azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Yes, you may believe it is wrong. Does that mean you have a right to stop people from having abortions?in your own words"[they] believe things, I believe things. Thats life. Get over it"I feel that in this context your case is much more convincing
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Look at my reply above, it will work for both of your answers to me.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

"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..."This invalidates your argument that you believe abortion to be wrong. Because either choice, in your words leads to the same effect on the psyche etc.., it leads one to believe both are viable options where neither is the wrong choice. Sexual responsibility is invalid under this statement since neither choice seems to make a difference, now apparently.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

whereas having a baby is not a life changing experience in the least?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

It must boil down to the degree to which one is affected by such a procedure. Still, having a choice is significantly better than none at all. Those that can cope better should be given the chance to do so. Those that cannot will make their decision as you have made yours. A choice-less society is not what America is based on. Drastic procedures will be undertaken by the poorest of peoples. The alternative is more horrifying as it has been in the past.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

What if your mom had an abortion when she was pregnant with you? I would be happy if she did, then you wouldnt be posting stupid arguments like "There is no fail-safe method to prevent pregnancy unless you are sterilized". Sometimes sterilization doesn't work. And the only fail proof is abstinence.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

First, sterilized means that you cannot have children. If you do have a child, even after a sterilizing procedure, it means you were not sterile in the first place and that the procedure failed.Secondly, abstinence does not work 100%http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2561/3728096432_ef9d0c16fc_o.jpg In addition to humor, the truth of the matter, however, is that abstinence does not work all of the time. People who choose abstinence cannot necessarily stop themselves from being raped. Are they doomed to a child they do not want, with their only fault being that they could not stop their attacker?even in a world without rape, there is still a rare event in women with Turner's Syndrome known as "spontaneous pregnancy"it occurs in "2%-7% of [Turner's Syndrome] girls"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15749515
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

So what you're saying is you are FOR abortions. Since you would have liked for me to be aborted. Looks like you are pro-choice. And yes, if you think you are pro-life, there will be many more people like me, shaking up your world and making you wish you WERE for abortions. It seems you can't handle either decision and you invalidated your own argument.It's ok for me to be aborted. Hmmmm.....smart.Also, you can be raped while abstinent..., also, when can you rely on a teenager to follow through 100% of the time. That requires extreme religious or government oppression.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

I am PRO LIFE, but i wonder why God let certain people enter and live on the earth.......
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

Again, you invalidate your own stance on this subject. You cannot stand the faux moral ground and then turn around and sort of wish some people were not in existence. Did you ever consider the fact that humanity is the solution and the cause of their own problems,....."God" is a scapegoat for you to hide the fact you wish some people were still aborted as "babies". You are PRO LIFE, but only ....in some cases, and only for those people that you like. Sounds more like a twisted version of Pro choice. And not agreeing with you is not a reason for me to have been aborted many years ago. Now , I, for example am already here...that is intent to see me dead. It seems that you are more violent and immoral than you realize. If abortion is murder to you then you wish for me or some others to be murdered.Again...theres no refuting this. You are in denial of your own beliefs and wishing casual harm on others is ok with you. If in some universe I happened to be aborted, I would have no problem with it as I would not be here to bother you with ideas that might challenge your thinking. :PChallenging people is an immoral action that deserves death? Ok..
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I am PRO LIFE,That's great for you. It's a private decision that we should leave our noses out of.but i wonder why God let certain people enter and live on the earth.......I expect because we haven't yet found the psychopath gene and employed fertility screening to eliminate it.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

What if your mom had an abortion when she was pregnant with you?I'm always curious what pro-lifers hope to prove with this seemingly inane hypothetical. You are asking what would have happened if someone had never been born? Well, nothing, really. The person in question would cease to exist before they even developed a consciousness. Life would go on and years later, we'd still be sitting here debating abortion. The fact is, she didn't get aborted, and that's fine. I've never met a pro-choice person who doesn't recognize that keeping a baby if you want to is also a valid choice. We're not out to make sure everyone gets an abortion whether they want it or not, you know.Edit: I have also never encountered a pro-choice person who, in seriousness, professed to be 'happy' at the prospect of someone else getting an abortion.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

No matter what your veiws on abortion, quite frankley, i think you're post was disgusting.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Don't have sex if you aren't prepared for a child. If you do then choose adoption.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Why were you born? Everyone has a reason to why you were born, you just have to find it. If your baby could have made a difference to this world, you are taking that away. You are taking away the chance for your baby to have a life. No matter good or bad, he/she should have a life, have a chance. And even if you think you are doing something good for the baby, you're not. You just killed a living breathing thing.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

exactly that is one hundred percent correct. tell me you have had 6 children each one is deaf or blind or dumb. now you are pregnant would you have an abortion?Congrats you just killed Beethoven
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: We have enough presidents

We kill billions of other living things all the time for lesser reasons. One life is worth more than another? Seems like it.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"One life is worth more than another? Seems like it."All unborn childrens lives are worth the same. They have not done anything wrong. Because all of there lives are worth the same, we need to save as many of them as we can."We kill billions of other living things all the time for lesser reasons."Ok, so what are you saying? " Its ok if we kill them, we kill other people all the time and its not big deal!" So if someone comes to your house in the middle of the night and kills your child (assuming you have one), it will be ok because we kill other living things all the time for lesser reasons.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I believe his argument was that unspecialized stem cells of any species are indistinguishable from one another until they start to specialize.Therefore, there is no distinction between killing a cow embryo or a human embryo. The only difference is that a cow embryo will give you cow organs, which are not useful in the physiological field (although the future veterinarians may support that as well)
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Human life is worth more then any other life. Do not compare a human to animals.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

According to Times magazine, a human life is worth around $129,000 (in terms of health care coverage- they do not condone human trafficking)http://www.time.com/time/health/article/ 0,8599,1808049,00.html However, white lion cubs are worth $138,000.http://most-expensive.net/pet-exoticso I suppose a human life is NOT actually worth more than any other life.Yet again, research helps when making an argument.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"According to Times magazine, a human life is worth around $129,000 (in terms of health care coverage- they do not condone human trafficking)" It's amazing that we actually put a 'price' on people. Yet another instance that proves man has fallen so far. "However, white lion cubs are worth $138,000." But like you said before humans can't be bought or sold (legally). So therefore the cost of insurance of a human compared to a white lion cub doesn't really correlate.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"It's amazing that we actually put a 'price' on people. Yet another instance that proves man has fallen so far."Would you find it reasonable to spend billions of dollars to save a single person, when that same money could be spent on saving hundreds of other people?anywaysthey are comparable in the sense that society would spend up to $129,000 to save a human, and the same society would spend up to $138,000 to save a white lion cub.therefore, in the literal sense of the word, a white lion cub is worth more.Also, i do not think that lions can be bought or sold legally either- they are endangeredhttp://www.whitelions.org/new/Might I suggest using arguments and evidence, rather than statements.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"Would you find it reasonable to spend billions of dollars to save a single person, when that same money could be spent on saving hundreds of other people?" Do you want a price tag on your life? "they are comparable in the sense that society would spend up to $129,000 to save a human, and the same society would spend up to $138,000 to save a white lion cub." This is not to save the cubs, but to purchase them. How much does it cost to buy a person? "Might I suggest using arguments and evidence, rather than statements." You do realize both are comprised of statements right? You either question or state something. Might I suggest to you the study of the English language, or else pick another language to use.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Do you want a price tag on your life?No. I also want everything to be free of charge. My opinion does nothing to change the fact that both are necessary for a real world economy."This is not to save the cubs, but to purchase them. How much does it cost to buy a person?"It would appear you skipped over a section of my argument.These cubs are not for sale.They are endangered speciesSo this is their estimated valuejust like a human's estimated valueAnd from a business perspective, something's worth is equivalent to its price.if you have a white lion cub, you would spend up to $138,000 to save its life, above which point you are over exerting its value.The same is true of medicaid.it only spends an average of $129,000 to save a person's life.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Ithink abortion should be allowed but how much is george washigton worth or any other GREAT person? so how can we know how much each person will be worth?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Human worth was based on the maximum amount spent by medicaid for treatment of a life-threatening procedure.Nothing to do with individual worth, it is simply the empiric estimated value of human life
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

22 days after a women conceives the baby's heart alredy begins to beat therefore the fetus is alive although you arent able to hear it until later in the pregnancy it is still a baby and yes it is ALIVE .
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

my mother was raped at gun point and had my sister ... and pepole think she should have been aborted , im glad some people have the intellagence not to MURDER !!!
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

do you think your sister would have minded if she were not born? No. She would not. She was not a conscious organism.Am I saying that your sister should have been aborted? Of course not. But had your mother wanted an abortion, the potential human that is being terminated will be apathetic, as they are yet to develop any sort of cognitive capacity.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

When does a child become conscious? Which week is it? Why should a woman decide another person's fate. And you are saying her sister should have been aborted, but the mother chose not too. You talk of cancer cells as living tissue then you define life as a cognitive mind. Which is it?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

week fivehttp://www.pregnancy.org/fetaldevelopment life is replicating tissue.I was simply addressing their question or whether or not your sister would have wanted to be aborted.The answer: she wouldn't care. She was not conscious.And I am saying that had the mother wanted to, she should have had the right to abort the child.I am not advocating every child ever to be aborted.I am advocating every womans right to make decisions of her own bodyJust as I do not wish to force every woman to abort her babyI do not wish to bar every woman from aborting her baby.She is not deciding the fate for the child.She is simply evicting it from her uterus.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"She is not deciding the fate for the child.She is simply evicting it from her uterus." Come on, you can't reduce it to that simple of terms. Right there you admit it's a child. So if you "evict" (murder) the child how is this justifiable? The child can't survive outside the uterus, this doesn't mean that child's life is any less important. "I am advocating every womans right to make decisions of her own body" Do not those replicating cells (child in development) have a right to their body as well? Would you have wanted to advocate for you while you were in development (even though you weren't self aware)? I just don't understand how murder of an innocent child can compare to a mother's convience or health. The child is the priority, not the parent.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Do not those replicating cells (child in development) have a right to their body as well? Would you have wanted to advocate for you while you were in development (even though you weren't self aware)? If Human A relies upon the body of Human B as a life support system, then it sure as hell better be with Human B's consent. This goes for both full grown humans and fetuses. I just don't understand how murder of an innocent child can compare to a mother's convience or health. The child is the priority, not the parent.When you get pregnant, then you are allowed to decide who is the priority between you and your fetus. Don't presume to tell anyone else what their priorities are.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"When you get pregnant, then you are allowed to decide who is the priority between you and your fetus. Don't presume to tell anyone else what their priorities are." I have a child and they are the number one priority. And I can tell someone that human life is more important then convience. "If Human A relies upon the body of Human B as a life support system, then it sure as hell better be with Human B's consent." The opening of your legs gave consent to all the implications that follow. If you get pregnant give the baby up for adoption, don't kill a human being for your mistake!
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

And I can tell someone that human life is more important then convience.Doesn't mean your opinion is worth anything or that it should be legislated.You are vastly simplifying the issue of abortion into one of convenience, in order to minimize the reasons a person might choose to have one. This probably makes it a lot easier to argue against, along with pretending that only irresponsible sluts get abortions but it's not exactly accurate. The opening of your legs gave consent to all the implications that follow.This shit again. Considering you abandoned the thread where we were first debating how this isn't true just because you think it's true, I don't think you can just repeat this and expect it to carry any weight. Here is a hypothetical. A couple has a child and, at five years old, the child is diagnosed with a terminal disease that can only be cured by an organ transplant. One of the parents is a match, but for whatever reason, they do not want to undergo the transplant. Should the government force them to undergo the transplant anyway, under threat of punishment? What punishment should they receive if they refuse? And any doctor who might refuse to perform a nonconsensual transplant, how about them? Why limit mandatory transplants to ones own children, if human life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy? Why not mandate organ donations from everyone? Keep in mind the government currently has no part in mandating organ transplants, even though the lives lost are not unconscious, dependent fetuses, but fully conscious and independent people. This is probably because most sane people would recognize this as a gross violation of a citizen's right to bodily autonomy. As far as adoption goes, there is more than 100,000 children in the system who already need homes. How many more do you think there would be, if abortion were somehow completely eliminated? How much more strained and inefficient do you think the system would be with these increased numbers? The foster care system is underregulated and overflowing. These children are far more likely to suffer abuse, be unstable or developmentally challenged, and later end up homeless or incarcerated. If the adoption system was flawless, with enough funding and manpower, and no children who fall through the cracks, then this argument might mean more. I am not implying that adoption as a concept is a negative thing, or that it should not be an option, just that it is far from a perfect alternative, especially when abortion is neutral for the fetus. http://fostersurvivor.netfirms.com/statistics.shtml http://www.urban.org/publications/411108.html
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

If you ever get tired of educating these dummies, come meet me down on the corner, I'll be wearing a wife-beater T-shirt and swigging a can of Pabst. Pardon moi for being sexAAAAy, it's just my white trash DNA coming through...or is it my white trash environment? Hmmm.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

If you do not want a parasitic organism living inside of your uterus, should you be forced to host said uninvited guest simply because it cannot survive elsewhere?Fetuses are parasitic. They feed off of the mother's nutrients.infants are parasitic. They feed off of the mother's milk.and children of all ages are parasitic. They feed off of the parents' time, money, and patience.If you left your back door open and a starving burglar got in, should you be able to kick him out to the streets, where he will die of starvation, or do you have to provide food and shelter for him simply because he is there?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Where would we draw the line on when it is and isn't OK to take an innocent life? I don't think anyone in their right mind would be OK with slaughtering a newborn, yet it seems OK if it's just a few months younger inside a womb. What about women who get elective abortions only a week before they are due? The infant is almost identical to a day old baby we would be horrified of slaughtering, the only difference is it's location. So then that brings us to the fetus. It's very similar to the baby, but far less developed. Have we decided that it's not a human life because it's not developed to the birthing stage? I don't think it makes any moral sense to abort a child.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

It is never okay to take away an innocent life.But fetuses are determined non-living until the third trimester.http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/i/abortion.htm Women do not get 'abortions' a week before they are due: that would be a premature birth.Yes, fetuses turn into babies.but sperm cells turn are used to form said fetuses.should it be illegal to enter a hot tub/kick someone in the balls/masturbate, because these actions kill sperm which have the potential to give rise to an embryo which can give rise to life?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

I think there's a difference between sperms cells and an embryo/zygote/fetus. The reason is because a sperm cell in itself has no further potential than to be a sperm cell. A fertilized egg however, will become a human being.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

a sperm cell, in the womb, has the potential to become an embryoan embryo, in the womb, has the potential to become a babyif you take the sperm out of the womb, it does not become an embryoif you take an embryo out of the womb, it does not become a baby
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

The process of an embryo developing into a baby is a natural one which will happen without any intervention. For a sperm cell or an egg cell to become an embryo, they must be united, which is the result of a decision.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"The process of an embryo developing into a baby is a natural one which will happen without any intervention"of course it requires intervention.it requires the mother to:stop drinkingprovide nutrientsprovide hormone signalingif the process of an embryo developing were entire self sufficient, abortion would not end the process.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

There's a difference between being self sufficient and the point I am making. For example, an infant is not self sufficient. If it's mother doesn't feed it, it will die. Does that mean it isn't alive? Technical, humans don't become intrinsically sentient until they are 18 months old. There is little difference between the intelligence of a newborn and an embryo. Does that mean that the newborn has no value (as you argue the embryo does not)?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

There's a difference between being self sufficient and the point I am making. For example, an infant is not self sufficient. If it's mother doesn't feed it, it will die.If the mother doesn't want to take care of it, someone else can, either temporarily or permanent. This cannot be said for an embryo.