteristics of the modern corporation are:separate legal personality of the corporation (the right to sue and be sued in its own name)limited liability of the shareholders (so that when the company is insolvent, they only owe the money that they subscribed for in shares)transferable shares (usually on a listed exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange or Euronext in Paris)delegated management, in other words, control of the company placed in the hands of a board of directorsinvestor ownership, which Hansmann and Kraakman take to mean, ownership by shareholders.Anywhere in here are there laws about ending the life of the corporation? No. Did you even read that article before posting it? Did you expect me not to read it but instead just take your word for it? I am not that naive, nor stupid enough to believe that there would be laws about killing something that is not alive.So allow me to repeat myself for a third time: not relevant to this debate.Did you just learn the word the word red-herring, because you use it as sporadically and inaccurately as a 7 year old who just learned the meaning of a curse word.Okay, now that we've moved past these sidebars let's deal with what this debate is about.You claim that this debate is not about the rights of a fetus, but instead about the rights of a girl. Fine. A girl has a right to decide whether or not she wishes to bring a child into this world. I would argue that it is our right to do any action that does not infringe upon the rights of other people or hurts society as a whole. Since a fetus is clearly not a person, no rights are being infringed, and a girl has the right to act as she chooses.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

From the wiki article:But despite this, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[5] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[6] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[7]You must follow the notes!Are you being dishonest? Almost every argument I've read of yours demonstrates your ignorance of informal fallacies in logic. It's too bad that the intelligence of a 7 year old can see this and you don't. Shall I say more?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

I guess if you can't counter the meat of my arguments then you will continue to resort to this ridiculous argument.For what is now the fourth time: there are no laws that talk about ending the life a corporation. Apparently the corporation can be convicted of ending the life of an individual in federal court, but certainly not the other way around.Accept when you're wrong...you sound ridiculous.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

You have yet to point to a law that shows that corporations have the rights to vote, marry, hold public office, sit on juries, or exercise any of the other specific rights I mentioned -- so you have STILL failed to provide proof that corporations have the "exact same rights" as human beings, per your original claim. No one is disputing that corporate entities have SOME rights. In fact, no one is even disputing that corporate entities have fairly extensive rights, including a good many of the same rights that human beings have. But it is your burden to prove your claim that they have all the "same" rights as human beings.So, still waiting for you to support your argument with proof that ACTUALLY supports your argument.And are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that revoking a licence of incorporation is "ending a life"? Maybe you should take up a crusade against the "abortions" of corporations whose licences are revoked while they are still in their start-up phases.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

What is wrong with you! I set a trap in which you were caught. I find it funny that you, one whom has: Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are., fell into an ambiguous statement. Shall I fall into a trap in which I have set? I do not think so!The trap: However, they have the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl.Both you and andsoccer were entrapped thereby. The fact that such has occurred evidences arrogance coupled with ignorance. Allow me to explain.#1 All corporations having the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl is a statement you failed to comprehend.No little girl has the rights you have claimed. I’ve never seen a little girl marry, vote, hold public office, sit on juries or exercise any rights you cited. Therefore your ignorance of refutation is availed!#2 All the rights of a corporation are the same rights of a citizen whose of legal age. This statement is not equivalent to the statement:  All corporations and all U.S. citizens can exercise all of the same rights. Or said another way, All the rights of a corporation are also the rights of a legal citizen. Attempting to refute an ambiguous statement is your folly, and quite frankly suggests that you are a liar or worse when you claim: Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are.Now, concerning the death of a corporation I suggest you read my reply to your comrade, andsoccer. By the way, an infantile pre-schooler cannot be expected to increase you intelligence! Yes, I am aware that you will not recognize your arguments are invalid. In spite of the fact that you: Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Don't you have a job, or something better to do than beat this dead horse? Your arguments are unpersuasive and no one is swayed in the least by them.With a few very narrow exceptions, a "little girl" is also not legally competent to enter into contracts. And while a corporation can change its business headquarters more or less on a whim, if a "little girl" tries to change her HQ on a whim it's called "running away from home." The "little girl" does, however, have a right to attend public schools which a corporation does NOT have. So you're still wrong, and calling me names does nothing to add support to your points.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Wow,I noticed that you overlooked the right of the parents/s of the little girl. The authority of the parents to send their children or not send their children to school is never the right of a child!Hypocrite, your arguments about the question of consent affirm that a little girl must seek judicial permission free from or by consent of the parents. Therefore, you imply pregnant minors must have consent from either a judge or a parent. Make up your moronic mind and stop appealing to the opinion of law. The only question in my mind that remains concerning you is:Are you that self-deceived, or are you that deceitful?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Rights and authority are not the same. The child has the right to attend a public school; but the parents have the authority to choose private school or home schooling for their child. So your attempt to throw out yet another of your beloved "red herrings" and thereby divert the topic at hand into some other channel did not work, and you fail YET AGAIN. Failing is like a lifestyle choice with you, innit? At no point have I ever recanted my original opinion on parental notification of abortions performed on minors, which is that the Court got it right; parental notification requirements are okay as long as there is a judicial "out" for those who need it, and this strikes me as a proper balancing of interests.You, on the other hand, have not made any cogent arguments about parental notification requirements, but have instead gone off on any number of unrelated tangental "points," all of which you've been subsequently shown to be incorrect about.I tire of your inability to hold civil discourse and of the spew of your walnut-sized brain. As you seem intent on trading insults, I will end with a few for you. Attempting to hold a discussion with you is much like attempting to reason with a brain-damaged rabid chihuahua, and so I have no further interest in hearing your inane drivel. Rant on if you like; your very presence on this planet is a helluva strong argument in favor of abortion that far outweighs anything your mouth might stammer out. Now go bother someone else with your idiot ranting, so you can show more of the world what a mentally-deficient near-ape troglodyte you are. Begone!
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

I am wholly in agreement with Banshee's argument, but I can't fault you for lack of effort. Most people would have laughed at a challenge to prove that corporations could be "killed" by someone, but not you. No, you went so far as to take a specific law that dealt with a penalty, imposed by a state government, on a corporation for one of many misdeeds, and attempted to argue that it somehow was equivalent to someone "killing" a person. You then attempted to argue that this whole thing was relevant to a debate on abortion.Bravo.Since you refuse to argue anything substantive, this is going to be my last argument in this thread. If you want the last word, be my guest, but unless you can show me a trial where someone was accused of killing a corporation, I don't think you really have anything to add.