azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

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.This is a bad argument... Reason why? because doctors don't genuinely think that way obviously. Of course they understand the the fallibility in drawing lines like that, as long as that lines prevents what it is meant to it doesn't matter. As long as we never abort after a certain period of time then the event of a sentient fetus capable of pain and emotion being aborted is more guaranteed to not Occur. For example you can't legally drive unless you are 16. I am sure there are some 14 year olds who might drive really well... that doesn't mean I think it is a good that every 14 year old should be able to.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Okay, yes this is what I was going to cover I had a bit more time to finish it. I believe that the abortion week limits can be put in place for humanitarian reasons not due to development progression. But that's not the debate, remember it is is abortion murder, and i remain my stance that it is not murder. While these caps being puts on as a guarantee that no foetuses suffer is the case, that is irrelevant to the debate at hand because it is one of whether it is murder or not rather than whether it is legal or not. So I believe that it is still not murder until self-sustaining life has developed, but since this point cannot be determined then abortion cannot be said to ever be murder
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

No. Murder is the killing of a human being, a cluster of cells is not a human beingA human being is a cluster of cells.These laws are based on the abstract concept of life anywayOf course a cluster of cells is alive. By strict definition. The question is when is that cluster of cells is a human.Let's say that we do draw a line, say at the development of a central nervous system… 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?If we can say that this line is the earliest possible point at which a cluster of cells is human, then yes, a week earlier it was something else.and how can we even say when a few grains of sand turns into a "pile"There is a point at which everyone agrees we have a pile of sand. There is also a point at which no one would call grains of sand a “pile”. Our ignorance concerning when a cluster of sand grains becomes a pile does not negate that what is a pile now, was not a pile before, and that a change occurred in the interim. Are you really going to say that sex with someone on their birthday is not a crime when sex with that person the day before was a pretty serious one? Yes. Your incredulity notwithstanding.Therefore no abortion is murderThis is as absurd as claiming that no arrangement of sand is ever a pile. That no amount of hair on ones face equals a beard. To reverse your incredulity, are you really saying that killing an infant is murder, but killing it the day before (while in the womb) is not? 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 ignoredSo I believe that it is still not murder until self-sustaining life has developedYour analysis is built around the idea that no beard is a beard, that no amount of sand is a pile, that no amount of development in a womb creates a human life. Drawing the line at birth eliminates the issue of bodily domain, but not the socioeconomic issues. And babies are not actually self-sustaining. Thus, your line of reasoning can easily be applied to say that there are very important socioeconomic issues which justify the killing of children prior to the point at which a kid can potentially survive independently, roughly 6.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Hi Amarel, A human being is a cluster of cells Yes, but what sets us apart is a conscious and experience through senses. Your spit has clusters of cells in it, but you wouldn't compare this to a human being.Of course a cluster of cells is alive. By strict definition. The question is when is that cluster of cells is a human.Yes cells themselves are alive, I've not put my point across properly here. But they are not humans, some say that they are "potential humans", but this is just some made-up, non-tangible worthless label that means nothing.There is a point at which everyone agrees we have a pile of sand. There is also a point at which no one would call grains of sand a “pile”. Our ignorance concerning when a cluster of sand grains becomes a pile does not negate that what is a pile now, was not a pile before, and that a change occurred in the interim.Are you really going to say that sex with someone on their birthday is not a crime when sex with that person the day before was a pretty serious one? Yes. Your incredulity notwithstanding.Yes if you read my other post you would see that these regulations like your sex analogy are only put in place for purely humanitarian reasons to appease the people. But in terms of morality and murder/not murder you cannot set a line where something that is not murder becomes murder suddenly. Yes I talk about the hair being a full beard as I say that it becomes murder only once a theoretical point of potential independent survivability is surpassed, but since this cannot be a specific point in development, we must simply draw our own line late in development when the sand has certainly become the pile like I said
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Hi Patrick,But in terms of morality and murder/not murder you cannot set a line where something that is not murder becomes murder suddenly.According to the most liberal approach to abortion, this line is present and exists at birth. While you may argue that killing the child is not murder on one specific day, few would be so morally corrupt as to approve of the killing the very next day. The only difference being the child’s location relative to the womb. If we can draw this line, in terms of morality for rape, saying that we cannot do the same for murder is arbitrary, unless you have some specific reason behind it. Yes I talk about the hair being a full beard as I say that it becomes murder only once a theoretical point of potential independent survivability is surpassed, but since this cannot be a specific point in development, we must simply draw our own line late in development when the sand has certainly become the pile like I saidThis point of independent survivability is not achieved upon birth, thus it serves as a poor moral marker. Furthermore, it is as arbitrary a moral standard as is a heartbeat. Given a newborn baby can hardly be said to have independent survivability, one might say that this is just some made-up, non-tangible worthless label that means nothing. Whereas the concept of potential is at least intelligible and relevant. To understand that a fetus becomes a human life at some point in the interim between conception and birth, and to conclude that we must “draw our own line late in development”, is to concede that we will in fact end human life a certain percentage of the time. It is morally inferior to drawing a line early in development, ensuring that we are not killing a human being. That is provided human life is a moral value.
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."Could not have said it better.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Its not murder because its not yet a human life. it is a parasite that survives on off the host body. Once its capable of surviving outside the womb on its own then its a human being....
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

You forget the definition of parasite. a parasite is an organism that lives and feeds on or in an organism of a different species and causes harm to its host. the key word there is harm. A human baby is not a parasite. Furthermore, a parasite is an organism involved in the symbiotic relationship of parasitism, which is defined as one organism benefits, while the other is harmed. Both organisms benefit, because the woman is having her species continued. You also have skewed the definition of human. A human being is a member of the species of homo sapien. Homo sapien is defined by a number of characteristics, one of which is the number of chromosomes in the cells, in a genetically normal human, there is 46. in a genetically normal "fetus," there are 46 chromosomes, and the DNA inside of these is genetically different than that of the mother.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

The problem with this resolution is that murder defines as being unlawful killing of a being. And at this moment abortion is legal so by the definition of murder no abortion is not murder. I am 100% against abortion however it is not murder.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Murder only exists if society declared a particular type of killing to be illegal and thus murder. War, self defense, police action, etc, are all killing but are not considered murder. In current US society most abortions are not illegal and thus are not considered murder.If the Supreme Court changes on it then I will acknowledge on this site it has become murder.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Abortion is not murder for two major reasons. 1. It's not illegal. Murder, at least if we are speaking about the legal term, murder refers to unlawful killing of human beings. Since abortion is legal and not unlawful that's one reason Abortion is not murder. 2. The "victim" is not a being. It might be human, but so is sperm, or fingernails, or hair, etc. What's more important to me is whether or not we are killing an actual being. It is technically alive but so are plants technically. Abortions after the point in which the the fetus develops a sensation for pain is typically illegal and thus don't result in the end of a human being life.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

1. Abortion is only legal because people do not understand that it is murder. It does not make any sense for that to be an argument. It is like saying rape is not bad because it is not illegal. It is, but it was not before.2. The "fetus" can feel pain and does notice when an abortion is actually happening. The "fetus" is a being, a human being. It is like saying that when you plant a seed and it starts to grow a little bit and you say it is not a plant, when it really is.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

1. Abortion is only legal because people do not understand that it is murder. It does not make any sense for that to be an argument. It is like saying rape is not bad because it is not illegal. It is, but it was not before.Dude I totally get where you are coming from, I've been on the other side of this argument on this issue. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it should be...However the debate isn't "Is abortion moral?" the question is "Is Abortion Murder?" and as of right now, it is not. legally.I can be a very technical guy sometimes. Although we'd disagree on that issue as well.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

King, I am just asking you what is your argument in a short paragraph. I know I got off topic before, but how did you argue before, and what changed you?
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Nothing changed me. You misunderstand, I still held the same position. Somehow it was flipped, where the person arguing against abortion got to a point in which they used that argument somehow for why abortion shouldn't be illegal. Like maybe he was arguing that a fetus is technically human having DNA and therefore should be illegal. Then one of the points I made was that just because something is (or technically should be by law, whatever) illegal doesn't mean it should be. It was a while ago so it's a little fuzzy but I just remember coming across that same argument, from the pro-life point of view.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

What you are doing here is obviously fallacious. just because something is the law doesn't mean it is true. In World War II the nazi party made it legal to slaughter Jews by the hundreds of thousands, but does this mean that it is not murder, legally it wasn't, but morally it was. I do wonder how this makes sense to you in our case here.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

What you are doing here is obviously fallacious. just because something is the law doesn't mean it is true.yes I agree, however if legality is relevant to the question it can affect what is true. In World War II the nazi party made it legal to slaughter Jews by the hundreds of thousands, but does this mean that it is not murder, legally it wasn't, but morally it was.Well obviously I am talking about Murder in legal context in this specific point. The debate creator here didn't give a specific definition for murder, and I simply made the point that legally it is not. So I agree with you, morally I would call the holocaust murder, but legally it wasn't. Doesn't mean the holocaust wasn't horrendous. If you want to challenge my other argument that applies for the more layman definition of murder, knock yourself out. However here, I am operating of the legal context definition of murder, something you and me both seem to agree on. I do wonder how this makes sense to you in our case here.Simple, Just use logic.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Since you want to use the legal definition of murder, we can use the definition of murder as provided under section 18, U.S. Code § 1111. Murder is there defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought now there are some key-words we need to focus on, and those are killing of a human being, malice aforethought. the dictionary defines aforethought as previously in mind and malice as intent to do harm , and abortions aren't something you just decide one day that you are going to do like going to McDonald's for lunch. it requires prior planning, and most importantly, an appointment, which is a plan. Abortion does harm to the unborn, and as i have already established, an embryo is in fact a human being, and is indeed alive. So explain to me how you believe that abortion is not the killing of a human being with malicious forethought.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethoughtKey word... Unlawful. Abortion can be perfectly legal and thus not murder. Exactly What I have been saying from the start. Thanks for proving my point.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

This is my argument as well I am against Abortion but by definition of the resolution is is not murder.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

Explain to me how one can be against abortion, yet not consider it to be murder...
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Well define murder bud. Murder in almost every definition if not every definition is the unlawful killing of_ so since abortion is currently legal therefore not unlawful therefore not murder.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

There is no scientific definition of when life begins. I can see no reason to pick conception as the start of life, nor can I make an argument for birth. You could very easily make an argument that mastrubation is murder, because there goes potential life. Or, if you're a woman and you have your period, that's murder because you chose not to get pregnant in the past month. I honestly don't see how that logic is separate from saying that once the baby is growing in the womb, it's a human life. And with that gray area, I think it is far more important to take care of the humans who are already functioning in our society and let them have control of their own lives.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is Murder

So you'd condone the ending of a potential new Einstein or a new person that could find the cures to various diseases or potentially revolutionize the world? For all we know the world could be such a better place today due to someone significant but they were killed in the womb.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

For all we know the world could be such a better place today due to someone significant but they were killed in the womb.Two things:1) My point is that while that is true post conception, it's also true pre-conception. Seriously. If a woman gets her period, that means that she now has one fewer egg. That egg could have contained the genetic material for the next Einstein. Has she just killed someone by choosing to not get pregnant? What about the use of condoms? Why is conception the only point where that argument applies?2) Do you know what actually defines the people who are the 'Einstein's and scientists of the future instead of genetics? People who go to school. Do you know what happens to women who get pregnant when they're in college? Usually, they drop out.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

I believe that every American citizen has a right to life liberty and happiness. Now most pro-life people would say I am denying the unborn it's right to life. I argue that a person becomes a American citizen by A: being born in America. or B: going through the proper legal channels of immigration. seeing as the unborn has done none of these I believe the child is not a citizen thus does not have the right to life. I also do not consider the unborn fetus to be a human life until said fetus is no longer connected to the mother. Until the fetus is living on its own and note I said living on its own not capable of living on its own it is still a part of the mother. The mother should be able to choose what she does with her body. Abortion doesn't kill a human it stops the potential for a new human.
Debate: Is Abortion Murder?
Side: Abortion Is NOT Murder

Apparently, when I'm eating an egg I'm also eating a real live chicken. No wonder I'm putting on weight! They don't call it the "breath of life" for nothing! Conservatives believe in proclaiming themselves "pro-life" until you pass through the birth canal, at which point they become "pro-Go screw yourself" and couldn't care less if you don't have health insurance, can't feed your family, go bankrupt paying off the hospital and your family (including said baby) is out on the street, or if you were raped to get to this point! At that point you become a lazy liberal and ALL of you deserve to die (including said baby). Aren't religious conservatives EVIL!??
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: yes

Let's you do whatever you want, without having to follow an exterior set of rules (aside from the law, which most people see as a legal thing instead of a moral thing).
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

Let's you do whatever you wantHow? Secular Humanism is a solid moral framework. And how does believing in a god preclude people from "[doing] whatever [they] want?"without having to follow an exterior set of rulesYour argument is that non-objective morality that doesn't come from god (which in reality for you is a childish set of restrictions for the weak-minded that themselves are flawed, ignorant, or just plain stupid) can't exist...That's absurd. aside from the law, which most people see as a legal thing instead of a moral thingWhat is law based on? Morals. And usually not a religious morality. And when said laws are based on a religious morality, they are highly discriminatory, stupid, ignorant and quickly repealed as civilized people outnumber the bigoted theocrats (ex. banning sodomy and gay marriage).
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: yes

"How? Secular Humanism is a solid moral framework."Sure, secular humanism is. But not every atheist is a secular humanist. "And how does believing in a god preclude people from "[doing] whatever [they] want?"People who are Christians have other laws to follow such as "do not commit adultery" which restricts them for doing whatever they want."Your argument is that non-objective morality that doesn't come from god (which in reality for you is a childish set of restrictions for the weak-minded that themselves are flawed, ignorant, or just plain stupid) can't exist..."I didn't write: without following an exterior set of rules. I wrote "without having to follow an exterior set of rules". Not all atheists have the same moral views, there is no standard of ethics among atheists. "What is law based on? Morals. And usually not a religious morality. And when said laws are based on a religious morality, they are highly discriminatory, stupid, ignorant and quickly repealed as civilized people outnumber the bigoted theocrats (ex. banning sodomy and gay marriage)."Your argument has quickly sunk into the made up view of the world which most atheists here believe they're in. This whole paragraph is mostly opinion.
Debate: is atheism just a cop out?
Side: no

Sure, secular humanism is. But not every atheist is a secular humanist.And barely any Christians follow the biblical moral code (some of which is likely illegal).People who are Christians have other laws to follow such as "do not commit adultery" which restricts them for doing whatever they want.So we have gone from people who believe in god, to Christians, to people who strictly follow Christian dogma...logic doesn't work that way.And who says these restrictions are logical? And why do Christians pick and choose which ones they follow? Not all atheists have the same moral views, there is no standard of ethics among atheists.There is no standard of ethics among theists...You can't actually be this oblivious to what your argument is.Your argument has quickly sunk into the made up view of the world which most atheists here believe they're in. This whole paragraph is mostly opinion.I'll take this as a concession that secular laws are based on an atheistic morality, excluding the religious ones which are incredibly childish and stupid.