azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

She has a right to unhook herself...but she is not slaughtering the child. The child might die might not....nature takes it course.The fetus in the womb is not dying on its own its fine. The mother pays someone to kill it. This is totally different. So since you are pro-abortion....I assume you are pro-abortion since you do give the woman the right it is her body.....to kill it even after nine months.Got one for ya. The woman is in scheduled for a csection in one week. She gets scared and decides that she does not want the baby. Is perfectly acceptable for her to kill it at nine months?The woman took the risk that she might get pregnant. If she did not want a baby she should not have had sex, or done something to prevent it like sterilization. And for your information the baby is not part of the mother. It has its own DNA, bodily systems, heart, circulatory system, fingerprints. If the baby is part of the mother....do you think that she should be able to kill it after its born?
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

Strawman. Prochoice is not proabortion anymore than it is proadoption or proparenting.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

It's not a baby until it has sufficient brainwaves....................................................................................................................................
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is wrong

As a clarification and not a dispute. The Umbilical cord is produced by the child's body.... not the mothers. So, the umbilical cord is not 'part of' the mother's body like you claim.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

In your hypothetical, the woman is not aware of the impending accident. If a person goes hiking, they aren't expecting of an accident to occur, or they would not have undertaken it in the first place. Pregnancy is different because it requires sex which is a decision that everyone knows may result in pregnancy. Now you may think, "Taking a hike in no man's land is also a decision that includes risk" and you'd be right. But I believe this is where the debate breaks down to individual opinion. I am of the opinion that when a person becomes a parent (by deliberate decision or otherwise) they are responsible for the safety of that new human. Even to the extent of risking their own lives. That is my definition of assuming responsibility for the risks. That being said, I don't think there should be laws in place to force people to carry thorough a pregnancy, or donate blood to their injured child. But I believe it to be immoral for a parent to favor their own safety over that of their children. Born or not.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

I respectfully think you are wrong.Hiking is not dangerous really....mountain climbing on the other hand is. You take risks to do it. This is taking responsiblity for your actions...even if the risks you took backfired and became reality. And this is the case for intercourse between a man and a woman. THE RISK IS ALWAYS THERE....unless the woman or the man is sterile. If a woman has sexual intercourse with a man who was wearing protection....and that protection broke....how do you think she would feel? Anxious? Worried? If a woman who takes the pill had sex with a man...and later learned she forget to take one the day before...how would she feel? Worried? Sure she would....because mistakes happen...but that does not change the risk factor that she took. The risk was there...and human error, condom malfunctions can happen. How is that the fault of the new life they both created? It is unfortunate, but nevertheless, the life got started. I dont think it should be individual opinion....it should be what the facts state. And it is a fact that at conception that which is living in the womb is a human being. Now its small, but that does not change its state. A little ant working hard on a hill....has all it needs to live....its small...but the workings of his bodily system works. And a fetus however small...has the same qualities...but is human. The heart starts at around twenty days...and every day grows and something develops. The issue is...does anyone have the right to kill a living human being without its concent. We have people here who are against killing animals for food, but they are pro-abortion and believe killing humans is obviously more moral. Figure that one out. If you say they are responsible..is the responsible thing to do is kill it? How responsible is that? Do you think that two wrongs make a right? You say there should be no laws to enslave the woman, that she should NOT be forced to carry a baby to full term. That means in your statement that you also would condone abortion in the ninth month. So don't come back and say........"ooops...now I don't mean that...only until its viable.." And gee when is viablity and what does that matter....the woman does not want it...and by your own statement should be allow to kill it whenever she wants. Anythink less as i said would enslave her and FORCE HER TO DO WHAT YOU SAY, NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO...in this case our government. How humane is your statement really? Donating blood does not kill anyone. And in the United States we can really force people to give blood. When someone is arrested for drunk driving...most often they have to give blood. Denying it would really be an admission of guilt and the arresting officer can use it as evidence.I don't get that you think its immoral for a parent to favor their own safety over their childs, yet believe the mother can kill her child while it is in the womb. ????????Yours is certainly not the Republican stance thats for sure.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is wrong

"Yours is not the Republican stance, that's for sure." And that is a bad thing? Both sides are corrupt.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

I am actually pro-abortion but pro-choice will suffice. Human beings are moral agents, moral agents are moral because we are perceivers and valuers, the ability to perceive and value is only possible when we are conscious. it is therefore our being consciousnes that gives us moral agency. Prior to and independent of our consciousness (and by consiousness, I mean both waking and sleeping levels), our bodies are only able to be classified as human insofar as moral agency is concerned. The term "human-being" really only applies to humans that embody all the distinctions which are sufficient for moral agency. It is only then that we are truly identifiable as human-beings. a hand that is detached is not a human being, an eye, an ear, a heart, leg, etc... these are all just part of the whole, and even when assembled we are not yet a person unless we have the conscious element. Since consciousness only becomes possible at the onset of the third trimester ~ 26 weeks, it is immoral to kill, what I would then call a child. Prior to consciousness the fetus is a fetus, not having moral agency because it lacks the sufficient condition of personhood. Many people like to think about potentiality arguments with regard to a fetus, that it could become conscious. However, potential doesnt relate to the here and now and are therefore invalid insofar as the moral status of the action (abortion) is concerned. Potentiality arguments actually are appropriate as justifications contrary to pro-life opinions because they are valid when speaking of a fetus that will not be aborted, this is because it will almost certainly gain consciouness. For females that are too young to be mothers due to their immaturity as humans - generally thought of as anything younger than the age of majority (18) but also could extend to any age since mental and emotional maturity are only related to age in childhood adolescence and young adulthood - the potential life of the child has a 98-99% chance of being very impoverished both developmentally and with regards to being a productive member of society. The potential life will likely suck a lot. Thus... If moral agency is not established and the life will likely suck, abortion is the ideal choice. Abortion is an a-moral action (not having moral status) prior to the onset of consciousness. So in light of this people should be having more abortions. I think it is more responsible to abort a child that is unwanted and who's life will probably suck, than it is to not. the notion of responsibility should always be predicated upon the quality of the potential child's life - if its life will likely be impoverished it is irresponsible to have it. "Taking responsibility for the mistake of not using protection" is a bad way to think of it.So I say ...- Be moral, have an abortion (not a joke)
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

(Headdesk)I hate these For/Against debates about abortion. Abortion is NOT one sided! Both radical sides of the argument are full of idiocy! Which of course is why I have a totally neutral opinion. Abortion is totally okay up until a certain, and totally unacceptable after a certain point.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

Abortion is one sided, it is either right or wrong...there can be no neutrality. It is either moral to kill the fetus or its not. Why do you sit the fence? If a woman has the right to her body as pro-aborts maintain...then abortion should be legal until the childs natural birth....nine months. You say its unacceptable.....at a certain point. Why?
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

Nothing is one sided. There is good and evil, but mostly gray. There is neutrality in everything. How can you say there is no neutrality? That's naive.I don't sit the fence, I say the radical opinions are idiotic, and it's foolish to not think they are. To say that you can kill a fetus at any stage in the pregnancy isn't right, but never allowing a women to do something specific to her own body also isn't right. Why do I say that? Well, simple: humans cannot judge humanity with our mere senses. The fact that we can't is the reason racism and fascism and sexism exists in the first place. You can't judge humanity by yourself and neither can I. Nobody can.But we're supposed to be beyond that sort of thing. Open-thought and technology accelerate us as a race. We're better then to take radical sides anymore. With that said, what constitutes a human being? Most would agree that a consciousness, a soul, constitutes a human being. We can't measure a consciousness without machines, but we can still do it. If we can only measure humanity by measuring consciousness, then that means, until a fetus has a developed brain with measurable brainwaves, it is only a mass of soulless meat. It's a mass of meat until it exhibits brain waves for the same reason a severed arm is a mass of meat: just because it's made of human flesh and cells doesn't make it human. It has no consciousness, and therefore it has no soul. You cannot measure it's soul without measuring it's consciousness, so you cannot presume that it has a soul before it has a consciousness, but you can presume that is has a soul during and after it has a consciousness because you can measure it's consciousness.Therefore, abortion is moral up until the fetus develops a consciousness. Afterwards, it is a human being and cannot be aborted. If it is aborted at that point, it is murder. Before then, it's not. To say that one radical side is right over the other is foolish. Both sides are illogical and presumptuous. Neutrality is the only logic and morality.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

Somepeople do not agree with what is evil. We are disagreeing with abortion here. I see it as evil, you see it as a good. Where is the gray area?And rape......in your opinion it is wrong...but what about other cultures? And Hitler, he killed those who thought inferior and weak. Murder has always existed. But peoples opinions differ on whether the murders are warrented. There are those who think our participation in the ME wars were wrong that they served no good. Others disagree. So evil is in the eye of the beholder. So when you say fight evil with evil.....its subjective, because people might not agree which side is right and which side is wrong. Yet you say there is only one truth. How do you determine what is truth on your own? And should everyone be subjected to YOUR way of thinking?It is not radical to say something is wrong.And stop calling me names...you look foolish. Your example is sick. You fall in love with a child.....???? A child is a child...and it is never right to have sex with a child if you are an adult. There are laws to prevent this from happening...to keep children safe..from your way of thinking. Love can destroy people, families and communities. You said, "Just because we judge doesn't mean we know. I know facts when I speak of my abortion ideas, but I do not know facts when I make opinions of you."FActs about abortion? I doubt that. What facts do you know just curious. "You're right, you don't need anyone to tell you right from wrong, but neither do I, because I don't have opinions about this, I know facts about this. That's what I base my morality on." The fact is that which is growing in the womb is a human being. The abortionist goal is to kill that which is growing. That is a biological fact. So if you base your morality on facts.....why are you pro-abortion? That speaks volumes about how you come up with what is moral and what is not. You yourself think you are god.......so in your mind, sex with children could be a good thing, cheating, lying and stealing could also be moral.....even child abuse.I find it sad that in your post you defend evil. Where is the balance in that?"Yes, humanity is measured by consciousness."For people who live godless lives it might. For people who do not consider all human life sacred....for those who are moral relativists it might. I find it sad that you eliminate groups of people who are living but unconscious. That they lose the right to live while in this state. People who are in comas, under for surgeries...even sleeping is a form of being unconscious. So because a child is in the womb...does not mean they are not aware of what is going on especially physically. When I was pregnant I used to push in on my baby....and prode it until it moved....aware of my touch. Your view on life is sad. Vegetable people are nothing? You are so so cold. I feel sad for you really, that your worldview IMO of course is so empty. That you would compare a living person to meat. What a cold way of putting it.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

So basically you're saying: "Let's be neutral about this issue and accomplish absolutely nothing. Taking a stand on what you believe in just causes problems no matter who you are, so it's best to just pull a Switzerland and not do anything." Not only that, but you say that neutrality is the best morality as well? So when you have kids and they hit puberty, because of your "neutrality" mentality you'll tell them to do whatever they'd like, regardless of what's smart, responsible, or sensible? Good luck making tough decisions in life, my friend.You seem to base your argument for neutrality off of logic. You say that neutrality is logical. I disagree. In an earlier post, I made a spirited argument of why logically, abortion is wrong, because according to the laws of reason that govern this earth, every action has a consequence, and to say that just because you don't want to face that consequence does not mean you don't have to.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

That's not what I said. Typical... turning my words into something they are not. How polite of you. What I said is that neutrality is logical because this world is made of almost nothing but it. If you kill a man who attacks you for no discernible reason, how good or evil is that action if he is a devoted, loving father? The fact is that there is little good and evil in the world, something that churchmouse did not seem to understand, thus my explanation of it and neutrality to her.What you don't understand is that to be neutral isn't to not make a decision. To be neutral is to be aligned in between two extremes. Just because you are aligned in between two extremes does not mean you do not make decisions based off of your alignment. You're not thinking of neutrality, you are thinking of laziness. Or stupidity, perhaps. And for the record, you don't know how I treat my own children. How I treat them has nothing to do with abortion, nor my point on neutrality. You are correct, you did make an argument of logic, though what you forgot to include in said argument was a wide variety of points that prove that abortion are wrong. If you are saying that abortion is wrong only because it stops people from facing the consequences of unprotected sex, then you are forgetting that there are far too many reasons for and against abortion for that to be your leading point.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

Well, as far as I can tell, you haven't come up with any refutation to my argument, so why would I use anything else for my leading point? Isn't that the concept of a strong argument: one that can't be refuted (or at least, not easily refuted)? If I proclaim that destroying a fetus is murder (which I believe it is), you'll call that argument "full of idiocy." So far, you've come up with no refutations to my logic-based argument other than saying that "there are far too many reasons for and against abortion for that to be your leading point."
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

HEAR! HEAR!I'd add that it is not the "defining moral issue of the day" since it's only like 15% of the population making tons of noise about it, the same people who always make a bunch of noise about settled issues, but for some reason every rep listens to that 15%.But why make it more confusing than it has to be? Good answer.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

Where did you get the 15% stat? Could you post your source? Or did you just yank that from somewhere else...I won't mention.The reason people don't talk about it that much is because of the nature of the subject. But politicians and womans groups....talk about and are very vocal about it.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

Right, because you post sources for everything you say and all of your opinions are based upon supported facts! ;D
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

only 19% of polled people believe "abortion is wrong no matter what"I'm assuming at least 4% of those don't understand specific diseases that account for around 1-3% of abortions performed because the fetus is grotesquely misformed and birthing it will result in the fetus' death within minutes and potentially the mother's death if not aborted.So yeah, 15%.The problem is for you, most don't know about abortion, what it actually entails, why it is actually performed, in what numbers, and what women did before it was available.Once they know these numbers; that before it was legal there were just as many abortions but instead they were performed in alleys and basements, that the vast majority that have abortions do it in the first 2-4 weeks, that the vast majority also were either raped or are having an aborition due to some medical issue, or that the women you and your ilk constantly demonize, the ones who casually decide on this course of action make up such a low percent you might as well outlaw instances of albino,then even those answering "oh yeah whatever, I'm pro-life" would actually change to pro-choice.So yeah, 15% and once again it's religion using a wedge issue to garner more power from idiots like youself.Hey, more people died of starvation last year than abortion, when are you going to start sending money to Africa you asshole?
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

Please tell me what is "full of idiocy" about this argument. Based on the laws of reason, you can't do any action without expecting some kind of consequence, good or bad. In this case, you can't have unprotected sex without expecting to get pregnant, and it is WRONG to believe that you shouldn't have to endure the consequences of your actions. If I murder someone, can I expect that I won't have to receive criminal punishment, simply because I don't want to face the consequences of my actions? No I cannot.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

Pro-choice is full of idiocy because unlimited rights in every situation is, of course, ridiculous. You're right, you're supposed to be able to be punished for your actions if you do something stupid. To have the rights to avoid responsibility for every last mistake you make is an abandonment of logic.Pro-life is full of idiocy because most of the time it is based on the notion that the second a sperm and egg meet and become a single complete cell, they become a human being with all of the same rights of a human being. That is an abandonment of logic.Logical, truly moral balance is found on middle ground between the two extremes.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

Life does begin at conception. Once a sperm and an egg meet, that entity has the potential to become a human being just like you and me. How is that an abandonment of logic?
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

It is life, this is true, but it is not a human being. You said yourself, it has 'potential' to be a human being, and I agree, but this alone does not make it a human being until a certain stage in the pregnancy. The abandonment of logic is to consider it more then just a potential human being.
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: abortion is wrong

But how can something be 1. alive, and 2. potentially a human being, without being considered a human being? It seems to me that when something possesses both of those traits, it has to be considered a human being. Just because the heart hasn't begun beating doesn't mean it's not a human being. By that logic, this is not a human being: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm22.html
Debate: Abortion the defining Moral issue of our day
Side: Abortion is right

Your link is the second step in my argument. I'll get to it soon.But how...Simple, the same reason a single sperm or a single egg cell are not human beings. It seems to me...Well that's how it seems to you. It seems to me that just because something is made of human cells doesn't make it human.Just because...Actually, depending on the stage in the pregnancy, it isn't a human being when the heart isn't beating. Then again, I believe the heart starts beating after it's become a human being during the pregnancy; I'm not exactly sure of the minuet time-frame specifics of most pregnancies.By that logic...You're assuming I'm totally pro-abortion, which I am not. My logic is not yet fully explained to you. Very simply, do I believe that fetus in the photo is a human being? Well, I'm fairly sure it is, but I'd need a doctor with a very expensive machine to tell me whether is it or not.