azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

You incorrectly apply the "begging the question" argument from the pro-choice action network (http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetus-focus-fallacy.shtml) to my argument about fetus = human life. So, 1: the begging the question argument applies to the question of fetal personhood. That's not what I'm saying here. I'm saying that a fetus is a human life by definition: i.e. it has a homo sapiens genome and it's living in a biological sense. To deny this is to either be ignorant or to be intellectually dishonest. We can therefore affirm that the fetus is a phase in human life, and start to talk about what that implies in terms of rights. To dispute this, you have to either redefine "human" in a metaphysical sense (i.e. personhood) and claim that a fetus is not a person, or you have to make arguments about the "just one phase" clause of the question. Also, if you're going to claim a begging the question, you have to be able to identify which clause is flawed. Your argument here doesn't do that. It claims the fetal personhood argument is begging the question then says women should have the say in the matter. Whether or not that's correct, it fails to warrant its claim and is just poor form.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Ok , read that last part again as you're still begging the question.....There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.Either way I have been through this argument 100's of times on here and do not wish to keep reapeatng myself , I do not really care what way you want to define a fetus ,a woman's rights trump those of a fetus and to deny this is to deny a right as in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Yes many insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires provingThey aren’t assuming. Their conclusion is based on premises. Their conclusion is because of other facts. Therefore the conclusion is neither assumed, nor is it begging the question. Why is a fetus a human life? Because it is known to be alive (so that’s one half of the question), and we now know that it’s genes are human. If it’s genes are human, and it’s alive, then it is either a human life, or human life requires more than being a living thing with a human genome. It is reasonable to think that a human life is a living thing with a human genome. What is a more reasonable definition then that?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Why is a fetus a human life? It's a potential  human life , either way I care not , I'm merely concerned with a woman's right to choice
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

It's a potential human lifeIs it a potential life? Or Is the DNA potentially human?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Does it really matter ? .............................................
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Does it really matter ? ......................................If it didn’t matter, would you avoid answering the question?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

I’ve avoided nothing with my reply as in it matters not what status you or others put on a fetus , my baseline position is it’s purely a woman’s choice whether she wishes to abort or not anything else is the denial of a right
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Insofar as you won’t answer my question, you are avoiding it. To say that a thing is alive, and a thing has human DNA, and that these together make it a human life, is not begging the question. If you want to say that it is a potential human life, that’s fine. But then you must articulate what is potential about it. Is it the DNA or the life? If it is neither, then we are still talking about a human life. This matters because you must then articulate The conditions in which the taking of a human life is acceptable. If your argument is that a woman has the right to take actions which result in the taking of a human life, then you have to articulate why. Saying that she simply does is begging the question. But the point is that the answer to the question you’re avoiding matters. If it didn’t, you would have no issue with answering it. So, is it potentially human DNA; or is it potentially alive?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

insofar as you won’t answer my question, I did answer it as in a fetus is a potential human life and if aborted well it’s no longer “ potential “ is it ? To say that a thing is alive, and a thing has human DNA, and that these together make it a human life, is not begging the question. Incorrect , they do not make it a human life as it’s still a potential human life If you want to say that it is a potential But then you must articulate what is potential about it. Is it the DNA or the life? When I speak of “ potential “ I’m still talking about unborn / born if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition If it is neither, then we are still talking about a human life. This matters because you must then articulate The conditions in which the taking of a human life is acceptable The fetus has zero rights to sustenance from the mother and if you think otherwise , why would you assume this ? . If your argument is that a woman has the right to take actions which result in the taking of a human life, then you have to articulate why.My argument from day one on the issue is simple and plainly put but everyone attempts to re - state it or find a “ gotcha “ so here it is one more time ......I believe the choice is purely a woman’s and no one else’s I couldn’t give a fuck if she aborts or not , it’s not my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do regarding the issue , her body , her choice  Saying that she simply does is begging the questionI never said that  But the point is that the answer to the question you’re avoiding matters.I haven’t avoided it , the answer I gave from the off suffices
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

When I speak of “ potential “ I’m still talking about unborn / born if born you’re a potential life brought to fruitionI must assume you agree that a fetus has human DNA. Though the fetus is also most certainly alive, your contention is that it actually isn’t alive until it’s born. If this is incorrect, I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

your contention is that it actually isn’t alive until it’s born.Please point out where I said these exact words ?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

You refuse to use exact words or give direct responses. However, you did not deny the premises that a fetus has human DNA and is living. You simply added that “if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition”. This implies that a human life is not alive if unborn. You can’t answer directly without contradicting one of these three premises.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

No , I don’t , I’ve made my position perfectly clear your contention was , You claimed I said , .......that it actually isn’t alive until it’s born.....I asked ....I’m still asking please point out where I said these exact words because would that not be a very “ direct response “ if I had said it ? So maybe you can post the proof where I actually said this ? This implies that a human life is not alive until born Everything is “ alive “ sperm is alive a flake of dandruff is alive , do you call a fetus a human ?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

please point out where I said these exact words because would that not be a very “ direct response “ if I had said it ?It would be very direct, that’s why you didn’t say it.A fetus is living. A fetus has human DNA. It’s human DNA is distinct from the DNA of its mother. Your skin cell is alive, but it is part of you. It has your DNA. It is not distinct from you.There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable. I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

It would be very direct, that’s why you didn’t say it.So you accuse me of saying something " direct " which you then admit I didn't say because it is a " direct " statement which I wouldn't make , remarkable you cannot just admit your error  A fetus is living.  What do you mean by " living "when does life begin ?A fetus has human DNA It’s human DNA is distinct from the DNA of its mother. Your skin cell is alive, but it is part of you. It has your DNA. It is not distinct from you.There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable.Abortion being one  I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill.I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to simply clearly state that a fetus is a potential human life that it's perfectly acceptable to eliminate I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill Let's just for argument's sake say I agreed with this position as you put it I would still say yes abortion is perfectly acceptable even you want to call a fetus a baby as many do , abort away or don't
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

So you accuse me of saying something " direct " which you then admit I didn't say because it is a " direct " statement which I wouldn't makeIt is very telling about the nature of this exchange, the fact that you believe that I claimed you said anything direct, and worse, you felt that this is an accusation. When I said “There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable” you replied Abortion being one. Now I’m glad you finally accept the logical, scientifically derived position that a fetus is a human life. I’m going to let that sit for awhile, maybe it will germinate. But since you reverted and contradicted your position here in the very next sentence, I don’t have hope for further discussion. Stomping your foot and repeating yourself does not make a valid argument. Well child, I’ll let the more patient adults take it from here.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

I did say potential human life and you knew exactly what I meant as your failure to address what I actually said is again typical of you , maybe you should try debating gun rights again as in your swimming pool v gun deaths argument as that argument demonstrates your irrationality beautifully also
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

But YOUR ear comes from a combination of your mom and your dad. Also, it is not controlled by your mom nor your dad. Does that make your ear a human life?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Where did you get that from? The ear is a part of the fetus, not meant to separate. The fetus, on the other hand, is supposed to separate and therefore receives nutrients directly, as opposed to all the different appendages receiving nutrients and combining into a Power Ranger Megazord-esque organism.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

No. The difference between the two is an existential one. No one disputes than an ear is a human life because ears exist to serve the organism as a whole. It's functional, it's an organ designed to serve the organism. A fetus is different because it's existence is not tied to serving an organism as a whole. It is the organism; it has organs. My point in saying that the fetus has different DNA than mom and dad was that it's not just an organ like an ear or eye.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

but rather a part of the motherIf it's part of the mother, then why does it have separate cells? Yes, it gets nutrients from the mother, but it isn't the same as an eye or an ear, as you claim.you cannot move your ear freely, just like you cannot move a fetus freelyRight, but an ear doesn't float around your head like a fetus does the womb.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Emphasis on the FLOAT. It doesn't move, the fluids move a fetus. Also, what you eat floats around your stomach. Are you arguing that if what you eat could evolve into a human, and that it gets nutrients from you, it becomes a human life?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

Actually, the fetus is quite active. It's constantly moving the parts it has from the moment it's a zygote. To compare free floating food in a stomach to a fetus is to misunderstand fetal and embyronic physiology quite a bit.
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Since you are such an expert, how can you prove that the fetus is moving because of its own thought, and not instinct?
Debate: A fetus is just one phase of a human's life.
Side: True.

It doesn't move, the fluids move a fetus.What's your point?it becomes a human life?No. Women are different than men, obviously. Food can't evolve into a life, much less a human one.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

I doubt the founding fathers who wrote the 2nd amendment were thinking about the kind of guns we'd have in 2013. It's time to update the Constitution to clarify what the 2nd amendment means today.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I am sure when the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment they didn't think about the possibility of the Internet and how much hate speech could end up on it. It's time to update the Constitution to clarify what the 1st amendment means today.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

If the first amendment is outdated that is your opinion. The point if the first amendment is that you can't be punished for anything you express because it doesn't harm anyone, I could say the most racist hateful bigotted crap on the internet. How does it hurt anyone. They didn't predict the internet and if that changed thing where free speech could physically hurt someone or negatively affect someone with the exception of them getting their feelings hurt then how is the first amendment outdated.This can be comparing apples to oranges depending on the argument as to why the first amendment needs to be revised and the 2nd amendment.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

You shouldn't be punished for owning a gun because owning a gun doesn't harm anyone. I could own a hundred assault riffles and people around me would still be safe. How does it hurt anyone what I own? Except for the fact that people who are for gun control get their panties in a bunch ;)How is the 2nd amendment outdated?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

you shouldn't be punished for owning a gun cause owning a gun doesn't harm anyone How do you define punishment? By this sentence you and me have different defenitions of punishment it seems.I could own a hundred assault rifles and people around me would still be safe. Not necessarily if you have no safety training. Or are a criminal/psychopath who bought their guns from a gun show.how does it hurt anyone what I ownIt doesn't necessarily, whether or not anyone who is able to purchase guns are fucked up in the head or a hardcore criminal or untrained with access to higher grade weapons do. how is the 2nd amendment outdated?Because guns back then are not nearly as powerful as they are now, also you could legalize every gun in the world it will make practically no difference against tanks, soldiers, and military style aircraft.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Punishment is when I can't have something because someone else screwed it up for everyone else. Why don't we just punish the criminals? That's the real problem. The problem is not people owning assault riffles. The problem is crazy people. Figure out how to identify the crazies and keep them from owning guns.As far as tanks and military aircraft..., how long have we been fighting radicals in both Iraq and Afghanistan? And all they have are guns. I find a totalitarian government more dangerous than few sick bastards blowing away a couple of dozen people each year.But hey, that's just me ;)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

punishment is when I can't have something because somebody else screwed it up for everyone else.Hey sometimes that is what's fair and is what is necessary. I'm not for banning guns so through my point of view as long as you haven't assaulted or murdered someone and have a healthy psyche go ahead buy a gun, it might make things more of a pain in the ass but its worth keeping guns in the hands of the innocents and less off the street. why don't we just punish the criminals? That's the real problem.To be able to capture every criminal and take them off the streets, litterally every single one, would probably cost a lot of tax dollars, more so than some gun regulation. Otherwise they wouldn't be a problem now would they? Also It's not just a criminal problem but a mental health one as well.the problem is not owning assault rifles. The problem is crazy people.That is what gun regulation is for, psyche evaluations are a form of gun regulation. As far as tanks and military aircraft..., how long have we been fighting radicals in both Iraq and Afghanistan? And all they have are guns.Yes but this is because us genius 'MERICANS have figured out that we are in the wrong here in that fight thus we have no goal of taking them over oranything, just soldiers stuck in a pointless war of self defence that we wrongfully started.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

What do you mean we were wrong? We needed to test our new weapons and what better place to do it in? I mean..., those people are very generous to let us practice on them :)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

The second amendment being outdated is an opinion as well, I guess that makes that line of thinking bad as well. Why don't don't you tell the family of people who have killed themselves because people made fun of them on the internet that the 1st amendment does no harm.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

That is cyber bullying, Idt the 1st amendment covers it (like how you can't yell fire in a theatre) and if it does then the 1st amendment is flawed.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

There you go, we have no idea if the 1st amendment should allow cyber bullying. The wording of the first amendment says that some forms of cyber bullying are ok, doesn't that mean we need to update the 1st amendment to account for new technology?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

If that is the case then yes it does. The 1st amendment is outdated and should be improved upon. I whole heartedly agree. Of course this depends on the defenition of cyber bullying.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Are you on drugs? Rewrite the 1st amendment? It was created for a reason. It is timeless. People need to have thicker skin.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Our amendments were created to be amended when need be, that is the American way. The point of our government is to socially adapt. The illegalization of alcohol was probably written for a reason and considered "timeless" and it got practically removed. If the 1st amendment allows people to bully others online to the point of suicide then perhaps it needs to be rewritten a little bit differently to not allow such behavior. Give me a rational, reasonable, logical refutation against my argument other than accusing me of being on drugs, calling the amendment "timeless", and created for a reason. Of course it's created for reason obviously I'm not saying we should write it out just update it, and timeless is an emotional appeal.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I could say the most racist hateful bigoted crap on the internet. How does it hurt anyone. The is no reason to update the 1st amendment because people can't get hurt with words. The 18th amendment was passed in the 20th century, so no it was not timeless. The 18th amendment came about because people couldn't mind there own business and had to control what other people could have, sound familiar. It didn't work out so well did it?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

I could say the most racist, hateful, bigoted crap on the internet. How does it hurt anyone? There is no reason to update the first amendment because people can't be hurt with words.If people however are bullying someone online with direct insults intentionally meant to make the person feel Shitier and they can't do anything about it then I do think it should be updated.The 18th amendment was passed in the 20th century, so no it is not timeless What is your definition of timeless?the 18th amendment came about because people couldn't mind their own business and had to control what other people could have, sound familiar? It didn't work out so well did it?Sounds awfully biased if you ask me. The point I'm trying to make is whether or not something is an amendment doesn't make a good argument to be preserved. If your disagreement of the 18th amendment justifies it's ratification, but on the hypothetical situation that the 1st amendment allows people to bully someone online where the bullied can't do anything about it might have me have a slight disagreement with it, doesn't justify my opinion it needs to be updated slightly? Also we restrict people from any freedoms, murder can be seen as a "freedom" and illegalizing that has done more good then bad in my honest opinion. The argument that I am taking away your freedom doesn't make a good logic, you need to justify that freedom if I accuse it of intruding on another freedom (where in this case the freedom being intruded on is the freedom to live your life without people harrassing you with hurtful words.)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Woah, woah, woah, now you want to add an amendment to allow murder? Man you are heartless. I seriously hope the country doesn't listen to the opinions of someone crazy enough to defend the murder amendment.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Well since you want to use my own words against me in a dishonest way, and have nothing else to contribute then that tells me I won the argument :). I am done here, unless you want to debate honestly I will ignore you now. applauds
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I got you to go against your original argument and then try to claim that murder has a possibility of being a freedom, I won. You argued against the exact same words you used before, you lose.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Really? You failed to use my argument against me. You were using my argument that the 1st amendment shouldn't be touched before the hypothetical situation of the first amendment allowing harassment against my argument after the hypothetical situation that the 1st amendment allows harrasment...Yes murder can be considered a "freedom" to some though most don't, the point is anything can, I'm trying to point out you can't compare the freedom of harassing people to the freedom of simply drinking alcohol where appropriate.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

You said that the 1st amendment should not be touched, words don't hurt anyone. What is your current position? I win