azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

If you can't understand how all of this is relevant to the subject at hand, then I think I'm rather done with you.It is irrelevant. Who cares about any of it? If there is a soul in that body, regardless as to whether it can feel anything, then that means a person is there. We could say that we were there at one point; thats what most people would think, that we were actually existent at that moment of conception. It doesn't matter if we can feel. If there is a soul, and we kill the living thing, then it is murder. Who cares whether the person can feel it? Who cares?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

I already told you I was done with you, but I'll clue you in on one bit: whether there is such a thing as a soul is debatable. Again, your argument is founded on basic premises that I simply can't accept as premises for the discussion. Further debate is absolutely pointless, and you're just going in circles.I'm done replying after this; the last word is yours to take as you will.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Of course it's debatable! Did I ever say it wasn't? That being said, if there is no soul, then morality does not exist, and we can all become Hitler: there would be no metaphysical differentiation between humans and computers. We can do what we want, when we want to. Abortion would be fine; rape would be fine; murder would be fine; theft would be fine; all things that we innately think to be wrong would be considered as fine.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

So, we're going to base this off of the mind? Who decides at what point a mind is viable? Couldn't one say that your mind isn't really a mind? Couldn't we say that babies who have been born do not have mind? Who's to say when a mind is actually a viable mind?Once brain activity can be seen. You can not say that babies that have not been born but are at a further point in pregnancy because you can see that brain activity is present.But if the mind is built into an abstract entity, such as a soul, then you're dead wrong. There is no evidence to show a soul exists. The only thing that you know exists are the mind and the body.stop being a mini Hitler.I never though it would be you of all the headcases and nutters on this site who likens me to a fascist.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Once brain activity can be seen. You can not say that babies that have not been born but are at a further point in pregnancy because you can see that brain activity is present.At what point is brain activity viable? Who decides? At what point are we to decide that the brain is even there? Who even cares about the brain being there?There is no evidence to show a soul exists. The only thing that you know exists are the mind and the body.Actually there are several proofs in philosophy for the soul.....I never though it would be you of all the headcases and nutters on this site who likens me to a fascist.Well, if you are in any way in favor of abortion, you must be likened to Hitler... It is logically the same.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

At what point is brain activity viable? Who decides? At what point are we to decide that the brain is even there? Who even cares about the brain being there?The mind comes from the brain and you are your mind so obviously it is important. You can decide when it becomes a sentient being.Actually there are several proofs in philosophy for the soul.....No there isn't. Most philosophies are bullshit anyway and laws regarding important matters shouldn't be decided by them.Well, if you are in any way in favor of abortion, you must be likened to Hitler... It is logically the same.Hitler killed living people where as abortions in early pregnancies only kills what will become a person.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

The mind comes from the brain and you are your mind so obviously it is important. You can decide when it becomes a sentient being.The mind does not come from the brain. The brain is merely a conduit for the physical to the mind, which one might say is the soul, though no necessarily.No there isn't. Most philosophies are bullshit anyway and laws regarding important matters shouldn't be decided by them.Most philosophers are bullcrap? hahaha so, now we know logic isn't your favorite.... You do realize that all Ph.D programs are named after philosophy, correct? Philosophy is the most innate academic discipline in the world, playing on every aspect of academia: science, history, math, politics, relationships, art, etc. To reject philosophers is to reject academia, but I don't think you would take too kindly to that end.Hitler killed living people where as abortions in early pregnancies only kills what will become a person.Hitler killed living humans. Abortion kills a living human. All humans have souls. The soul is basis for personhood. Hence, Hitler killed living people. This is why we can say, as most people do say, that we were there in the womb. No one thinks that some other living thing was there; everyone, except for the stubbornly, insubordinate pro-choices/abortionists, thinks themselves to have been there, actually existing in the womb. I was there in the womb, not moby dick.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

The mind does not come from the brain. The brain is merely a conduit for the physical to the mind, which one might say is the soul, though no necessarily.If the mind is not produced from the brain then how come the mind changes when the brain does. For example you can tell someone has alzheimer's/dementia by scanning their brain and seeing loss of brain tissue or when someone suffers damage to their hippocampus they lose memory.Basic neuroscience shows that the brain is where the mind comes from.Most philosophers are bullcrap? hahaha so, now we know logic isn't your favorite.... You do realize that all Ph.D programs are named after philosophy, correct? Philosophy is the most innate academic discipline in the world, playing on every aspect of academia: science, history, math, politics, relationships, art, etc. To reject philosophers is to reject academia, but I don't think you would take too kindly to that end.Philosophy is a mickey mouse/soft subject. My cousin took it and she admits that she took it as do most people because she thought it would be easy. Abortion kills a living human.They are not alive as they have no minds.All humans have souls.First give proof that souls exist. Second prove that the soul enters the body at conception and not later on during the pregnancy or even at birth.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

If the mind is not produced from the brain then how come the mind changes when the brain does. For example you can tell someone has alzheimer's/dementia by scanning their brain and seeing loss of brain tissue or when someone suffers damage to their hippocampus they lose memory.The brain is a conduit for the mind, which means that it affects how the mind perceives of things, and how the mind transmits things to the body.Basic neuroscience shows that the brain is where the mind comes from.You're assuming for naturalism. Neuroscience does not prove that the mind comes from the brain; it only shows that the brain works the body. Thats all it can and has proven.Philosophy is a mickey mouse/soft subject. My cousin took it and she admits that she took it as do most people because she thought it would be easy.Intro to philosophy is easy. No one denies that; its an intro class..... Philosophy as a whole is purely academic. You might want to actually research it some.They are not alive as they have no minds.They do, though...First give proof that souls exist. Second prove that the soul enters the body at conception and not later on during the pregnancy or even at birth.Well, the Bible's true, and the Bible says it. Thats good enough proof for me. If you want philosophy, then you can look very simply to Descartes' real distinction proof.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Well, the Bible's true, and the Bible says it. Thats good enough proof for me. If you want philosophy, then you can look very simply to Descartes' real distinction proof.I don't know why I bother debating with you kind of people. Just stating that the bible is true isn't a valid argument.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Well, if the Bible is true, then my argument is true. Everything in this world reverts into whether the Bible is true or not. Seriously, God being real, especially the Christian God, is a huge point in which the rest of one's worldview is shaped. You can't debate anything until the presupposition of Christianity is answered.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

You can't just use "the bible is true" as an argument because it is not a fact it is a belief and a moronic one at that.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Well, you won't accept philosophy or the Bible... I don't know what else to do, but simply assert it.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

The only philosophy I heed is the Buddha dharma. All the others I have encountered have been bullshit accept from Stoicism and Confucianism.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

The only philosophy I heed is the Buddha dharma. All the others I have encountered have been bullshit accept from Stoicism and Confucianism.And Calvinistic Christianity has hints of Stoicism in it... But even at that, if you're not going to listen to reason, then so be it.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Abortion is not murder. .
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Well, would you consider chocking an elderly person to death murder? I sure would.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. Every woman has the right to control her body. Forcing a woman to give birth is reproductive slavery.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

It isn't murder, at least not so long as it is legal.Murder is the intentional, unlawful killing of another person. Intentionally killing a person in a lawful way (such as acting in self defense, or being a soldier in wartime) is not murder. Unintentionally killing a person in an unlawful way is also not murder; it's manslaughter and criminal negligence. Intentionally killing a non-person in either a lawful or unlawful way is not murder; it is something to the effect of animal cruelty/euthenasia.As you can see, there are three criteria for killing to be classified as murder. It must be intentional, it must be unlawful, and the victim must be a person. In the case of abortion, Intentional is a given, but unlawful, at current, is not. Even then, the status of a fetus as a person is debateable.Pro-lifers, vegans, animal rights activists, etc love to do this- 'abortion/meat/fur is murder.' It's sensational, and an excellent way to underscore and convey your feelings on the matter through hyperbole. If your intent is to simply make yourself feel better by having stood up for what you believe in, then that's fine. But, if you want to help meaningful change take place, you need to consider your audience. You are trying to sway those who are pro-life to your side- accusing them of being in support of murder is not likely to do this. In the first place, disparaging those who you want on your side is rarely a good idea, and in the second it's obviously untrue. Calling it murder weakens your position on the matter overall.TLDR: Murder is never allowed anywhere- legal killing is not murder by definition.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Governments do not set what murder is. They set what they will classify as murder, based upon what moral law dictates. Its murder, and it is allowed in many nations.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

You're right and you're wrong. Government's dont set the definition of murder, per se. We have all kinds of words for killing. Murder is, specifically, intentionally unlawfully killing someone. That's not the government definition; that's simply the distinction between 'murder' and 'killing' that makes it it's own term.What government does do, however, is pass the laws that determine whether or not any particular type of killing is lawful or unlawful. As such, while they don't set what murder IS, exactly, they do set the conditions that determine whether or not a particular killing can be classified as murder. They determine what is lawful, and what is unlawful.You could call it 'heinous killing' or any number of negative terms for it, but calling it murder is factually incorrect. With many of those, though, you'd still run the risk of undermining your own position.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

And classification is up to governments, then murder is not longer ontologically based, but subjectively based, making it logically inconsistent. Murder is based in a moral law, which necessitates the bases as being objective, meaning that the standards of including x or y in murder are not up to governments, but dictated by moral law, though people might disagree on what it is.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Exactly my point; in the absence of government classification and legal structure, the labels 'murder' is purely subjective. Legislation provides an objective definition within it's jurisdiction, making 'murder' a legitimate and useful term. 'Murder' does not exist in the absence of law, except insofar as some individuals may label it as such under their own subjective moral law- those doing so are using the term incorrectly. Calling it 'murder' when such is not applicable, as you did previously, is pure sensationalism, and damaging to your cause. That's the only point I was trying to make here. Calling it murder is incorrect, and it hurts your cause. Wouldn't it be better to call it something else?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Calling it 'murder' when such is not applicable, as you did previously, is pure sensationalism, and damaging to your cause. That's the only point I was trying to make here. Calling it murder is incorrect, and it hurts your cause. Wouldn't it be better to call it something else?You're agreeing with the point, but not agreeing with the point. Thats logically inconsistent. Murder is an objective standard; governments simply legislate what they will consider murder to be. X government saying p to be murder is irrelevant to it actually being murder; it might not be considered murder by some governments, but that is irrelevant to it actually being murder. Murder is under an absolute and objective moral law, which transcends governmental regulations. Abortion is murder, though many governments don't think it to be.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

There is no absolute and objective moral law. If you disagree, please explain what it is in detail, and further specifically how abortion would fall under murder within that context. I maintain that there is no such thing- and without that, the only laws under which the 'unlawful' portion of murder would apply are those of the government.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

If there is no absolute and objective moral law, then there is no basis for murder in a government, say for preference.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

If there were an absolute and objective moral law to go from, any legislation to that effect by a government would be redundant.But you're right- the only basis for this is preference; most people generally agree that indiscriminate killing is a bad thing, so it's most people's preferences. People differ significantly on what kinds of killing are and aren't acceptable; in theory, the laws regarding killing/murder enacted in a republic reflect an aggregate of individual preferences regarding what kinds of killing are and aren't acceptable. In practice, however, there is frequently values dissonance between the population and the law due to the roundabout path taken by a republic.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

If there were an absolute and objective moral law to go from, any legislation to that effect by a government would be redundant.Not at all. They would be the enforcers of the moral absolute.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

That would still render legislation to that effect redundant; they could simply enforce the objective moral law. Codifying it with legislation would be redundant.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

Codifying it is simply the establishment of what the government prescribes to being the objective moral law. It doesn't make anything redundant. And even if it were, it doesn't matter.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

You're right that it really doesn't matter.But you're still wrong in classifying abortion as murder; you've yet to establish a case for that, and I don't believe bickering back and forth over our wording is getting us anywhere. You were trying to establish that there was an absolute objective moral law of some kind, right? Where were you going with that?
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

God is the basis of absolute moral standards. Abortion is wrong to Him.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

First and foremost, 'God' does not represent an objective, absolute moral standard. There have been countless gods worshipped throughout history, and every single one has a different moral code. Even amongst those who worship the same god, the moral code understood can vary significantly between different branches of the religion. In the Abrahamic religions, compare the moral codes outlined by Judaism, Islam, and Christianity respectively- QUITE different. Within Christianity alone, compare the moral codes between a Catholic Church and a Southern Baptist one- AGAIN quite different.As you've assigned absolute moral authority to God, I must now ask the following:1) Which God, of the countless ones that have been worshipped throughout human history, do you feel is the 'real' one?2) Do you have any evidence for the existence of this specific God?3) Which interpretation of this specific God do you adhere to?4) Do you have any further evidence that suggests that this specific interpretation is the correct one?5) Do the writings in the sect/subset/denomination of this religion specifically decry abortion, or is this interpretation and extrapolation?You've got a pretty sizeable burden of proof to demonstrate that this absolute moral standard exists, and that the morals are in line with what you suggest.And even through all that, there are still holes in it. The moral law in this case would still not be objective, but subjective to the deity in question.You still won't have established a case for your 'no' vote to this debate; we have specific legislation barring enforcing a religion upon people- as such, if the only reason for your 'No' vote is 'god said so,' then yes, abortions should be allowed in the USA.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course not!

I see that we fundamentally disagree on most topics, so further debate on much of this is irrelevant. We can't agree on a basic premise for the debate, after all- you are only willing to debate under the premises that the specific god you believe in exists, the relevant texts themselves are accurate, and your interpretation of them is correct. To someone who questions any or all of those premises, however, these are non-answers. We should probably just leave it at that.I will address one thing, though.Do I care what the United States says?Yes, you do. The Bible, in several places either directly or implicitly commands that Christians submit to the laws of the land. That includes submitting to the laws dictating the way our laws are formed- direct voted in some cases, voted on by elected officials in others, but never simply transcribed from The Bible. According to the letter and spirit of the law of the land, the United States should allow or disallow any given activity based on the consensus of the people- and there is simply far more support for pro-choice at the moment.
Debate: Should Abortions be allowed in the USA?
Side: Of course!

I see that we fundamentally disagree on most topics, so further debate on much of this is irrelevant. We can't agree on a basic premise for the debate, after all- you are only willing to debate under the premises that the specific god you believe in exists, the relevant texts themselves are accurate, and your interpretation of them is correct. To someone who questions any or all of those premises, however, these are non-answers. We should probably just leave it at that.As I said, none of that matters. It doesn't matter whether my God is true or not. I told you it was a red herring. Morality is the basis we're discussing, not God. God being necessary for morality is a necessary condition, not the sufficient, which is morality. Morality by definition necessitates itself being objective and absolute. It is an analytic truth. This has nothing to do with God; God is simply the basis for the absolute and objective truth. As I said, your argument was a red herring. None of it mattered.Yes, you do. The Bible, in several places either directly or implicitly commands that Christians submit to the laws of the land. That includes submitting to the laws dictating the way our laws are formed- direct voted in some cases, voted on by elected officials in others, but never simply transcribed from The Bible. According to the letter and spirit of the law of the land, the United States should allow or disallow any given activity based on the consensus of the people- and there is simply far more support for pro-choice at the moment.Read in context. It very clearly says in Acts that we are to obey God first, and then the authorities. What you just said was fundamentally either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. You know better than that.