azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

"What species of fetus or embryo is not a person?"No species of embryo/fetus is a "person" under U.S. or European law."Too bad that the supposed authorities you appeal to have never heard of an embryo or fetus that is not human."How's that? Did you never do a fetal pig dissection in high-school biology? Or did you think that all species other than humans reproduced by budding or mitosis or some other wild fashion?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Thank you for your implied concession of my argument. Slow down and consider what I have stated. All animals were at one time an embryo and then a fetus. But not all embryos and fetuses are human. So whats the point in saying that a bovine fetus is not human or a human fetus is not a person?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

"whats the point in saying that a bovine fetus is not human . . . "Okay, uh, I think we'll just let that one slide . . . "or a human fetus is not a person"Because "human fetus" and "human person" are different. Kinda like "human sperm" and "human person" are different. Or like "human ovum" and "human person" are different. Or like "human blastula" and "human person" are different . . .
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

It's akin to saying that a human fetus is not a person. Kind of pointless wouldn't you say. There are millions and millions of things that are not a person. So, what is the point of claiming that an organism is not a person when in fact the organism is a human fetus. Tell me what a thing is and forget about telling what a thing is not. For in doing so you have posited in the stead of negating a certain attribute of a certain subject. Don't forget the subject by focusing on the denial of an attribute.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

"what is the point of claiming that an organism is not a person when in fact the organism is a human fetus."Again, it's sorta akin to claiming that an organism is not a person when in fact the organism is a human sperm.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Red-herringI was speaking of the human fetus and not the attributes of a human sperm. Don't change the subject!Forget the strawman via the red-herring ploy.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

"Red-herring"......................"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: bs

Tell me what you think is the meaning of red-herring.Fallacies of formal argument is a good place to begin your research. Red-herring propositions are invalid assertions(relative to the debate)that usually involve straw-man arguments.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

I know quite well what it means. You keep making grand assertions and then challenging me to prove them wrong (which I keep doing). But, you have yet to offer any support that suggests that any of your assertions are right. You just keep shouting "red herring straw man." Support your point or concede that you don't have one, because this is getting boring.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

You clearly do not know what a red-herring is in a debate. For had you been aware of that particular fallacy you would have recognized that you have not proven as wrong any statement of mine.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are. I can also see that your "debate strategy" is merely to attempt to shunt every possible proof burden onto the other party in a debate, so you can prove nothing at all but make your debate opponent run in circles to prove and disprove every word stated by either side. Homey ain't playin' dat. Do your own work for godssakes.And I've disproved ALL of your points, insofar as you had any to begin with. You've yet to offer a single point of proof. Not a one.Your initial statement was: "The baby growing within the girl is a separate and unique person."Counterargument: It is correctly a "fetus" or "embryo," and a fetus or embryo is not a person.You then asked what the point of asserting that a fetus or embryo is not a person would be. And I referred you, via analogy, back to the fact that a "fetus" or "embryo" does not fit the definition of "person."You have yet to refute that, except perhaps by the implied concession of your own argument, as really the only logical way to read your question "So whats the point in saying that a bovine fetus is not human or a human fetus is not a person?" is to read it as "it's just bloody obvious that a cow is not human in the same way it's bloody obvious that a fetus is not a person, and my original argument about the 'baby growing in the girl' being a 'separate and unique person' was just plain stupid and wrong; sorry, dunno what the hell I was thinking when I tried to claim that a fetus is a person; that's dumb; my bad."
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Because a fetus is not a person in the same way sperm is not a person.We can argue that "personhood" does or should be considered to happen at some point ranging anywhere from conception until death. You seem to want to place "personhood" closer to conception on the grounds that the embryonic being will eventually come to resemble a living human being. The court has placed "personhood" at basically birth, a few arcane property laws notwithstanding. Justice Stevens, with whom I personally agree, has argued that "personhood" should be seen as a spectrum of rights and interests that develop and vest as the human develops. But the ultimate point here is, the fact that something might become a person does not a person make. If it did, you would be commiting mass murder every time you pulled one off, and menstruation would be a criminal act.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

What a fetus is doesn't matter, what matters is that what you're doing by aborting it is stopping the fetus from turning into a person. A wonderful human being. You were fetus too, everyone was.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Sure we all were, but had we been aborted what would the difference of been? Your life wouldn't of existed therefore the world would have moved on as though you had never been, which you hadn't.A fetus is a parasite living off of the female host, what the female host chooses to do with said parasite should be her choice.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

So what you're trying to argue is that all babies start out as parasites, giving a disadvantage to the mother (not a host as you put it) that is nursing it to life? Sure, I agree that the world will move on, but you're not giving he/she a chance to even experience life and make a difference.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

but you're not giving he/she a chance to even experience life and make a difference.F that. There are thousands of children that never get a chance to make a difference. Children that are starving to death, and dieing of treatable diseases. Forget the unborn child that hasn't made its way out of the womb, worry about the child that is alive right now suffering in some third world country.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Am I biased because I think virtually all abortions should be illegal?Even when abortion is legal, I think an underage girl should definitely have to have consent for this. Can she do anything else without parental consent? Think of it like an operation. Other than trauma in an ER, an underage girl would have a very small chance of getting a surgery without her parents involved.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

But this is a decision the girl will have to live with for the rest of her life, and no one would argue that the role of a mother is not an adult role.Certainly whatever he situation was, this decision must be made by the person most effected: the pregnant girl.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

She could easily give the baby up for adoption. It's not a bad institution. My aunt was pregnant a long time ago and probably could have gotten an abortion without anyone knowing, but she went through the pregnancy (I'm not sure how old she was) and gave her baby boy up for adoption. Now, he is actually a police officer in the NYPD, saving lives and fighting criminals!
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

And I think it's great that that's an option. In an ideal world every baby given up for adoption could be given to a mother and there would be no unplanned pregnancies and no one would be hungry because bread and cheese would fall from the sky.In reality, however, what we are talking about is a little girl forced to go through 9 months of labor, have a child and then give that child up to strangers (or more likely sent to a foster home). I'm not sure if you've ever known anyone who had to go through a pregnancy, but my sister described it like this: "imagine you just ate way too much for dinner and are up all night because you're stomach hurts, and you've been sitting in the bathroom because you feel like you're going to throw up. Now imagine that for 9 months." You are asking a girl to give up those 9 months of her childhood and probably be ostracized by those in her community.You also claim that adoption isn't a bad institution by giving an example from the point of view of the mother. You don't talk about what it's like for the kid who didn't grow up with parents.In general, yes, I agree we need to reduce the number of abortions, but this should be by teaching sex-ed better and reducing poverty levels so that more people who become pregnant have the financial ability to take care of their children, not by limiting the rights of mothers by telling them whether they should or should not have children. Nor should we take away the right of a young girl, who is going through what is clearly a traumatic experience, to seek her parents approval to make a decision about her own body and her own life.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Hello MKIced,All abortions may not be illegal, but all abortions are the termination of life. Never in the history of my debating career has any pro-abortionist been reduced to anything other than a willful murderer. Your position is just! Stay the course!
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

"all abortions are the termination of life."So is whacking off. So is taking antibiotics. So is swatting flies. So is eating meat. You willful murderer, you! You truly are a bad bad bad bad man.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

You claimed:Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are.Then it will be easy for you to identify the fallacies contained in your last attempt to refute my proposition.So, now prove to me you can identify the fallacies contained in you own argument.I'm waiting!
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Precisely which part of "do your own work" was unclear to you?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: bs

You claimed:Before I started attending law school, I taught college logic and rhetoric for a living. I teach students to identify logical fallacies; I know perfectly well what they are.Are you so pressed for time that you cannot spare one minute to answer my challenge? Or, are you simply an incompetent debater?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

The school nurse cannot give you an asprin unless a parent allows it, but an abortion doctor does not need consent to perform a potentially dangerous procedure.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Of course. A parent is ultimately responsible for their under aged children.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

I will say to you what I said to KuklaWhat if the parents are biased? Some parents are totally anti-abortion and some are totally for it. If the parents have a choice they might not be making the choice that is RIGHT for the child just the choice that supports his/her VIEW.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

So? Parents make choices for their children all day everyday. Some are right. Some are wrong. As long as the parent is ultimately responsible for the child, the parent gets to decide.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

And if that parent has been abusing the child, and may abuse the child again for being pregnant - or may even be responsible for impregnating the child? There needs to be a way to opt out of parental notification requirements, or else the most vulnerable pregnant minors will be victimized even further.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

True but making the wrong decision there could mess that child's life up as a whole.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

So? Are you saying that only an under aged girl is capable of making the right decision? Some will make the right decision and some wont. The parents should be able to make the best decision but if not, she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. Think about it. If caught having sex, who pays the price? Not her. Her boyfriend gets charged for statutory rape or child abuse! If they are both under aged, they can both be charged (the penalty wont be the same because they are minors but they get charged).
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

No no no, I am saying that sometimes a girl can make the correct decision. But a parent can always make a correct decision as well, there is still the chance that it could be the wrong choice. I believe in Pro Choice, which I think also entails the carrier of the child no matter what the age to have a decision in whether or not she keeps or loses the baby.So all in all I think that the girl should be able to take the opinions of her parents but be able to make the final choice on her own.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

So, the girl retains the right to kill the fetus growing within her womb? Tell me from whom she has derived such authority to kill her under-developed baby? Better yet, from whom has the Doctor (or the subordinate thereof) received authority to kill the under-developed baby?Don't be pissy! I genuinely appreciate the birth pains of your understanding. The people of the U.S. need better leadership than Pro-choice!
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

So you're going to argue that something that can't think, feel, see, remember or do any of the other things that make us human deserves equal rights as a thinking feeling little girl?The girl gets her rights because it's her body, to do with as she will.The doctor gets his rights from the girl when she asks for the abortion.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

Could not of said it better myself.The girl ( not woman ) still has her whole life ahead of her, her parents should not be able to decide whether or not her life is ruined because of 1 little mistake she made as a kid.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

So you're going to argue that something that can't think, feel, see, remember or do any of the other things that make us human deserves equal rights as a thinking feeling little girl?Because you failed to identify the subject of your argument, you have unwittingly revealed your ignorance of the subject at hand. The term, something, indicates you know not the subject of your argument. #1. All corporations of the United States don’t think, feel, see, or do anything that makes them human. However, they have the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl.#2 All humans are human because they originate from the womb of a female homo sapien. That is what makes all humans human!#3 I can argue whatsoever I want, but your red-herring is laughable!Next-The girl gets her rights because it's her body, to do with as she will.From whom has the girl been given a right to kill the development of a human embryo or human fetus?Clearly there are two distinct life forms, the girl and the human embryo and later a human fetus.Last-The doctor gets his rights from the girl when she asks for the abortion.Wow, where were you pre-Roe v. Wade. Had you been born in 1955 you could of argued the same bs and saved the supreme court much time! (If you were born in 1955 you would have been 18 in 1973)The doctor has been given a legal right (by seven individuals) to terminate the life of a human embryo and a human fetus. The little girl’s choice is secondary!Don’t think I am intending to insult or ridicule you as a person. I was debating this question long before you were a human fetus. So, please recognize that the derision contained within my post is completely directed at the message and not the messenger.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

"The doctor has been given a legal right (by seven individuals) to terminate the life of a human embryo and a human fetus. The little girl’s choice is secondary!"Umm . . . obviously you didn't actually read Roe v. Wade, or Doe v. Bolton, or Akron v. Akron Reproductive Services, or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, because they are all about the right of the woman. The doctor has no "right" to choose an abortion for a woman. I just spent three months doing an extended analysis of the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence for the law prof I work for, topped off by another two-week intensive on abortion jurisprudence and constitutional law -- and before that, I spent several months researching international abortion law. I assure you, the Court has quite firmly stated that the right of the woman to choose an abortion prior to viability of the fetus is a central and re-affirmed principle of its decisions, and not at all "secondary." But, neither is it unlimited. States have an interest in protecting fetal life, can ban post-viability abortion, and can regulate procedures to a considerable degree. But there is no "right" accorded to the doctor save the freedom from prosecution for performing a non-criminal abortion -- in other words, the same "right" you have to not get arrested for going to work. It is not a right concerning the choice to have or not to have an abortion -- that right belongs to the woman.Also, there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court, not seven................................."All corporations of the United States . . . have the same rights as a thinking feeling little girl."That's just utter, utter nonsense. Ask any attorney.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Ask your law prof. for whom you work what a red-herring is. I will give you another opportunity to reconsider my statements. If your rebuttal remains as stated I will demonstrate the invalidity of your counter argument. Also, there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court, not seven.Obviously you are the one who has not read and understood . Reading comprehension is the pre-requisite of understanding law. I read and understand that 7 of 9 justices voted for R. v. W.. State one right that a business corporation does not have in comparison of the rights humans have. You might ought to ask an attorney that question. Better yet, hire a team of attorneys for your enlightenment.This is all play and not serious at this point in our discourse. You can determine the course of the nature of our debate.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Hell no its their choice!

"State one right that a business corporation does not have in comparison of the rights humans have."Voting. Refusal or consent to medical treatment. Serving on juries. Attending public schools. Marrying. Having or not having a child. Holding public office. Bringing a variety of different kinds of legal actions that corporations can't bring. Yes, Roe v. Wade had two dissents. If your somewhat vague statement was intended to acknowledge that it was a 7-2 decision, then it was correct, albeit unclear.And my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. I understand just fine that you are confusing the abortion right with the act of performing an abortion, and those are simply not the same thing.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Privileges are not rights Banshee. You correctly enumerated a few privileges but not one thing you claimed is a right.I did not confuse abortion right with the act of abortion (which by the way is medical description of a procedure) I think you mis-construed the entirety of my argument. I was very clear as to the number of justices who consented, it was not necessary to speak of the number of justices nor the number of dissenters. I clearly identified the number of justices who voted for rvw.Remember, the inability to partake in a supposed given right is not evidence of the absence of a right. It simply is an evidence of what right that is provided by law. Wal-mart may not be able to marry K-mart but it can certainly merge with K-Mart. And if there shall come a time that Wal-Mart can copulate with K-mart, Wal-mart has that right now!