azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

It either doesn't happen as often as you think it does or its made out to be worse than it actually is.The giving birth part would happen with 100% of pregnancies brought to term.natural biological reactionsThat it is a natural reaction does not mean that it isn't harmful.intent on the part of the person defending them self does not need to be proven and it is still being assumed the intent is harmful and Only if the baby is actively seeking to harm the motherYou have misread my argument - what I am saying is not about the intent of person claiming self-defense, it is that it doesn't matter whether the harm posed is intentional or not.You have the right to self-defense regardless of whether the virus, or crazy person, or fetus intends to harm you.out of contextI only do partial quotes for brevity. I don't believe I have taken anything you've said out of context - if so, please point it out. I think this may be related to the above point of confusion.Shoot what perpetrator? I thought we were talking about bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms?This was my fault - my computer is running slow and it missed a copy/paste. My response was meant for a different part of your post - correction:rape is a horrible crime. I think it should be punished severely'Do you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?'Are we still talking about a pregnant woman or are talking about a teenage girlSome of these pressures might be exacerbated for younger women, but hormones and social pressures affect pregnant women of all ages.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

The giving birth part would happen with 100% of pregnancies brought to term.It would. It's still being made out to be worse than it actually isThat it is a natural reaction does not mean that it isn't harmful.You would have to paint with a really wide brush in order to consider everything on the list to be harmfulYou have misread my argument - what I am saying is not about the intent of person claiming self-defense, it is that it doesn't matter whether the harm posed is intentional or not.I did misread a little bit. Even still, harm being intentional is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughterYou have the right to self-defense regardless of whether the virus, or crazy person, or fetus intends to harm you.We do have the right to self-defense. The only problem I have with your argument for self-defense is your conflation of a baby with a virus and a crazy personI only do partial quotes for brevity. I don't believe I have taken anything you've said out of context - if so, please point it out. I think this may be related to the above point of confusion.It seemed like you were. Take the virus thing for example. I asked a question if you were comparing a baby to a bacteria, virus, and a tapeworm. It seemed like you completely ignored the second half of the question. If thats not what you meant, I apologize. Thats just how I took itDo you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?Maybe just a part of the body that would prevent the perpetrator from continuing to rape the personSome of these pressures might be exacerbated for younger women, but hormones and social pressures affect pregnant women of all ages.Young or old, like I said earlier, you would have to paint with a really wide brush in order to consider that harmful
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

It's still being made out to be worse than it actually isI imagine some people make it out to be worse and some sugar coat it. In the opinion of the woman that gets the abortion, they have concluded that the harms of continuing the pregnancy are more than the harms of the abortion.to consider everything on the list to be harmfulTo show harm, you don't have to consider everything on that list to be harmful, only anything on that list.conflation of a baby with a virus and a crazy personIt is an analogy to show that the harm posed to someone does not have to be intended for someone to take action. Any further conflation is done by you, not me.Take the virus thing for example.Sure. In that case, it was you that truncated my argument - not the other way around. I said that a baby not intending to harm the mother has no impact on whether the mother can act in self-defense. I then gave examples of other instances of self-defense regardless of intent - viruses, bacteria, tapeworms, and delusional people. You dropped my comparison to other people and intimated that I was saying the baby is the same as a virus in ways other than absence of intent.just a part of the body that would prevent the perpetrator from continuing to rapePeople aren't sharp-shooting marksmen with rifle and scope and tons of time in these situations.If you have the right to shoot, this would include some potential of death.you would have to paint with a really wide brush in order to consider that harmfulIf mental anguish looses its harmfulness, then the difference you gave between the harms of rape and pregnancy evaporates.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I imagine some people make it out to be worse and some sugar coat it. In the opinion of the woman that gets the abortion, they have concluded that the harms of continuing the pregnancy are more than the harms of the abortion.And that would be an example of someone making pregnancy out to be worse than it actually isTo show harm, you don't have to consider everything on that list to be harmful, only anything on that list.And you have to paint with a wide brush in order to consider most of them if not more to be harmfulIt is an analogy to show that the harm posed to someone does not have to be intended for someone to take action. Any further conflation is done by you, not me.I'm just showing you the fault in your analogy which is a false equivocation of a baby with a virus and a crazy personSure. In that case, it was you that truncated my argument - not the other way around. I said that a baby not intending to harm the mother has no impact on whether the mother can act in self-defense. I then gave examples of other instances of self-defense regardless of intent - viruses, bacteria, tapeworms, and delusional people. You dropped my comparison to other people and intimated that I was saying the baby is the same as a virus in ways other than absence of intent.Thats not what happened at all. I agreed with you that we have the right to fend off bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms and then asked if you considered the baby to be like them. Most of these cause harm, especially if they are parasitic which tapeworms are. There was nothing that would indicate that what you are saying is correct. Delusional people, particularly of the kind that you mentioned earlier do intend to cause harm and like I said earlier, intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughterPeople aren't sharp-shooting marksmen with rifle and scope and tons of time in these situations.No one said any of that was necessaryIf you have the right to shoot, this would include some potential of death.Key word being potential. You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doingIf mental anguish looses its harmfulness, then the difference you gave between the harms of rape and pregnancy evaporates.If people have a reasonable definition of what mental anguish actually is, people would be able to recognize what actually is and isn't harmful and wouldn't be making the case that abortion is self defense
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

that would be an example of someone making pregnancy out to be worse than it actually isThat would be an example of everyone who gets one making it worse than it is. I'll leave to the reader to judge whether to give more weight to those millions of women, or you, who has never been pregnant.to consider most of them if not more to be harmfulEven you can't bring yourself to say none of them are harmful, so, you agree, there is harm.a false equivocation of a baby with a virus and a crazy personI think you mean equivalence rather than equivocation, but I did neither. I gave examples of unintended harm.I agreed with you that we have the right to fend off bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms and then asked if you considered the baby to be like them.I already said how they are alike - they lack intent.Delusional people, particularly of the kind that you mentioned earlier do intend to cause harmThey do not intend to harm any person - they think they have been replaced by an alien.intent is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughterThis is more relevant to the intent of the person acting in self-defense rather than the intent of the source of harm.No one said any of that was necessary and You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doingIf you think someone in a rape in progress scenario is just going to aim to shoot someone in the leg, you've seen too many Hollywood movies.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html If people have a reasonable definition of what mental anguish actually isThe amount of mental anguish will depend on the person, not your or their definition. This is another one I'll just leave to the reader to decide.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

That would be an example of everyone who gets one making it worse than it is. I'll leave to the reader to judge whether to give more weight to those millions of women, or you, who has never been pregnant.Now that you agree with me, we can actually make some progressEven you can't bring yourself to say none of them are harmful, so, you agree, there is harm.So you're saying that I either have to say that everything on there is harmful or nothing is?I think you mean equivalence rather than equivocation, but I did neither. I gave examples of unintended harm.So a virus and a crazy person whose sole purpose is to cause harm aren't intended to cause harm?I already said how they are alike - they lack intent.Why does a baby lack intent?They do not intend to harm any person - they think they have been replaced by an alien.Delusional or not, they still intend to harm the personThis is more relevant to the intent of the person acting in self-defense rather than the intent of the source of harm.Thats just patently false. The person acting in self-defense would try to defend them self from someone who is about to kill them whether the killer is doing it intentionally or not which is why someone is tried differently in court if they murdered someone as opposed to just involuntary manslaughterIf you think someone in a rape in progress scenario is just going to aim to shoot someone in the leg, you've seen too many Hollywood movies.I never denied the difficulty of trying to shoot someone in the leg from say 50 yards away. Thats why I challenged the argument because theres no reason to be that far away from the person in order to shoot themThe amount of mental anguish will depend on the person, not your or their definition. This is another one I'll just leave to the reader to decide.It depends exactly on what their definition is. Whether the person has verbalized it or not, they still act it out
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Now that you agree with me, we can actually make some progressI didn't. Since your argument was a matter of opinion, I left it to future readers to decide.I either have to say that everything on there is harmful or nothing is?You either believe nothing on the list of common effects of pregnancy are harmful, or you believe the common pregnancy poses harm.So a virus and a crazy person whose sole purpose is to cause harm aren't intended to cause harm?They don't have a deliberate intent - they didn't decide to harm the person before acting.Why does a baby lack intent?Same as above - it does not decide to commit harm.they still intend to harm the personNo, they intend to harm the alien that they think killed/replaced the person.The person acting in self-defense would try to defend them self from someone who is about to kill them whether the killer is doing it intentionally or notTrue, and was my whole point.which is why someone is tried differently in court if they murdered someone as opposed to just involuntary manslaughterThis is the part that seems disconnected from the first part - who is being tried for murder or manslaughter in the scenario you gave in the first part of the sentence??Perhaps it is irrelevant - since, if you agree with the first part of the sentence, then we agree.trying to shoot someone in the leg from say 50 yards away.Perhaps you didn't read the article: "New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away."Most shots miss even from less than 6 feet away - and these are highly trained police officers.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I didn't. Since your argument was a matter of opinion, I left it to future readers to decide.Sure you agreed with me. You said, "That would be an example of everyone who gets one making it worse than it is."You either believe nothing on the list of common effects of pregnancy are harmful, or you believe the common pregnancy poses harm.I'm sure you're smart enough to know that an approach where you either accept everything or nothing doesn't work here. As I said earlier, you were making most of these things out to be worse than they actually areThey don't have a deliberate intent - they didn't decide to harm the person before acting.Viruses, tapeworms, and most bacteria do deliberately intend to harm you, especially when they're parasitic. The crazy person you mentioned does intentionally mean to harm you regardless of what he thinks you areSame as above - it does not decide to commit harm.Then it's a good thing the baby being there isn't harmful in any way eitherNo, they intend to harm the alien that they think killed/replaced the person.Like I said earlier, he does intend to harm you regardless of what he thinks you areTrue, and was my whole point.It's a good thing the baby isn't trying to do that thoughThis is the part that seems disconnected from the first part - who is being tried for murder or manslaughter in the scenario you gave in the first part of the sentence??The only reason it's disconnected is because you disconnected it manually to try and make it seem like I agree with you. The reason I mention murder and manslaughter is because you make a huge deal out of intent and the difference between the two is intentPerhaps you didn't read the article: "New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away."Most shots miss even from less than 6 feet away - and these are highly trained police officers.Then it's a good thing they're trained specifically not to kill and just stop the threat, just like the article said
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

You said, "That would be an example of everyone who gets one making it worse than it is."Me describing the implication of your argument, and then saying "I'll leave to the reader to judge whether to give more weight to those millions of women, or you, who has never been pregnant" - is not me agreeing with you.I'm sure you're smart enough to know that an approach where you either accept everything or nothing doesn't work here.And hopefully you're smart enough to read my argument and see that's not what is being asked.I never said you have to accept everything. If you accept that anything on the list is harmful, then you accept that there is harm - it is pretty straight-forward.bacteria do deliberately intend to harm youThe deliberate intent I am describing involves a cognitive thought process beyond the capability of bacteria.he does intended to harm you regardless of what he thinks you areIf the deluded person killed someone, they would be found not guilty by reason of insanity, not murder/manslaughter, etc. because they lacked the cognitive intent to harm the person.It's a good thing the baby isn't trying to do that thoughIsn't doing what?You: The person acting in self-defense would try to defend them self from someone who is about to kill them whether the killer is doing it intentionally or not...Me: True, and was my whole point.You: It's a good thing the baby isn't trying to do that though- not sure how that response makes any sense.you disconnected manuallyI separated the response because the first part of your sentence is what I've been trying to say, but the second part of the same sentence does not follow.To boil it down, here is the question:Do you agree that the person acting in self-defense is allowed to defend their self regardless of whether the perpetrator is acting intentionally or not?The baby simply being there is not harmfulYes, it is - see the list again.it's a good thing they're trained specifically not to kill and just stop the threat, just like the article saidThey are trained to stop because training to kill or not kill is not practical.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Me describing the implication of your argument, and then saying "I'll leave to the reader to judge whether to give more weight to those millions of women, or you, who has never been pregnant" - is not me agreeing with you.Despite the fact that you essentially said what I saidAnd hopefully you're smart enough to read my argument and see that's not what is being asked.I never said you have to accept everything. If you accept that anything on the list is harmful, then you accept that there is harm - it is pretty straight-forward.Based off that logic, the fact that I can get any one of a number of cancers or diseases, however minor, means I should just kill myself now so I don't have to go through the inconvenience of having to deal with itThe deliberate intent I am describing involves a cognitive thought process beyond the capability of bacteria.How capable the bacteria is of cognitive thought doesn't matter. The fact that there are still bacteria that are bent on my harm, and in some cases death, in order to survive shows a deliberate intent to harmIf the deluded person killed someone, they would be found not guilty by reason of insanity, not murder/manslaughter, etc. because they lacked the cognitive intent to harm the person.Insanity or not, there's still a dead person because of the crazy persons deliberate intent to harmIsn't doing what?You: The person acting in self-defense would try to defend them self from someone who is about to kill them whether the killer is doing it intentionally or not...Me: True, and was my whole point.You: It's a good thing the baby isn't trying to do that though- not sure how that response makes any sense.I was trying to say that the baby isn't trying to kill anyone whether intentionally or otherwiseDo you agree that the person acting in self-defense is allowed to defend their self regardless of whether the perpetrator is acting intentionally or not?Only if the person acting in self-defense has an actual threat on their life at that momentYes, it is - see the list again.See my response to that list being thereThey are trained to stop because training to kill or not kill is not practical.Sure it is. It may not always be reasonable to try and kill someone though
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Despite the fact that you essentially said what I saidDescribing what you said is not the same as agreeing with it.Based off that logic, the fact that I can get any one of a number of cancers or diseases, however minor, means I should just kill myself now so I don't have to go through the inconvenience of having to deal with itI think you should have the right to make that choice as well.How capable the bacteria is of cognitive thought doesn't matter. and Insanity or notThat is how intent works.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention(criminallaw))Only if the person acting in self-defense has an actual threat on their life at that momentMeaning that (as I keep saying) intent of the perpetrator is irrelevant - it is now down to a matter of the level of harm posed.Sure it is.Baloney. If police shooting at someone closer than 6 feet miss the entire person most of the time, an average person is supposed to aim for shooting a leg??
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

That is how intent works.The fact that you originally brought up bacteria and insanity shows that you know as well as I do that intent isn't based off cognitive ability. Based off your wikipedia article, the bacteria and and the insane person directly intended the harm of another. In the case of the bacteria, it can jus be a range of things from just a minor inconvenience that can be seen as harm and can also go up to death of the host. In the case of the insane person, it went to actual murder which even your wikipedia article agrees with is intentionalMeaning that (as I keep saying) intent of the perpetrator is irrelevant - it is now down to a matter of the level of harm posed.Intent is only irrelevant if you want to ignore the fact that, as I have said before, it is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter. Like I said earlier, even your wikipedia article requires intent on the part of the perpetrator. Intent is what distinguishes between murder and recklessness as your Wikipedia article puts itBaloney. If police shooting at someone closer than 6 feet miss the entire person most of the time, an average person is supposed to aim for shooting a leg??You're the only one suggesting that we actually try and hit the person. Also, you're assuming that nothing went wrong when the officer or person tried to shoot the perpetrator. Seems like you missed that part of the article
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

The fact that you originally brought up bacteria and insanity shows that you know as well as I do that intent isn't based off cognitive ability.My point is precisely that intent does require cognitive ability.off your wikipedia article, the bacteria and and the insane person directly intended the harm of another.No, they definitely don't. Intent requires planning, decision, understanding the consequences, etc.In the case of the insane person, it went to actual murder which even your wikipedia article agrees with is intentionalAgain, wrong. Wikipedia spells out for you that murder requires mens rea/malice aforethought.You're the only one suggesting that we actually try and hit the person.Trying to hit the person takes less precision than trying to be sure to hit a person in a non-fatal way:luckin: "You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing"you're assuming that nothing went wrong when the officer or person tried to shoot the perpetrator.of course something went wrong - the officer wouldn't be shooting them otherwise. Something going wrong is just as likely, if not more, to happen in the rape scenario.