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

As I said, none of that matters. It doesn't matter whether my God is true or not. I told you it was a red herring. Morality is the basis we're discussing, not God. God being necessary for morality is a necessary condition, not the sufficient, which is morality. Morality by definition necessitates itself being objective and absolute. It is an analytic truth. This has nothing to do with God; God is simply the basis for the absolute and objective truth. As I said, your argument was a red herring. None of it mattered.God is not necessary for morality. God may be necessary for such a thing as a morality that is 'objective' insofar that it is applied to everyone in the same way- but tgat would still not be objective morality, just subjective morality that nobody can oppose. In practice, there is no real need for an 'objective' morality like that. Certain views of morality are simply unsuited for living in any kind of society, and our species is poorly suited for individual survival. It's not as if everybody would suddenly have an uncontrollable urge to kill everybody without a God telling him to do it; most people, even christians, feel free to ignore those things God tells them that don't suit them, offering up any number of reasons (and thats where they feel any kind of obligation to offer reasons). The reason we have a need for enforced laws is because of individual differences in morality; our laws (in theory, at least) represent a general consensus on what should and should not be allowed.The argument was not a red herring; your assertion that there is any kind of objective, absolute moral law is based on premises that I am unwilling to accept as factual. We can't have a debate without agreeing on basic premises, now, can we?Read in context. It very clearly says in Acts that we are to obey God first, and then the authorities. What you just said was fundamentally either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. You know better than that.Acts isn't the only place that states it. Romans as well, and even more directly and specifically. I acknowledge that you obey God first, then the authorities. But this isn't you obeying God- this is you attempting to force everybody else to obey what you perceive to be one specific law of Gods. And I'm really not certain where abortion in particular is ruled on in the Bible, for that matter- you had said yes to that before.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Well, I don't think children being born in violent homes, homes with parents with drug or alcohol issues or homes with parents who do not have ability to take care of the child should be allowed either...
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

There is such a thing called adoption.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I think this would be best in a Perspective Debate, but whatever. Alright, yes, I am not okay with abortions. But, it depends on why you are aborting the baby. If it's because it was unplanned, aw hell naw, you keepin' dat baby! But if it was serious, as in like an apocalypse where there was no hope.... Still no, really, because the baby would be a help to the group by bringing up the next generation of humans.... Forget what I said about the apocalypse. Anyway, if it was an absolute serious "I can't have this baby," then I guess I'm okay with it. But abortions should be avoided as much as we can, but think about the population, if abortion was completely illegal before the human race could spread out among the stars, what would be the affect? There would be restrictions on how many babies people could have, how old they were allowed to grow, stuff like that. To sum up; Humans should start slowly reducing the amount of abortions, and once we spread out over the solar system, stop abortions (for the most part). Boom.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I agree! Abortions do need to be avoided as much as possible. Yes defiantly there, if it was unplanned they're keeping that baby! (and they're going to love it too.) And yes that's where the exceptions come into place. (Don't we all just love exceptions and the confusion they make?) If there is truly a time where "I can't have this baby." Then maybe.. But then again they chose to have sex. Sex makes babies. You can't really complain.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

And if organized religion didn't make birth control so hard to obtain, we would have no need for abortion (except in extreme cases). They did this to themselves. You can't stop the basics of human nature. The only thing to do is to try to help the women who are left with this hard choice.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Im a prochoice Christian. .
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Agreeing to yoursel? JC ?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I agree because if one didn't wanted a baby than they would not have had sex.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Tell me whats the difference between an unplanned baby and "an absolute serious I can't have this baby". I totally agree with you in the sense that people need to take their consequences. But an abortion is not something you just go through with, without any thought trough. It's a lot of feelings mixed into this situation. A woman who has found out that she is pregnant with an unplanned baby would probably think it through a million times before she would go through with the abortion, and if she decides to go through with the abortion she would probably give you an absolute serious "I can't have this baby"
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

If it's because it was unplanned, aw hell naw, you keepin' dat baby!Do I get to make some rules that you have to live your life by?But if it was serious, as in like an apocalypse where there was no hopeForget what I said about the apocalypse.Why write it at all? There is a backspace key for a reason.But abortions should be avoided as much as we can, but think about the population, if abortion was completely illegal before the human race could spread out among the stars, what would be the affect? There would be restrictions on how many babies people could have, how old they were allowed to grow, stuff like that.This doesn't make any sense. You are saying that getting rid of abortions would cause a massive problem of having to decide who can and can't have kids. Why would we want baby restrictions? You haven't solved anything. You admit that abortions are a solution.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

There is always a way to save the babies life no matter the situation.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

This is not true. 'Usually' rather than always, or even just the word 'almost' before always would have made it true.Fact is, even in this day and age, there are sometimes cases where either the choice is between losing mother and baby, or just baby. This is also the only circumstance under which I could personally stomach late term abortion.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

That's better you then me then.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

What are you even trying to say here? And how does it constitute a dispute, at any rate?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

It's better you take out an innocent life because I won't. I disagreed so I choose dispute.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Fortunately, as I am not a doctor of any kind, am not in possession of a uterus, and am married with a child I'm keeping and hopefully another one on the way, I'm not taking out an innocent life anyway you slice it; when I'm content with the number of children I have, I intend to have a vasectomy.I presume you are neither a doctor nor female, so it's not like you'd be in that position either, so it's purely hypothetical anyway.Still, consider though- the cases are exceedingly rare these days, but your stance is, in those rare cases, essentially choosing to allow both the mother and fetus to die, when at least the mother could be saved. That's not something I can condone, personally. I don't like the idea of abortion, at all, to be honest. But I see it as a necessary evil given a number of factors, and as such I am pro-choice with the caveat that it be limited to the first trimester, before the fetus is able to feel such things as pain and fear.Pro-choice isn't always necessarily pro-abortion, just as being pro-life isn't necessarily being anti-woman.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Your opinion is completely fine but in my case instead of trying to save one life I would go for both. It's sad of men want a vasectomies when they have control over their bodies.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

It's not an 'instead' situation. The default is to do everything possible to save both mother and fetus. Cases where the mother and fetus are both at risk are actually extremely common- the rare cases I'm referring to are ones where both dying is nearly certain, regardless of medical intervention, with the possibility of saving only the mother. Yes, this happens.By 'control over their bodies' are you suggesting self-control and using the withdrawal method? Because the withdrawal method is only 96% effective when performed flawlessly. As such, yes, I intend to have that procedure when I have all the children I desire. There's nothing sad about it; it would be far more sad to have an additional child beyond what I'm comfortable with not supporting, but actually fathering. Being a father to me is more than just simply supporting ones children, but also involves raising them into adults and giving them the best head start on life possible. I can comfortably support three children while ensuring all have a rich variety of activities, a HEALTHY diet, and a college fund. I would have to make compromises on all of these if I were to have a fourth child.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Not in my case. If for some tragic reason I became pregnant, would need an abortion for mental health reasons. Shrinks would refuse to prescribe my medications because they cause birth defects, any child I would have would have a 100% chance of major medical problems, and pregnancy would make me suicidal. I wont get into how, but pregnancy would trigger my PTSD to the point that i would overdose on pills, and I doubt that is prolife, and before you ask: i refuse to have unprotected sex. Im not even having sex right now, but if I do, I will use contraception.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

That good for you in your case not mine though still a way around it if you want it bad enough.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Right eight. I agree. Its between you and God. .
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Sorry but I'm not for killing baby's and I don't know why anybody would be for hurting a innocent baby.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Sure, ok, if you are a woman who would personally chose to have an abortion, having one could save your education and future career... At the expense of women who are pressured to have abortions but refuse. For the sperm donor of these women, they see their responsibilities to be a father as void because the woman apparently made an active decision to keep the baby. It comes at the expense of women who have abortions and later regret it, leading to depression and suicide. It comes to the expense of the rare breed of men who would joyfully step up an start a family, but are not given the choice.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Men dont have the right to the womans body. The one carrying the fetus has the final say.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

While this is about control for some people, certainly, I don't think pro-lifers in general see themselves as having some sort of right to the womans body; they simply see the woman as having limited rights regarding what they can do to the body of the fetus. They anthropomorphize the fetus and assign it rights. This is misguided for many reasons, but I don't believe it's fair to continually speak as if a pro-life stance is about invading a woman's body.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Those that seek to control or ban abortion are invading womens bodies. I used to be one of them but life kicked my ass and made me prochoice.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Denying an abortion isn't an invasion of a womans body. It's an invasion of her rights, but not her body. That's a very important distinction. By the logic that calls this an invasion of a womans body, a case could be made stating that laws banning heroin are an invasion of peoples bodies.Now, an unwanted child could be called an invasion, but denying someone the right to deal with an existing invasion is not another invasion unto itself.I'm pro-choice myself, but I still feel that you're letting your life experience cloud your judgement on this case. It's an invasion of rights, but not an invasion of the body.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

yes it is an invasion of her body. Forcing a women to be pregnant and give birth is the ultimate of reproductive slavery.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

No, it is not an invasion of her body. When a woman is denied an abortion, her body is not touched or invaded in any way in association with that.The invasion occurs when the woman is fertilized. You could label the man she was with as the invader. You could label the fetus itself as an unwitting invader. You could decry pro-lifers as denying a woman the ability to repel an invader. But denial of abortion does not constitute an invasion of ones body. Invading ones body requires an actual invasion of ones actual body- neither of which are taking place in this scenario. It is an invasion of rights, and you could even call it reproductive slavery (though I think that's a bit extreme). Remember, for the most part pro-lifers aren't trying to control women and oppress their rights- they're trying to fight FOR the rights that they assign to the fetus. I know it's an emotional issue, but making bogeymen out of the other side does not help our cause :)
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Her body is invaded by an unwanted pregnancy and Im not sorry for fighting the antichoice movement. #prochoiceisprowoman
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

This is exactly right. The unwanted pregnancy is an invasion of the body. Abortion is one method to end said invasion. A pro-life standpoint does not constitute a further invasion of the body, it is simply a stance that would prevent the simplest way to end an existing invasion. It is an invasion of rights. This isn't attempting to legitimize it, mind you- but it's important for the pro choice movement to maintain accuracy, rationality, and credibility.Nobody is asking you to to apologize for fighting the pro-life movement; Its a fight that I wholeheartedly support, and that's one of the reasons I argued this point with you.It's also fair to say that prochoice is prowoman, but you should also note that stating that tends to imply to some that prolife is antiwoman, which is not necessarily the case.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Im enjoying our convo though so keep it up. You have a wonderful mind, and maybe one day, you might like to know why i feel so strongly.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Thank you for the compliment. I would like to know, but I'd prefer it to kind of arise naturally on your own than ask you about it directly, if that makes sense. Prying into someones personal life isn't very comfortable for me, but I also feel that understanding someones motivations is far more useful than simply knowing their stance on a matter.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I sent you a message. .
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Men are not the only ones opposed to legal abortions. Just saying...
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Agreed, I was making the point that men do not have the right to use women as semen recepticales aginst their will.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

When there is a child involved, neither the man nor the woman have rights to their own body they have become one now. So they own each others body, so all decisions should be done together, not through one person.Understandable that its your body but you have to accept responsibility for letting the seed inside of you, unless it was rape.You can't just say "well I want an abortion now" Its the mans child too, so if you aborted a child and the man said no, how is that fair at all?Do you have no empathy?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Wrong. A womans body belongs to her and no one has the right to it against her will. Using a womans body is a privilege, not a right.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

No, no, no. When BOTH PARTIES have consented to HAVING A CHILD, then that means it is NO LONGER up to the woman to decide what happens with the fetus.IF YOU CONSENT to having unprotected sex, and you and the man know FULL WELL there is a chance of pregnancy, then it must be decided BY BOTH PARTIES what will happen to the child.If YOU don't want to give birth, and the man WANTS THE CHILD, and you abort it, then that is morally unacceptable. This no longer has to do with "my body my right" This has to do with the seed being the man, literally, it is a part of him, and if you don't want it but he does, then you CAN NOT ABORT IT, if you do, then there may be no actual consequences, but do you not understand what is happening?That is the most fucked up thing I have ever heard of.If you and the man BOTH consent to unprotected sex, both parties know full well the risk being involved.We are not arguing whether it is the right of a man to go use a womans body to produce a child, obviously it is not. What we are discussing is a man who wants a child and you both agreed to unprotected sex, yet you think you have full owner ship? How about fuck no you do not, you better have that child and give it to me if you don't want it, because at that point, its MY child, NOT YOURS. You obviously don't want it, and I do. I want to raise it and teach it the ways of life.If you were to somehow interefere with that, i think i could justify murder.Just saying.If it was rape, it would be a completely different story, but I already covered that, and it seems like you didn't read it whatsoever.That pisses me off that you think that way when BOTH PARTIES CONSENT TO UNPROTECTED SEX.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

A womans body belongs to her. Women are not obligated to be pregnant. Women do not have to let something use their bodies. What you promote is reproductive slavery. Not your body? Not your choice.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Wow are you missing the point completely.Read this very carefully: WHEN BOTH PARTIES CONSENT TO UNPROTECTED THEY BOTH KNOW IN ADVANCE THE RISKS OF BEING PREGNANT SO IF YOU DONT WANT TO HAVE A CHILD USE A CONDOM.You can refuse sex if you are not ready to have a child and the man doesnt want to use a condom, but if a woman and the man have unprotected sex, they know damn well the risk they are taking and abortion should be illegal in that case.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Wait you are saying if the womans has an abortion against the mans wishes, he has the right to kill her?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Im saying that if you killed my child to be, it might be justified.it might.I mean its my child at that point obviously the woman doesnt want it, she takes my childs life, ill take somebodys life for doing that.Sure murder is a little harsh, but... so is taking a child away from someone who really wants it.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Men dont have the right to the womans body.If only all the mall zombies felt the same way when they chose to spread their legs in the first place.........................
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

How Christian to shame women for being sexual. Sex is natural. It is a way to bond with someone and there is nothing wrong with that.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

there is a huge difference between a friend with benefits and a soul mate
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Mind your business. .
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

How is that shaming sexuality...? Sexuality is wonderful... I am shaming promiscuity, big difference.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

No since it has causes detrimental risks to the mother and the child. It also has a respectable failure rate causing unplanned deaths.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Source citations?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Here are some sites that tells about abortion risks.http://www.midlandlifecenter.org/abortion-risksprocedures http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/11http://www.abortioninformation.net/abortion_risks.asp
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Source 1: "To inspire and equip individuals to make positive decisions for life and relationships based on the word of God." - Biased, with no source citations for their statistics and one outdated medical reference.Source 2: Over-extension of conclusions based upon data cited. For instance, comparing abortion mortality to overall birthing mortality ignores the case by case context; we cannot conclude from the available data whether the abortion moralities were not also high risk pregnancies that could have led to mortality had the pregnancy been carried to term.Also, frequent failure to cite sources to substantiate claims or incomplete citations (e.g. "A 2000 government-funded study in Finland"). Also, filled with contradictions (e.g. "Less than one in ten thousand pregnancies results in the mother's death. [1] Government statistics indicate that the chances of death by abortion are even less." precedes "The evidence overwhelmingly proves that the morbidity and mortality rates of legal abortion are several times higher than that for carrying a pregnancy to term.")Source 3: No source citations, only assertions. Just as bad as your initial post.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

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. Source 1 has stated numerous side effects and it also has been cited by a physician. "NOTE: Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and the Physician’s Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth stated in 1996 that this type of procedure “… is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”Source: ProtectTexas, Texas Department of Health, 2003