azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

They can't. That's a tautology.Because you seem rather insistent to try out paradoxes and fallacies against me. Let's see how far you can go with your wordsSimply saying they people can’t is not actually an argument, especially when they can. Pointing out that a thing is it’s definition may be tautological, but that doesn’t make it false, it makes it fundamentally true. Insisting that my position engages fallacies and paradoxes provides one avenue to avoid the subject you are failing to defend. Lets see how far you can go with your avoidance.When I asked at what point a fetus becomes a baby, you said When it experiences the real world.Though it is developed enough a while before that to have the experiences. But it still doesn't exist in realityI’ve never before heard the argument that the inside of a womb is outside of reality. The notion that a fetus can have experiences in a place that doesn’t exist in reality is a paradox. You are using it against yourself.Perhaps this is needless to say, but your comment isn’t actually true. The inside of the womb is a place. It exists. In this world.The criminal isn't potentially alive, but freeThe fetus isn’t potentially alive, but human. It is certainly alive. It metabolizes.You claimed that pain response is unconscious, except that fetuses develop sleep cycles. States of unconsciousness that contrast with states of wakefulness.You claimed that they don’t have enough information to dream. Do you know how much information is required? They have a wide range of noises, pressures, temperatures, light, and chemical/nutrient input responses. Given they present brainwave data that is analogous to that of a dreaming person, there is no reason to believe they don’t dream.Another one of those vague universalisations.Their being constrained by your bodily limits is their function, and they aren't so much constrained as in a fetus.It, then, just limits the extent of experiencesYour derisive characterization of concept as “vague universalization” is either a crude attack at legitimate criticism, or evidence of your inability to understand the concepts I present. Neither looks good for you.Their being constrained is not their function, it is one small aspect of their condition. One of their primary functions (among others) is to metabolize and grow. That’s life. When I say that a fetus has an independent experience, I mean that it has a subjective experience. It does not matter that its senses are constrained, all of our sense are constrained. This does not remove the existence of an independent experience. Neither in the womb nor otherwise.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Simply saying they people can’t is not actually an argument, especially when they can. Pointing out that a thing is it’s definition may be tautological, but that doesn’t make it false, it makes it fundamentally true. Insisting that my position engages fallacies and paradoxes provides one avenue to avoid the subject you are failing to defend. Lets see how far you can go with your avoidance.You always have to depend on others for your survival.  The inside of the womb is a place. It exists. In this world.That's obvious. I didn't say that it was imaginary, but if I did and that were true, it'd still be able to experience things in an imaginary place. You're attacking something unrelated to what I said. That meant that it exists potentially in the real world, ie., it isn't yet really alive. And if you really care about potential life, then you're destroying it each second that you're not reproducing. there is no reason to believe they don’t dream.Okay, but the ability to dream would still only suggest that their potential has developed rather than actualised. Womb is not the world. Your derisive characterization of concept as “vague universalization” is either a crude attack at legitimate criticism, or evidence of your inability to understand the concepts I present. The constraints to an adult, old man, and a fetus are very different things. You're vaguely collecting them considering it a "legitimate criticism". Their organ capabilities are constrained, while to the fetus, it's senses are the level of a reptile that has always been trapped. Their being constrained is not their function, it is one small aspect of their condition. One of their primary functions (among others) is to metabolize and grow. That’s life.Okay, it's their condition. I couldn't remember the right word while writing that.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

You always have to depend on others for your survivalNo you don’t. People are very capable of surviving independent of other people. Most adults are interdependent, not dependent, which is a better option, but not a requirement. But more to this point, fetuses rely on their mother. When they are born, they continue to be heavily reliant for quite some time. When they are born prematurely, they are even more reliant on more resources from others than if they had stayed in the womb. The reliance of an entity on others does not determine its humanity. Nor does it’s location (in the womb)That meant that it exists potentially in the real world, ie., it isn't yet really alive.Except that it is really alive. That’s not disputed scientifically speaking. If it wasn’t alive, then how come premature babies struggle to stay alive. You seem to think that whether or not a thing is alive depends on its location. Which is absurd.Okay, but the ability to dream would still only suggest that their potential has developed rather than actualizedAnd you think I am vague? Has an infant “actualized” its potential? Have you?The constraints to an adult, old man, and a fetus are very different things. You're vaguely collecting them considering it a "legitimate criticism".People are variously constrained in different ways yes. The manner and degree to which and individual is constrained has no relation whatsoever to the question of whether the individual is alive. Which is my point. I would argue that a quadriplegic in a temporary coma is more constrained than a fetus and it wouldn’t change the fact that the quadriplegic is alive.Their organ capabilities are constrained, while to the fetus, it's senses are the level of a reptile that has always been trappedIt’s senses are at the level of a mammal that has always been in a womb. A human mammal to be precise. Go back and explain why constraint is an appropriate justification for abortion. Also explain how a things location in the womb means it is not alive.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

I could, certainly, go on explaining that, but it seems like there isn't much common to begin with. And I know better than doing infinite regressions. Do you dispute that your being is defined by your experiences, memories and thoughts?Also, I won't be explaining the most little of things, so keep your brain working. (If you're lucky, this would later prove to be redundant.)
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

I could, certainly, go on explaining that, but it seems like there isn't much common to begin withMeaning I fundamentally disagree. Why would you only debate people who agree?And I know better than doing infinite regressionsMeaning you don't want to defend your assertions, just assert them. Do you dispute that your being is defined by your experiences, memories and thoughts?I am aware of my being though experiences, memories, and thoughts. Lacking them does not necessitate lacking being.Also, I won't be explaining the most little of thingsIf you are using a concept as a foundation for your argument, you should be able to articulate that concept. If you cannot, it is not a failure in my brain, but in yours. Especially if you wish to accuse me of fuzzy generalizations while claiming that actual fetus's are not actualized.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

I am aware of my being though experiences, memories, and thoughts. Lacking them does not necessitate lacking being.Then what does? The other things, you might understand by yourself. If you can understand it right now, I'd be surprised. Consider it as just asking your point of view on the nature of those arguments, though it's also about whether you have one.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Then what does?Death.The other things, you might understand by yourself. If you can understand it right now, I'd be surprised.Claiming the stupidity of your opponent, as an excuse for failing to make a reasoned argument, is not itself a reasoned argument. The only possibly valid purpose of this statement would be to elicit an emotional response from me. Failing that, it reflects poorly upon your own position. Consider it as just asking your point of view on the nature of those arguments, though it's also about whether you have one.Consider what exactly? If you want my point of view on the nature of a given argument, you’ll have to present the argument. I have already told you what I think of your position on fetal confinement and location as reasonable justification for abortion.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Death.You couldn't be more circular. It's absurd at that point. Claiming the stupidity of your opponent, as an excuse for failing to make a reasoned argument, is not itself a reasoned argument.Good to see that you know it isn't. I've made enough reasoned arguments, but as long as they do nothing, they aren't fine enough. Consider what exactly? The questions, of course. If you can't answer the questions properly, then your beliefs are unfounded and you probably can't be convinced if you're already aware of that. It doesn't reflect anything poor for my position.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

You couldn't be more circular. It's absurd at that point.Stating that which is self-evident is neither circular nor absurd. A person can temporarily cease to experience, think, and remember. They don’t stop being. You don’t stop being if you fall into a coma or when you have dreamless sleep. You stop being when you die. It doesn’t get more straight forward.I've made enough reasoned arguments, but as long as they do nothing, they aren't fine enough.Here’s a summary of your arguments:-Fetuses are dependent, babies are independent. I demonstrated that neither are independent, but that adults are.-Fetuses are constrained, which makes them not human or not alive. I demonstrated that living humans are variously constrained. -Fetuses don’t live until they exit the womb. I countered with the scientific understanding of life and demonstrated that the location of a living thing does not determine whether it is alive. -Fetuses do not experience. This is, by all indications, factually inaccurate.You have made arguments. Calling them reasoned is a stretch. Neither confinement, nor location determine the life status nor the humanity of an entity. Nor is thought, memory, and experience sufficient to determine a beings existence.When asking what you want me to consider you responded:The questions, of course.If you can't answer the questions properly, then your beliefs are unfounded and you probably can't be convinced if you're already aware of thatI have answered all of your questions as directly as possible. I have not been circular. Where there have been differences in our understanding of a word or concept, I have elaborated. Your failure to successfully support your own position does not indicate failure in my critique.It doesn't reflect anything poor for my position.Claiming the stupidity of your opponent, as an excuse for failing to make a reasoned argument, does reflect poorly on your position. If you fail to understand this, your presentation of your position will not improve.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Stating that which is self-evident is neither circular nor absurd. A person can temporarily cease to experience, think, and remember. They don’t stop being. You don’t stop being if you fall into a coma or when you have dreamless sleep. You stop being when you die. It doesn’t get more straight forward.Oh, really? What really is death, then?
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Oh, really?What really is death, then?Haha, “I won't be explaining the most little of things, so keep your brain working.”..As though I really need to take the time to look up the meaning of basic words for you.Death is the end of the biological process (metabolism) required to sustain an organism. It is the loss of organic ordiny in favor of relative entropy for an organism. The state of an organism following the end of it's life. Death.Ok, now you tell me what "really" is.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

So, your being is composed of your metabolism? You're essentially just your metabolism? Ok, now you tell me what "really" is.It is a form of the word 'real'.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

So, your being is composed of your metabolism? You're essentially just your metabolism?Metabolism is necessary to life as a human, but it is not sufficient. I also have experiences. I have experience in the manner and form consistent with that of the human being. The knowledge that organisms have experiences is the cause for our concern for other living things, our own species first and foremost. The uncertainty concerning the experience of other organisms leads to the social phenomenon of animal rights advocates and tree huggers. No one is concerned about rocks, they lack the necessary metabolism to indicate they may have experience. To bring this back to the topic at hand, A fetus has elements necessary to an independent human being, but is not sufficient. It takes roughly 14 years practically, 18 years legally, and 25 years biologically (neurologically) to be a complete and independent human being (typically). You may be able to claim a fetus is not fully human, but neither is a 5 year old, and we know a fetus is not even partially anything else. Thus, the argument against a fetus’s complete or independent humanity is not sufficient to justify abortion. Stating that it is morally acceptable to kill small children would be sufficient, but no one wants to say that.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Metabolism is necessary to life as a human, but it is not sufficient. I also have experiences. I have experience in the manner and form consistent with that of the human being. The knowledge that organisms have experiences is the cause for our concern for other living things, our own species first and foremost.Necessary? To your being? So, if we remove your metabolism, and put in its place some inorganic technology that could achieve the same results, perhaps more efficiently, but entirely differently, how would it affect your being? To bring this back to the topic at hand, A fetus has elements necessary to an independent human being, but is not sufficient.Yes, if it can be said with sufficient reason that it is really alive, (which I'd see as it can and does have independent experiences, but perhaps you might be on a ground that supports your view) then aborting it being moral isn't really supportable. While our experiences depend on the objective world, it's are based on conditions in the womb. If we are under similar restrictions, as we might possibly be, then even we aren't really alive.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

So, if we remove your metabolism, and put in its place some inorganic technology that could achieve the same results, perhaps more efficiently, but entirely differently, how would it affect your being?It’s hardly conceivable as the very phenomenon of experience depends on metabolic processes which are by definition organic. You're describing a world wherein machines can be said to be alive. Nonetheless, if a machine replaced the metabolic processes through which I experience, then that would be the affect on my being. At that point I would have experience through a different means. As it is though, the metabolic process is the only known avenue through which a thing can experience. While our experiences depend on the objective world, it's are based on conditions in the womb. If we are under similar restrictions, as we might possibly be, then even we aren't really alive.Objective reality includes the conditions in the womb. We are all under various constraints, but this doesn’t remove us from the realm of the living. Rather the realm of the living extends to all of us with metabolic processes and experience, including those of us in a womb.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

What kind of fetus do women carry when they are pregnant?
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

It kinda has to in order to birthed. Also as soon as the BABY has a heart beat then it is obvious a human. Come on even my 4 year sister knows that much
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

This may seem obvious to you, but it is not obvious to everyone on this forum. Why is the baby a human when it has its own heartbeat, rather than relying on the mothers heartbeat? Was it not human the day before?
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Google aborted baby, dear proabort....................................................................
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Google foetus dear bible thumper .............................
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

I am proud to have a relationship with Yeshua, love the NKJV Bible, and the Constitution. #NotAshamed
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Never said you should be be did I ? I was just correcting you .... again :)
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Rock on brother. :)/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

It is called prochoice, yet you seem to think that nicknaming it makes you stronger. Nothing limits the other side to do the same. Then it'll merely be a fight like between little children.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Prochoice is proabortion.........................................................................................
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Oh, sorry, I forgot for a while there that fighting irrationally is what you do. It's evident from the reference that I had forgotten that.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

This debate is about abortion. What do you have to say about abortion?
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Try finding my argument yourself. I'd rather make your position derogatory than resorting to childish nicknames.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

The burden of proof is on you. Prove your claims....................................................
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Yes. It is killing a child that never had a chance to live a life. What if your mom had abortion? You wouldn't be here today.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Calm down, home skillet. I'm no longer proabortion.................................................................
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

so the death penalty isn't murder? It's pretty much using the same things as abortion just in the form of an injection.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

No the death penalty is not murder ,I think you may need to look up the definition of murder . Get back to me when you actually know what you're talking about
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

is a guy in a coma different from a fetus? and how so? would you unplug all people if they're in a coma?
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

No. Murder is the killing of a human being, a cluster of cells is not a human being. A fertilised egg is not a human being. These laws are based on the abstract concept of life anyway, you cannot try and make it more abstract by trying to call some cells, which themselves are arrangement of proteins with no conscious thoughts, a living thing. People argue that there are stages in the development of a foetus that when gone past, classify it as living, and anywhere past or close to this time would indeed constitute murder. These checkpoints in growth can be development of a central nervous system, a beating heart, a brain, electrical activity in the brain, or a theoretical point where the child would be able to survive independently. The problem with this is that it is utterly impossible to try and draw lines like and I shall explain why: Let's say that we do draw a line, say at the development of a central nervous system, firstly what is the CNS, there are different views of what it actually would be when first developed, but even ignoring this, what if this line of age is crossed meaning abortion at this point is now murder - are you really saying that just a week earlier it was not abortion, it was something else? How about a day, what if just one day earlier an abortion was carried out, we are to say that that was not murder but one day later it is, all because a few thousand cells grew in a specific place? Who are we to say which stage of development defines life, and how can we even say when a few grains of sand turns into a "pile" so to speak, there is no point after which it is murder and before it is not.I also however would argue against the belief that there are indeed no lines and that all abortion is murder. This is simply false, as aforementioned, a fertilised egg is not life, not even close to life. The only thing that you can argue is that it has potential for life, but if this is believed then you would believe that all egg and sperm cells have potential for life, and thus the menstrual cycle when a women is not fertilised is now immoral? Then also you run into the issue of a definition for potential for life, could an instance be potential for life, would having protected sex or not having sex at all contradict this law of not killing potential for life? Therefore no abortion is murder, and while this may be believed, there are often circumstances where the act of killing something which could be life at some point is certainly the right thing, not only because a mother has domain over her body, but there are important socioeconomic issues often that cannot be ignored. - ran out of time to finish this
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

The arguments that you have presented are obviously based on a straw man fallacy. The argument is that the very moment an egg is conceived, it is then a human life. There is no point that can go against this seeing as there is no way to prove otherwise without bringing into the mix opinionated arguments. Genetically, the embryo is a HUMAN, it has 46 chromosomes, just like you and I
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

So if we just rip your heart out of your body and cut it into pieces for no particular reason that shouldn't be an issue right? I mean it's not a living thing it's just a bundle of cells. According to your logic, as long as its just a bundle of cells that cant think on its own it doesn't deserve to exist so we can just go ahead and take out your heart, lungs, stomach, liver, any part of you that's just a useless pile of unintelligent cells because that is 100% justifiable.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Brilliant, this highlights flaws in arguments of immorality of abortion from conception and from later on in development after a supposed stage.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Good, pointed out flaws in the opposition's argument, though i would have to say that at some point you have to admit that there is immorality in abortion before birth. For example a child a month before birth could survive out of the womb and likely has 'thoughts' to some degree. The science is not that strong to back it up, but you must agree that a foetus this close to birth should not be allowed to be aborted.Well argued though