azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: bs

Sorry, While you and Banshee are in agreement, allow me to evidence the fact that you not only disagree with what I've submitted, but you also disagree with a law prof and judge. The Death Penalty for Corporations Comes of Ageby Russell Mokhiber, Business EthicsNovember 1st, 1998  In two surprising recent cases, a law school professor and a circuit court judge seek to revoke the charters of corporate lawbreakers.We know what the death penalty for individuals means: Commit an egregious crime, die at the hands of the state. What does it mean to talk about the ''death penalty'' for corporations? Simply this: Commit an egregious wrong, and have your charter revoked. In other words, lose the state's permission to exist. It's an intriguing concept, because most of us never think about corporations needing anyone's permission to exist. But they do.Throughout the nation's history, the states have had -- and still have -- the authority to give birth to a corporation, by granting a corporate charter, and to impose the death penalty on a corporate wrongdoer by revoking its charter. Activist-author Richard Grossman points out that in 1890, for example, New York's highest court revoked the charter of the North River Sugar Refining Corporation -- referring to the judgment explicitly as one of ''corporate death.'' It was once widely understood that the states had this power. ''New York, Ohio, Michigan and Nebraska revoked the charters of oil, match, sugar and whiskey trusts'' in the 1800s, Grossman wrote in the pamphlet, ''Taking Care of Business: Citizenship and the Charter of Incorporation,'' co-authored with Frank Adams.For many decades now, this vital power has lain dormant in the public mind. But a small group of activists led by Grossman is hoping to resurrect it. They believe that to stem the tide of growing and unaccountable corporate power, it's not enough to rely on regulation, litigation, legislation, and law enforcement. Grossman and his Cambridge-based Project on Corporations, Law and Democracy want citizens to reclaim the power to put corporations to death.You can play the game, A distinction without a difference, all you and banshee care to. However doing so only evidences your inabilities for critical thought, knowledge of refutation, and deductive reasoning. By the way you thought wrong did you not! Thinking I had nothing to add again evidences profound arrogance and ignorance. If I have pissed on your arguments bare in mind I am not pissing on you.Your efforts are commendable, I'm just sorry for your sakes that you have exposed yourself. I look forward to our next argument.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

This is a very interesting argument. My first inclination is to say that our moral culture has gone so far down the tubes that we are removing consequences of actions. Which is true, but at times, the consequences from "removing" the consequences can be just as, if not more, devastating. Maybe that is off topic, but it's my opinion. Now, on to the question at hand. Of course parental consent should be required for underage abortions. However, in a slight twist, this consent should be not forced by the provider, but the parents responsibility. A parent needs to be involved enough in their childs life to know what is going on. There should be significant enough trust in the parent child relationship that the child is comfortable enough talking to their parent about everything in their life. Not being a parent myself, I understand that I don't really understand all the dynamics involved here, but I do know parents that are involved in their children's lives, including my own parents, and typically, there is enough trust in those relationships to have these types of conversations. The funny thing is, when parents are this involved in their child's life, in a healthy way, these conversations do not need to happen.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

Teens can't buy cigarettes, or alcohol, or sudifed, or a lottery ticket, or....I could go on and on. But some people think it's ok for them to kill a baby inside them withough parental consent? Geez people, think! My 16 year old son had to go to the ER the other day for a bad cut, and they wouldn't let him see the doc without my consent. But it's ok for a girl to kill her baby without her parents knowing?
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

As long as the child is underage, parental consent should be required. The parents have a right to know what they're child is doing. Now another argument would be that some teens are mature enough to make the right decision. But remember this: were they mature enough to make the correct decision to have protected sex? In this case, obviously not. Choice comes long before the pregnancy. You made the first choice and obviously it wasn't the best one. So because of this, the second choice will not be yours...unless of course, you're a legal adult.
Debate: Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
Side: Of course.

They are minors, therefore, parental consent is required.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

If you define embryos as alive simply because they are rapidly dividing undifferentiated human cells,then you cannot 'kill' cancer cells either.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Cancer cells don't have the potential to be a human being. What else you got?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

First of all, you are wrong.http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:ce5bML0wsYYJ:scholar.google.com/+embryonic+cancer+cells&hl=en&as_sdt=10000000000000&as_ylo=2011 experimentation is being done to manipulate cancer cell plasticity into embryonic cells. Perhaps you should do some research.Regardless, I am not disputing that embryos have the potential for lifethat is entirely different than being alive.I have the potential to go commit a crime. Yet I am not being arrested because i have not committed a crime.If we are discussing whether or not stem cells are alive, as opposed to potentially arising to life, then they are essentially identical to cancer cells.undifferentiated, human genome, producing telomerase... the only difference is the potential for life. Both, however, are equally not alive.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Any woman who has ever lost a child during pregnancy - knows that their child was alive from the moment it was conceived. Dead things can not grow and further develop.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Also, your sperm has the potential to be a human being but you still waste it (if you are not male, then a male close to you does).
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Alone, sperm does not have the potential. Just as an egg alone does not have the potential for life. It is when they meet (conception) is when life has the potential to become a human. This process begins immediately. Within two weeks of conception the eyes being to form.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

How are you defining "potential"?Yes, sperm alone will not turn into a baby of its own accord. Neither will an egg alone.But neither will a fertilised egg. This fertilised egg needs to be placed into a specific location (a woman's womb), and during the 9 months of gestation numerous health criteria need to be met, in order for this fertilised egg to become a baby.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

How are you defining "potential"?Definition of POTENTIAL1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potential But neither will a fertilised egg. This fertilised egg needs to be placed into a specific location (a woman's womb), and during the 9 months of gestation numerous health criteria need to be met, in order for this fertilised egg to become a baby.Well sex usually involves the fertilized egg being in the correct location. So how would that make abortion acceptable? It is a life. If you believe life exists on a single cell level then certainly a fertilized egg meets that requirement. No matter how you look at it abortion is murder.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Definition of POTENTIAL1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actualityUnder the definition you're using, sperm also has the potential to become a human.So how would that make abortion acceptable?You're right, an argument that sperm is a potential human does not show that abortion is acceptable. I wasn't trying to prove the claim that abortion is acceptable (although incidentally I do hold that view); I was only disputing your claim that a fertilised egg is a potential human whereas sperm and unfertilised eggs are not.It is a life. If you believe life exists on a single cell level then certainly a fertilized egg meets that requirement. No matter how you look at it abortion is murder.I don't doubt that a fertilised egg is alive (I'm using the tag "Yes, its not even alive" only because it's closer to my position than the other tag; I do think that foetuses are alive). Sperm and unfertilised eggs are also alive. Cockroaches are alive. Parts of your body are alive. But we don't find it immoral to kill sperm with spermicidal cream, to spray cockroaches, or to remove cancerous cells. And we would certainly not call it "murder".To end the life of something that is alive is to kill it. Abortion is the killing of a foetus. But "killing" is not the same as "murder". Murder is a more restrictive definition, meaning the intentional or reckless killing of a person. Abortion is intentional, and it's killing, but what under dispute is whether or not the killed thing is a person. You have only argued that it is a potential person.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Under the definition you're using, sperm also has the potential to become a human.How do you arrive at that inane logic? A sperm alone won't develop into a human. You need an egg to complete that task. A sperm alone is not capable of development. Please review before just responding. I was only disputing your claim that a fertilised egg is a potential human whereas sperm and unfertilised eggs are not.How can you say a fertilized egg is not a potential human?Sperm and unfertilised eggs are also aliveThey are living tissue, but separate can't become a human life. But we don't find it immoral to kill sperm with spermicidal cream, to spray cockroaches, or to remove cancerous cells.Sperm has no potential on its own. Bugs are not humans the same applies to animals and plants. Your last example is living tissue not life itself. Therefore by your own definition none of these are murder. Why would you use such ridiculous logic?Abortion is the killing of a foetus. But "killing" is not the same as "murder". Murder is a more restrictive definition, meaning the intentional or reckless killing of a person.The FETUS is a human. The child is a fetus until week 8 which by week 4 you can already see a heartbeat. This is a human life. Your ignorance is bordering on annoying. Please do some research.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

A sperm alone won't develop into a human. You need an egg to complete that task. A sperm alone is not capable of development. Please review before just responding.I would advise you to review before responding, as I have already provided a response to this claim of yours, a response which you have yet to refute: There is no significant difference between sperm, unfertilised eggs, and fertilised eggs. All of these three are capable of developing into humans, but none of them will develop into humans as they are.How can you say a fertilized egg is not a potential human?On the contrary, I was saying that sperm, unfertilised eggs, and fertilised eggs are all classifiable as potential humans. I wrote in my previous post:"Under the definition you're using, sperm also has the potential to become a human."I would not have used the word "also" if I didn't mean that sperm, as well as fertilised eggs, have the potential to become a human.Bugs are not humans the same applies to animals and plants.Under my argument, a foetus is not a human being either. It is a potential human being. (By the way, it's arguable that a cockroach is also a potential human being in that the atoms making up the cockroach may one day end up being the atoms that make up a human body...)Your last example is living tissue not life itself.Living tissue is alive.Therefore by your own definition none of these are murder.Of course they are not; that was the very point I was making. I was saying that none of them are murder (note what I had written: "And we would certainly not call it "murder""), and that along the same lines, the killing of a foetus is also not murder.The FETUS is a human. The child is a fetus until week 8 which by week 4 you can already see a heartbeat.Many non-human creatures have heartbeats. "Foetuses have heartbeats" is hardly a convincing argument as to why foetuses should be classified as people. The same goes for your earlier argument, "foetuses have developing eyes".-------------------------------I must say: I have argued with many people before, and misunderstandings do happen on occasion, but few people have shown such an aptitude for misunderstanding my arguments as you have. If you're "misunderstanding" me on purpose in order to misrepresent my arguments, please realise that this is a straw man fallacy and only serves to make your arguments less convincing. If you're not doing it on purpose, please read my arguments again, more carefully this time.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

I was getting ready to write a very long reply, but now I see that this is not necessary.Perhaps what is limitless is your inability to lack a credible argument.I have a limitless inability to lack a credible argument?You just accused me of being absolutely incapable of not having a good argument. In other words, no matter what the situation is, I can come up with a good response....I am deeply flattered.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

Well I guess I made the double negative mistake. It's funny that is the only part of my post your replied too. Why don't you give the rest of it a shot?
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Indeed you did make a mistake, and a very obvious one at that (I showed the paragraph to my 12-year-old sister when she asked me what I was laughing about, and she spotted the error in about 3 seconds). Before accusing someone of using bad English, please check that your own English is beyond common reproach.As for answering the rest of your post - I would rather not do it. It would be a waste of time for me to raise more arguments against an opponent who hasn't even understood my earlier arguments.You said a fetus is not a human and or alive. This is your opinion correct?^ This question proves that there is no point in continuing argument with you. You have failed to grasp my most basic opinion, even after I had explained it to you, again and again and again.I will quote some of my earlier posts where I have already stated what I believe:Me: "I don't doubt that a fertilised egg is alive..."Me, in the same sentence: "I do think that foetuses are alive."Me, later on in the same post: "To end the life of something that is alive is to kill it. Abortion is the killing of a foetus."Me, in another post: "You had attributed to me the claim that a fertilised egg is not a potential human, when in fact I had argued the opposite."Me, again: "...human eggs, fertilised or no, are obviously human..."I will restate my position just once more. If you get it, good for you. If you don't, I'm not going to repeat myself anymore:---------------------A foetus is obviously alive, in the same way that people are alive, insects are alive, and bacteria are alive.A foetus is obviously human ("human" the adjective, not "a human" the noun) in the sense that it is the foetus of a human, in the same way that human adults are human, human corpses are human, human kidneys are human, and human fingernails are human.A foetus is also obviously a potential human being, in the sense that it will grow into a human baby, then a human child, then a human adult, given the right circumstances.What is under dispute is whether or not the foetus should be classified as already a human being, or in other words a person, which would mean killing it is murder. The dispute runs like this: You argue that a foetus is a person. I argue that it is not.---------------------There you have it.This is not the only place where you have completely misunderstood me, but for me to list every misunderstanding you made in your previous post alone would result in an essay-length post. There is no way for me to argue meaningfully with someone if they cannot understand the arguments I'm making..P.S. Sir English Expert, you managed to make two clear mistakes in a 3-sentence post. "It's funny that is the only part of my post your replied too" should be "It's funny that is the only part of my post you replied to". The first mistake may be excused as a typo, but the second is a textbook case of to/two/too confusion. Considering your language skills (or lack thereof), I doubt that you're capable of spotting so many errors in my language that you see fit to call me "severely undereducated".
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"Murder is a more restrictive definition, meaning the intentional or reckless killing of a person."Actually, if I'm not mistaken, murder is intentional, manslaughter is reckless. And murder is illegal intentional killing, as opposed to, say, killing in self defense. Therefore, as long as abortion is legal, it it not, legally, murder.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

cough cough Yeah, I was using the definition of murder as it runs in my country. Here, murder is when it's either intentional, or when you do something recklessly which may cause death (not the precise words the statute used but it's the general idea). Hence if you beat someone up and leave them lying on the street, and they die, it's murder even if all you had intended was to give them a good beating up. Manslaughter is culpable homicide that is still negligent but not to such an extent that it can be called reckless.I'm sure the legal requirements for murder do vary somewhat from country to country.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

Good point. And, actually, that may be how it applies over here too (wherever that may be in relation to wherever you are). Law is definitely not one of my specialties.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

A cancer cell has a severely mutated genome that, I would consider is not human due to the fact that it is totally dysfunctional. A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell. That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

"A cancer cell has a severely mutated genome"actually, a cancer genome is essentially identical to a normal one. That is why cancerous cells are so difficult to treat.if they were, as you suggested 'severely mutated', it would be a simple matter to eliminate them.However, in reality, it takes very little to turn a regular cell cancerous.Cancer can be caused by a change in a single locus, such as p53 or BRCA1a single locus has an upper bound range of 400 base pairs. http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject04/pdi_s04_m03_01_a.htm there are 3 million base pairs in the human genomehttp://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml assuming that all of the base pairs in the locus are changed (which is far more than are actually changed) and that all loci are at maximum size range (which is by definition not true) there would be a change in 400 out of 3000000000 base pairswhich is a change of 0.00018% of the human genomea cancerous cell is 99.99999% identical to any other cell in the bodyas a comparison, siblings are roughly 75% identicalhttp://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX042241.html so cancerous cells are in no way 'severely mutated'."A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell"No, they are not totally functional. That is why, when you remove them from a womb, fetuses cease functioning. Were they totally functional, they would be able to continue growing."That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells"neither of these clumps are in any way functional. They are both stuck in the cell cycle known as mitosis.Stem cells undergo prolonged mitosis because they are growing into a multicellular organismcancerous cells are essentially any other kind of cell that undergoes prolonged mitosishttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6769/10/1 they are not only 'functioning' just as well as each other, but truly in the same way as each other
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

A cancer cell has a severely mutated genome that, I would consider is not human due to the fact that it is totally dysfunctional. A fetus's cell is, in most cases, is totally functional as a human cell. That would give the clump of functional human cells the right to life, as opposed to dysfunctional human cells.The criteria for earning status of human and the consequent rights should not be extended to cell cultures, but thinking human beings which are capable of responding to stimuli.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

If the woman does not want the thing nor does she want to give birth to it, then yes she should be allowed to have an abortion.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

"The thing?" hello, it is a living child inside of her and if she did not want "the thing" then she shouldnt have had sex in the first place.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

No, it's a thing. Before around the third trimester it has no more self-awareness than my fingernails. I don't see these pro-lifers trying to ban nail clippers.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: Yes, its not even alive

well, maybe not fingernails: those are just keratin proteins.but for the most part I agree. Take diabetics, for instance. They need to take blood tests in order to manage their disease. every time they take a blood test, thousands of LIVING HUMAN BLOOD CELLS DIE!so, we need to establish that either every human cell in the body has its own right to life- thus killing cancer patients, diabetics, and essentially everybodyor we can agree that a human is different than the collection of cells that compose them.
Debate: Should people have abortions?
Side: no, adoption is better

How do you measure self-awareness? Within the first few weeks the brain and nervous system are being developed. What makes you self aware? Couldn't you argue a brain is where your thought function is?