azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

The question isn't about person hood, The question is what kind of life is it?By your logic it is OK to kill another human, especially if they are smaller and less developed than you , if they can't think, feel, see, hear, or remember than by all means, kill em. What you have just done is discriminated against a whole class of humans that are inferior to you and deemed them unworthy of life by your arbitrary standard. That sounds just like the logic of the Third Reich to me. And that's exactly how they categorized it; the life unworthy of life.But let me ask you; were you ever an unborn child? If you ever were the unborn child your mother carried, then you have to accept an undeniable truth: killing that child through abortion would have killed you. Not a potential you. Not a possible you. Not a future you. Abortion would have killed you. Aren't you glad your mother didn't view you in the same crass way you view other humans in the early stages of development. You are in essence arguing for a right that could have taken that very right from you. And just for the record, most abortions are performed at about 10 weeks. I've included a link so you can see what those embryos look like at 10 weeks. And please tell me what that is if it isn't human. Also in regards the fetus's (it's a fetus at 10 weeks) ability to think, feel, see, hear and remember watch the video "Silent Scream" to get a sense of just what it is you are arguing for. What you'll see is a fetus (just like you once were) recoil in fear has they fight for their life. But I do warn you, the footage is extremely graphic.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

If it can't think, feel, see, hear, or remember; can't survive without complete and total dependence on the biology of another being; and doesn't look particularly like people -- what exactly is it that makes this a "human"?
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Well first off it's pretty obvious what makes it human, genetics.About thinking, feeling,seeing and hearing go watch the video"Silent Scream" and tell me what that baby is doing.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

I've seen "Silent Scream" four times already; I was convent-schooled and thus unsurprisingly I've been shown lots of graphically disgusting abortion pictures. And y'know what? I'm still not remotely persuaded that it is preferable to ruin women's lives or leave them to die in back alleys.DNA? Your sperm has DNA. Your hair and skin cells have DNA. Your saliva has DNA. Are sperm, hair, skin, and spit also human beings in their own rights?About "thinking, feeling, seeing and hearing" -- you conceded that an fetus slated for abortion is not capable of doing these things in your post above. "By your logic . . . if they can't think, feel, see, hear, or remember than by all means, kill em." So this new argument that "Silent Scream" contradicts your earlier premise that the fetus does NOT "think, feel, see, or hear" is simply logically inconsistent.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Ok, so it's better to kill 1500 children a day than a handful of women periodicallyDNA proves humanity, that's allUm whoops, you took that out of context. Go back and read what I said. Notice how that quote starts. by your logic it doesn't say by my logic
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

But you posited the "can't think, see, feel, etc." You supplied that and you endorsed it by posting it. Notice how you did that. Can't get out by saying that your characterization was part of a criticism - it was still  your characterization.A clump of cells in utero is not a "child." That's why medical science has words like "zygote" and "blastula" and "embryo" and "fetus."If you are asking for my personal opinion on abortion, which you seem to be, it is that abortion is a highly imperfect solution to a very real problem; but that until we have developed and agreed as a society to disseminate a completely 100% effective, safe, and pragmatic method of birth control complete with age-appropriate sex education AND eliminated rape and abuse or coercion of children, then the societal costs of limiting abortion access much further than it already is (and it IS limited; states can regulate it after the first trimester and can ban it completely once the fetus reaches viability, and can also determine which procedures will and will not be permitted) are simply too great. Rather than banning it, we need to be working towards making abortion pretty much unneccesary. This is much harder to do than simply banning it, but does have the advantage of actually solving the problems posed both by allowing and by prohibiting abortion rather than just ignoring them.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Tell me how my characterization of your view becomes my view. I don't see how the two things logical follow each other. A characterization of view, I always thought, was different from the adoption of the view. Maybe I'm wrong. So please tell me how that works.A clump of cells in utero is not a "child." That's why medical science has words like "zygote" and "blastula" and "embryo" and "fetus."zygote,blastula,embryo and fetus are terms used to describe the stages in the development of the child. They are not ontological terms. So you are right, the stages of development are not the child. They are the stages in the development of the child.But I don't see were that gets us.abortion is a highly imperfect solution to a very real problemSo what I hear you saying is that life is a problem and death is preferable to life. So why do you take the side of death and not life? If the question of abortion is so "debatable" why not err on the side of life? It would seem wise to use caution and restraint regarding abortion. And the unrestrained permission of it would be folly.Now, about the 100% effective and safe solution. It's called abstinence. Yes, I know all the objections to it, but the evidence tells another story. Abstinence has been shown to be vastly superior to other types of sex-ed. But don't take my word for it, read the report that just came out. On making abortion pretty much unnecessary. Consider that married couples don't have abortions. Take a look sometime time at the demographics of who gets abortions.About banning abortion and it's effectiveness on reducing the number of abortions. Check the data. the rate of abortion went through the roof after Roe vs Wade But really this is not about abortion or sex-ed. It's about trying promote polyamory. Sex-ed is how it's promoted and abortion is how you mitigate the effects of it. It's known as insanity when you do something over and over and expect different results. If polyamory keeps producing such horrible results what makes us think that if we keep practicing it that we will get different results?If you use something and it breaks in the process, like using your cell phone as hammer, something ought to tell you that it wasn't being used properly for the purpose for which it was designed.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

I don’t care to debate nor discuss your convoluted justifications for destroying a human fetus or embryo. My question to you: Why did your mother not destroy you while you were nothing but a cellular glob?Answer: Because your mother, and probably your father, loved you more than they loved themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Hypocrite! You are ready to justify the killing of human fetuses, while at the same time ignorant of the fact that ‘your’ bullshit argument is possible by reason of your mother’s refusal to kill you while your were nothing but a cellular glob! A female like you who is willing to justify the most cowardice of crimes against her own would-be progeny will commit any manner of crime against her own offspring. So, I think you should make certain that no cellular glob that is human in nature should ever be allowed to grow within your womb, for any child that is born of your matrix will most likely be sacrificed for your own selfish benefit.This is no argument!! Why, because, you have confessed to the innocence of killing your own would-be progeny. Down-vote all of my arguments! It still will not change the fact of your willingness to advocate not only the killing of all human fetuses (yes, all human fetuses), but the killing of your own would-be children. Go ahead! Justify yourself, for your response is nothing more than a self-justification via the state agreeing with you that should kill your un-born progeny. Oh, I can say much more about females such as you. Please, provoke me!BTW, how many children have you given birth to?
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

"I don’t care to debate"Then STFU!!! What the hell are you even doing on a site titled "create debate" then?...............................................................
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

I don’t care to debate nor discuss your convoluted justifications for destroying a human fetus or embryo. Don't abstract a fragment of a statement for your propaganda.Pick and choose what you want in order to justify yourself?Do you work for FoxNews?
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

What the hell are you even doing on a site titled "create debate" then?Correcting criminals like yourself that think a debate justifies your criminal intention!Silly criminal, debates are for just persons with just intentions, not criminals with crime in the seared conscience!STFU? Create Debate is not a forum for justifying the unjustifiable. Create Debate is a debating format for rational thought. Killing an un-born fetus cannot be rationalized! So, why do you stretch the intention of debate? I know! You are justifying your intent!Justifying the undebatable with debate! You are still a criminal!
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Typical. You didn't come for a debate, you came for a fight. Debates are for people interested in listening to both sides and expecting to get out of it with a better understanding of the world. You came to "correct" people, not to understand other points of view.The undebatable? There's no such thing. Every issue is debatable. It's true that some have stronger arguments on one side than the other, but this shouldn't bother the rational person you claim to be.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

I’m not defending myself nor my viewpoint, I am boldly declaring the implications of the pro-abortionist. You must understand that if I am truly anti-abortionist, I will not waste time dancing and playing with individuals who promote the killing of human fetuses. I did not come for a fight as you have claimed, what I came for was an intellectual abortion of anti-fetus rhetoric. The undebatable? There's no such thing. Every issue is debatable. (Self-refuting argument)I am not God, the creator of the heavens and Earth. Would you care to debate or find someone to debate that proposition? Again, No man is a woman.Again, No horse is a dog.Again, No debate is a fetus.Again, 1 is not 4Again, 1 and 1 is not 7Again, 2 and 10 is 2 less than 14Again, Man is fallible.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

As I said, some debates have much stronger arguments to one side.1 is not 4.I agree. If both numbers refer to the same kind of thing, 1 is not 4. 1 banana is not 4 bananas. One could argue that, if it's not specified, 1 could be 4... For example, 1 family might have exactly 4 people in it. In this case, 1 (family) is 4 (people). But if the numbers are just shown without "units", it's usually implied that they are probably referring to the same thing. Therefore, 1 is not 4.If you have your arguments in order, every issue is debatable. It's just that some are closer to a consensus than others...
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

If both numbers refer to the same kind of thing, 1 is not 4. 1 banana is not 4 bananas. One could argue that, if it's not specified, 1 could be 4... For example, 1 family might have exactly 4 people in it. In this case, 1 (family) is 4 (people). But if the numbers are just shown without "units", it's usually implied that they are probably referring to the same thing. Therefore, 1 is not 4.1 is not 4 is a proposition. The proposition is not an accounting statement. It is a proposition that asserts that 1 and 4 are not predicable of each other. In fact if that proposition is debatable then the law of mathematics is without a foundation. Your arguments fail to debate the proposition, 1 is not 4 , but yet argues distinctly different propositions.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

I think that referring to mathematical rules as "laws" is the kind of misleading argument religious people like to use when implying that when using mathematics you require faith. Mathematics are not the ultimate truth about anything, neither should they be treated as unchangeable laws of the universe. Mathematics, as well as physics, chemistry, etc. are a set of tools invented by humans in order to explain phenomena we observe around us. We made sciences up, and it's up to us to upgrade them in order to improve our knowledge about the world.Here I didn't go as far as to point a flaw in mathematics or something that should be changed, I actually agreed that in most cases 1 is not 4, and I know how useful that is in our daily life. My point is, we can and should question and debate everything, even the foundations of something which has been working for us all along, because we can never know when old explanations might fail us. This is specially valid for the question of abortion, since our old conceptions about when life begins might be wrong.Anyways, if my semantic discussion of 1 not being 4 was not mathematical enough for you, here I got another one..."1 is not 4"Wrong, this is not always the case. When dealing with binary numbers, when 1 is in the third number from the right, as in 100, 1 represents 4. In 111, 100, 10100, and so on, the third 1 is always 4 (as in the decimal system).
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

I think you are misunderstanding what a logical proposition is. True, we can pretend to debate everything by use of fallacious thoughts, but when an argument is illogical nothing is debated.However, in a sense we can irrationally argue everything! Agreed!You have claimed that “all issues are debatable” while at the same time failing to support your proposition. The fallacious arguments you have submitted fail to refute my proposition and consequently indicate that only my proposition, i.e. not all issues are debatable, is axiomatic. There is not one axiom you have affirmed that is evidence of your assertion, “All issues are debatable”.The only logical and axiomatic proposition of this debate is simply: Some issues are debatable.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

So going back to abortion... you say that an illogical argument is not-debatable. So could you explain what is illogical about debating abortion? Clearly, just by being here you dispute your own statement. It seems to me that you are just going around the issue without proving that killing a non-fully developed fetus is the same thing as killing a 3 year old child. Prove your statement without evading the debate and calling it "illogical". - Or else prove why it is illogical to debate this.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

The principle of pro-abortion: Human fetuses and embryos are sacrificial. Welcome to a self-evident truth.1. The pro-abortionists could dispute the words of the principle, but in doing such the pro-abortionist must necessarily contradict the pro-abortionist view. 2. The anti-abortionist has no reason to debate the principle because the truth of the principle is self evident. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that anti-abortionists will sacrifice their un-born offspring. And furthermore, you will not be mistaken if you think pro-abortionists will sacrifice their un-born progeny for themselves. Now, let’s see if you and I can logically debate the principle I have affirmed of pro-abortionists.Seriously, let’s attempt a debate amongst one another as a test of my ability to reason. Good luck!
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

the truth of the principle is self evident.? You mean that, in your opinion, the principle is false, right? First, logically explain me why do you think this is absolutely false, as in, there's absolutely no situation in which this could be true, no matter which other factors are involved.Also, I'd like to say that I'm not sure about my opinion on abortion... I do think that interrupting a pregnancy is not good, but I cannot simply ignore the problems an undesired child might bring to its family and society. At this point in my life, I wouldn't consider abortion, but I don't feel like I can make this decision for other people, so I wouldn't like it to be "banned". This matter puzzles me, so I don't usually join debates related to it. I just came into this one because I saw your comment about criminals and the undebatable, so now I'm here just looking forward to seeing you logically prove that there's absolutely no situation in which sacrificing a human embryo is the less of two evils. I'm looking forward to a debate.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

the truth of the principle is self evident.? You mean that, in your opinion, the principle is false, right? First, logically explain me why do you think this is absolutely false, as in, there's absolutely no situation in which this could be true, no matter which other factors are involved.No, the principle of pro-abortion is: “Human fetuses and embryos are sacrificial.” The principle is true to fact; it is not false to fact. My assertion is indicating the ethical standard of pro-abortionists. I am not saying that their principle is good or just, I am affirming the principle of their agenda.Now, consider the principle of the anti-abortionist: Human fetuses and embryos are not sacrificial.Does this help? Also, I'd like to say that I'm not sure about my opinion on abortion... I do think that interrupting a pregnancy is not good, but I cannot simply ignore the problems an undesired child might bring to its family and society. At this point in my life, I wouldn't consider abortion, but I don't feel like I can make this decision for other people, so I wouldn't like it to be "banned". This matter puzzles me, so I don't usually join debates related to it. I just came into this one because I saw your comment about criminals and the undebatable, so now I'm here just looking forward to seeing you logically prove that there's absolutely no situation in which sacrificing a human embryo is the less of two evils. I'm looking forward to a debate.I’ll reply to this part after we clearly understand one another about the truth of the principle of pro-abortion. This is a fair approach.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

I couldn't help but notice what a load of bullst you're capable of dishing out.Firstly you're way off the topic of the debate. It's whether abortion should be banned! Not whether human fetuses and embryos are sacrificial. If people want to get rid of their fetuses it's their choice (whether it's sacrificial or not). I suggest you save some of that energy to debating the topic. So far, all i've heard in the hundreds of arguments against abortion is that "it's a person, don't commit murder"... which has been rebutted many times. So bring something original to the debate, don't dress up the same cr*p in different packaging.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

The debate police have arrived; they are armed with irrational commentary and laughable musings.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

I wish there was a debate police on this site. People like you should never be allowed to hijack debates with confusing ramblings and illogical emotions that are neither intelligible reasonings or on topic.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

..."illogical emotions"...Obviously there are many emotions. Please list the emotions that are illogical.  (BTW, your arguments are mostly ad hominem. And as far as I am concerned they don't evidence a willingness to debate a proposition; they merely attack the debater and fail to argue the evidence of your position and your accusations.) Yes, I will continue to dismiss your posts. (Unless of course you demonstrate sound argument.)
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Here's another ad hominem argument for ya:What's wrong with ad hominem arguments against people like you? (by "people like you" I mean all those who have nothing original to say other than the same soggy "it's a person, don't commit murder" and have a complete disregard for debating ethics, especially the scoring side of things: example? 100 arguments of the same point scores 100 for the side without actually being 100 arguments).You can take that home and bank it with the rest of my other ad hominem arguments ;)
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

What's wrong with ad hominem arguments against people like you?That question alone evidences a supreme form of ignorance concerning the art of refutation. Logicians refer to this ignorance as ignorantio elenchi. You mentioned “debating ethics”, but your arguments are void of the same.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

You haven't answered the question... but you do like latin, so here:Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis eget tincidunt sapien. Proin sed magna non sem consequat sodales eu convallis dui.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

Oh I forgot, about emotions that are illogical? There are many instances where an emotion can be illogical. Sometimes they're not illogical, so here's an instance where emotions are illogical: Your feelings of guilt and sympathy towards a fetus as if they're actual babies is illogical because they're simply not babies.I guess that's also an ad hominem argument since YOU feel it? Am I attacking YOU then? Bank it with the rest.
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should be banned

Your feelings of guilt and sympathy towards a fetus as if they're actual babies is illogical because they're simply not babies.That is not an argument, it is an assertion you have yet to argue the truth or falsity thereof. Moreover, you have not demonstrated how or why emotions are capable of being logical or illogical. So, I am still awaiting a list of illogical emotions. (Have you heard the expression, “a fool’s errand”? If not, you certainly will once you realize the terms ‘logical’ and ‘illogical’ are not predicable of emotions.)One more thought, you may want to take the time and research and learn what an ‘ad hominem’ is and is not. (I need not mention that your statement demonstrates the fallacy of petitio principii. You should research that as well.)
Debate: should abortion be banned
Side: abortion should not be banned

You're annoying me but I must say I find you a little bit amusing.Call it assertion or whatever you want, it explains why you shouldn't push for a law that will affect the lives of those who don't share your views... and feelings ;)Stay on track there horsie!