azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

Out of 6 bazillion people, only around 42 have had that luxury in the U.S. So if having 6 bazillion more babies is the solution to our lack of presidents, then the responsible thing to do would be to have as many babies as possible without regard to population, because it's the responsible thing to do.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Did I ever say it was a solution? No. That is a simple minded answer. I just said it could be plausible. Read before you write.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

"I believe that no one's right should be taken away to have an abortion but I do believe it is wrong. They should be responsible and go through with it. You never know, that baby might be the next president."You are saying they "should" be responsible and have the babies. The responsible thing to do may also be to not have the child. "Should" does not leave room for debate. There isn't a "maybe" or a "possibly". It's Should or shouldn't. So apparently "you" should word your opinion better. A simple minded answer is one that insults the intellect directly without much construction, like your reply. Basically you called me a retard, and them's fighting werds. I propose fisticuffs on the roof of the Empire State Building on the 23rd leap year!
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

I said I believe, which means I was stating my opinion. I don't have to have your approval to word my opinion better. It is my opinion I can do with it as I want. "A simple minded answer is one that insults the intellect directly without much construction" Which you insulted mine by making a joke of it and blowing my idea that the child might be a president way out of proportion. So again read before you write. As for saying " The responsible thing to do may also be to not have the child." That is your opinion and i am not trying depriving you of that.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

A belief that has a tinge of off-handed yet resounding certainty has the irritating knack of becoming truth and then turned into a choice-less law. Not every single person is responsible, those that have been raped, or are mentally handicapped do sometimes become pregnant. In some cases there are those young girls that have become pregnant at 6 years of age. There are those that would die from giving birth. There are those that have no means to stop giving birth because of culture or poverty. Without hearing the background information to every single story, you would say that abortion is "wrong". And if you did know the reasons does it then become "right".Knowing this, maybe you would have to change your "should" to "maybe" and "wrong" to "when appropriate". Blanketing all abortions under "wrong" sends the wrong message.Of course most responses on this website are considered opinions. I simply worded my response in a way anyone can understand. Basing your belief on "hope", that each child presents an opportunity on greatness, does nothing to support the fact that most may not amount to anything, but merely become the grease on the wheels that support the richest 1% . Either that or they become the helpers of the world and help those that have too many "mouths to feed" charity work. Which is worth more? I would rather have a more substantial reason that "hope". I hope all will be good in contrast to my decision.I cannot hope because I have no decision. Each presents a possible no-win scenario.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Sex inside a marital relationships begats children. Those who do it outside marriage still have a responsiblity. How should we decide which children to murder? What age do we become a citizen. Babies are born premature all the time some only half way through the gestational period. What children do you think are good enough to have life?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Let the woman do what she wants. It isn't up to a bunch protesters to decide what she can or can't do.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: only in certain cases

I think that abortions should be allowed in certain cases as most of the women having abortions are under the age of 25 and are unmarried and they should be allowed to make the decision themselves as they are the ones going to be taking care of the baby and if they don't think that they are responsible enough to raise a baby, who are we to decide.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Family planning is a very personal decision that should be left to women. I laugh at the so-called "small government" conservatives who think the government interfering in family planning decisions is small government. As Dee Snider said when the issue of censorship came up, "If you don't like the music, don't buy the record." the same should go for abortion. If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I think that it should be the womans choice to have an abortion the problem is that lots of woman use this as their personal contraception instead of learning how to use condomns or birth control or just plain closing their legs. If you don't want to get pregnant learn how to be safe.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Sometimes is better an abortion than a negleted child... Although, it IS alive. But there's no perception of anything in the fetus/baby.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Yes, it's there life and there choice. All arguments against it are based on religious views and no one has a right to force their religion on another.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: only in certain cases

i think that abortion would be right in the case of rape.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

You think because a woman is raped she should then murder a child. There is adoption many people would love to raise that baby.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

if its destroyed before it can actually function out of the womb, its not alive, thus, it is not murder
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I got something to sayI killed your baby todayAnd it doesn't matter much to meAs long as it's dead
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Troll much???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Should? No, they should be sexually responsible enough that its never even a thought. Should they be able to? Thats another more complicated question.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

Sexually responsible is also abortion. There is no fail-safe method to prevent pregnancy unless you are sterilized. The last "sexually responsible" choice would be to have an abortion. Unless you plan on eliminating the ability to reproduce at a 100% rate of effectiveness, abortion, is the last responsible thing you can do. Although adoption has responsible connotations attached, it leads to years of drama, emotions, and psychological issues.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

In General I consider doing something responsibly as including being willing to accept the consequences, even if some of them are unlikely or if another process might undo the undesirable consequences which might result. Usually the undoing process carries with it costs which are themselves undesirable. For example, it is not responsible for some one to make a contract they can not keep. Even if there are ways to get around the consequences of breaking the contract. Sex is not necessary, It can lead to things which negatively impacts what you do need, some money, decent reputation among some people, soundness of mind to maintain lifes pleasures, etc all can be negatively effected by either keeping the child, or by aborting the child . It is not responsible to make such a contract with nature, so to speak, if you can not afford it; even if you can invoke some technological magic and escape the natural consequences.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

In General I consider doing something responsibly as including being willing to accept the consequences...Abortion is a consequence. For example, it is not responsible for some one to make a contract they can not keep. Even if there are ways to get around the consequences of breaking the contract. Can you define the contract one automatically enters when they engage in sexual activity? I am assuming this is what you are alluding to.Sex is not necessary.There are many things that are not 'necessary', but enrich life with their existence. Sex for fun over procreation is one of those things. People are not going to stop doing it, and it is kind of sanctimonious to support the message that people had better be celibate if they're not ready to get pregnant. I am not saying this is your explicit message, but it seems implied that sex is only to make babies, so if you have sex, you better be ready to have a baby, and don't have sex if you're not ready to have a baby.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

it is kind of sanctimonious to support the message that people had better be celibate if they're not ready to get pregnant.You ever been closely involved with a mother who really wasn't ready? There is usually a huge difference in the life of a child that results from fooling around as opposed to one that was planned.The truth is that (despite whether or not the attitude of the advice giver is sanctimonious or not) the advice that "people had better be celibate if they're not ready to get pregnant" is sound advice. Face itCan you define the contract one automatically enters when they engage in sexual activity?I'll give a poke of logic and continue butting in..People surely shouldn't be having sex before maturityA mature person understands that pregnancy is extremely likely to result from sexual intercourseAs a man if I have casual sex with someone, I might not care how smart, stable, good willed etc.. she is and guess what? She really might get pregnant! Now it's All fine and dandy that the woman can if she so wishes opt out of the tremendous responsibility. The man has no such right, so if you are a man you had better realize that recreational sex can actually end up being -akin to at least- an irrevocable involuntarily entered contract.So Guys,DON'T TAKE THE SUBJECT LIGHTLY, girls don't worry you can have it cut out. See now there's some less sanctimonious advice.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

You ever been closely involved with a mother who really wasn't ready? There is usually a huge difference in the life of a child that results from fooling around as opposed to one that was planned.I am not sure what you are getting at with this. The answer to the question is yes but I don't see how that invalidates anything I have said.The truth is that (despite whether or not the attitude of the advice giver is sanctimonious or not) the advice that "people had better be celibate if they're not ready to get pregnant" is sound advice. Face itSex has other purposes besides procreation for humans. This is why women exhibit concealed ovulation, libido persists despite infertility, and sex is physically pleasurable; it is an important bonding experience for couples. It also has health benefits such as stress relief and immunity boosts. Additionally, consider the unlikelihood of what you are saying. The average age of parenthood is 26 in the US. This is asking people to abstain from sex their entire lives up to this point, including the time period in which they meet their spouse and decide to marry them. This is also asking couples to abstain from sex between children. Especially for people living together, this is stressful, frustrating, and contrary to human nature.I'll give a poke of logic and continue butting in..People surely shouldn't be having sex before maturityA mature person understands that pregnancy is extremely likely to result from sexual intercourseThis is not true. Even without any form of protection at all, there is a 20-25% chance per cycle of conception. This rate nosedives once protection is used. As a man if I have casual sex with someone, I might not care how smart, stable, good willed etc.. she is and guess what? She really might get pregnant! Now it's All fine and dandy that the woman can if she so wishes opt out of the tremendous responsibility. The man has no such right, so if you are a man you had better realize that recreational sex can actually end up being -akin to at least- an irrevocable involuntarily entered contract.You have a point about the contract men enter, and it's not the particular point of the debate so I don't want to get hung up on it but I wish there were a solution that also preserved their interests as well. However, if the man's wishes had any real weight in this decision, it could result in some women either being forced to continue a pregnancy, or forced to get an abortion. Both of those situations should be stringently avoided.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

I am not sure what you are getting at with this. The answer to the question is yes but I don't see how that invalidates anything I have said.My aim isn't to invalidate what you said but rather to provide a contrasting perspective.This is asking people to abstain from sex their entire lives up to this point, including the time period in which they meet their spouse and decide to marry them. This is also asking couples to abstain from sex between children. Especially for people living together, this is stressful, frustrating, and contrary to human nature.As I see it, due to the likely consequences, people shouldn't think choosing sexual partners flippantly is an unavoidable human thing to do.This is not true. Even without any form of protection at all, there is a 20-25% chance per cycle of conception. This rate nosedives once protection is used.Just maybe... this 20-25% is deceptive and refers to the chances per encounter.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

My aim isn't to invalidate what you said but rather to provide a contrasting perspective.How is the perspective of a woman who is not ready for a child a contrasting perspective? These are the people who would be more likely to opt for an abortion, which is the choice I am advocating.As I see it, due to the likely consequences, people shouldn't think choosing sexual partners flippantly is an unavoidable human thing to do.Do you define a flippant choice of partner as a partner with whom one is unwilling to raise a child? If so, this would limit humans to a single sexual partner per lifetime. Most people have a number of sexual partners, all or most of whom they care deeply about and do not choose 'flippantly'. Just maybe... this 20-25% is deceptive and refers to the chances per encounter.A woman who is not on birth control is only fertile for 24-48 hours per monthly cycle. When she is not fertile, there is 0% chance of conception, for obvious reasons. Around the time that she is fertile is when the 20-25% chance is applicable. A woman who is on birth control is not supposed to be fertile for any length of time but breakthrough ovulation does occur, and it often goes undetected.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Perhaps I can more clearly contrast our perspectives: (or, me putting words into your mouth:))You: It's normal and healthy to have sex without very seriously considering the possible consequences. (which are totally unlikely according to this study and that) After all abortion is a neat and tidy solution, should the minor irritation of an unwanted pregnancy occur.Me: Anytime you are having sex, it ought to be with someone who you have already a rich non-sexual relationship with. Now when I was a teen, I didn't follow that rule. (so don't think the sanctimonious jab missed me) I am aware that the advice will most often go in one ear and out the other, but I think it's good advice, that CAN be heeded. It's not unrealistic to think that some people will set higher standards for themselves.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Abortion is a indirect consequence, and it isn't one that you can rely on. You should be prepared for the possibility of it but I wouldn't call it anything to bet on. Its not solely dependent upon your sexual habits and properties. Its kinda like saying " if I can't make my rent this month my parents will bail me out if my land lady wants it right away". There is more certainty that you will keep your apartment if you ensure you pay your rent on time, your parents may get tired of it though and weather or not they will is dependent on them. If your going to take the risk, you shouldn't rely on your parents to bail you out and here is the important part: you should have a workable back up plan encase they don't. Being completely unprepared for possible consequences of something that your likely to do often isn't being responsible. I know that you can have sex many many times before you have a kid, but all it takes is once for you to be stuck with something your not ready for, and thats not fair to anybody. I have seen it happen too many times. Maybe my view is more applicable to men, since they have less control over weather or not a child is born. The contract: If a child results, you are by default legally responsible for it. That responsibility ties the three(or more) of you together.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Abortion is a indirect consequence,Abortion is a direct consequence of some pregnancies. You should be prepared for the possibility of it but I wouldn't call it anything to bet on.I agree that it is irresponsible to rely on abortion as the only method of birth control. Irresponsible people are the last ones that I think should forced into staying pregnant and/or bringing a baby into the world. I would also not presume to select who is eligible for abortion based on how responsible or irresponsible they have been.Additionally, I cannot imagine that these people are in the majority. Most women who get pregnant by accident do so because of birth control failure (see source). This is how they prepare for the possibility that sex can result in pregnancy, and for the most part, it is fairly effective. But not always. I am slightly confused by your analogy. Do the parents represent abortion? If so, how might abortion 'get tired' of carrying out its intended purpose, and thus fail to complete it? Also, if we carry on with this analogy, it is more applicable to say that perhaps once in their life, someone will ask their parents to help them with rent. This is not unreasonable and, I would guess, fairly common. As I said, few women who get abortions do so because it is their only form of birth control. Those who do are typically lacking the education they need on the subject.The contract: If a child results, you are by default legally responsible for it. That responsibility ties the three(or more) of you together.Especially if we are debating purely on legal grounds, the 'if' is instrumental in this sentence. When someone obtains an abortion, a child does not result. Abortion is currently legal, even if it is unobtainable in some places, so this is a legally valid course of action.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

What I meant by saying that abortion is a indirect consequence was that the decision if you would have one or not is not primarily based on your sexual habits, so its not a "direct" result of sexual activity. The birth control, or Maybe an abortion if your a man, would be like the parents , The workable back up plan would be: to be able to raise a kid, give the kid to another, or kill it. Many people are not prepared to do any of those three options, and all three can by life changing and impacts most people materially and emotionally. Some of those three options might not be possible for example The man does not decide to abort, or to put the kid out for adoption, what is possible for him is whatever the women he impregnated decides to do, which means he should be ready to handle all three of them, especially since one(or more) of them is likely to eventually result from his habits. A women has more options, A women may not be able to have an abortion if she waits too long to decide, due to it either becoming illegal(limits on when during pregnancy) or too expensive (max is apparently around $10,000,http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/flyer.htm) other then that I can't think of too much other then her own beliefs and emotions which might restrict her options.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Abortion itself can make you sterile so you want a woman to first kill her child then not be able to have more children
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I would say that adoption IS better, however you really cannot say untill you are in that position. A friend of mine had allways maintained she would never get one, under any circumstances, whilst maintaining the rights of other women to have one if they wished. Last month she found she was pregnant. She's in the middle of her a-levels, still lives at home, and her relationship with her partner is on the rocks. This baby had the potential to destroy her life, even if she did give it up for adoption after tha birth.She chose to have an abortion. I think no less of her for this descision, and it was hers to make.You cannot be sure what you would do until you are in this situation.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Having an abortion can also lead to years of drama,emotions,and psychological issues.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

There is no scientific evidence, or the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States, to support the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman’s long-term mental health than delivering and parenting a child she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Yes you are right about that. So as I stated before I am not saying we should ban it because we all should have the freedom to do what we want with are bodies. I myself just would not do it because i believe it is wrong.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"i believe it is wrong."Well, that's a cute belief, cute, but seeing as there is no universal morality, and right and wrong are mere perspective, I'd say whether you believe it's wrong or not is irrelevant.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"Well, that's a cute belief, cute, but seeing as there is no universal morality, and right and wrong are mere perspective, I'd say whether you believe it's wrong or not is irrelevant." That is a whole different topic "cutie" so saying that is irrelevant to the conversationYou believe things, I believe things. Thats life. Get over it.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"You believe things, I believe things. Thats life. Get over it."Might want to take you own advice there, zealot.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

I have the question is have you? Does seem so...............................................................
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"I have the question is have you? Does seem so...."Wait, what? Could you reword that? I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say.