azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: against abortion

It’s bad already that the child will be reminded his or her whole life that it was a product of r*pe. And the mother having to remind he/she was a mistake or be disturbed by her own child. But it’s worse to not even give that baby a chance to live, it has no fault in what happen in the real world. Also what happend to adoption? Their are so many families that are unable to have children but instead women just terminate the problem.
Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: for abortion

I am a Republican but with this I do not agree with trump on this. Which Is sad I love trump, I do think women should have a right to do things with their own body. But, I think there should be more laws and restrictions on abortions, I think women sometimes use it as a type of birth control which is not right. I think if a women does get raped she should have a right to abort her baby. This is really a terrible situation but after all I think it is the woman's right to terminate. I don't think you should ever judge a women for it though it was probably hard for her too.
Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: for abortion

The wellness of a being whose conscience is more developed (or not developed at all) is more important than that of a being whose conscience is less developed, as long as they overlap
Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: for abortion

I am prochoice. If a woman or girl wants an abortion, no one has the right to stop her. Bodily choice is a human right, but force organ donation, is NOT! No one has the right to my uterus but me. A fetus is not a baby, until it has sufficient brain activity.
Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: for abortion

I believe abortion is justifiable, and should remain legal. If abortion is banned, women will die.
Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: for abortion

Considering that abortion was legal and in most developed countries it is, I don't see the problem that women or girls abort."The baby feels" First of all it is a zygote and at most a fetus, in addition to being able to abort it is necessary that it be in the first weeks when the fetus does not feel pain, not when the pregnancy is advanced and the skin layers are already formed"In the bible he says" Of course, as he also says that the woman should not speak, that she should be stoned for "impure" if she is not married and we forget that we cannot comment on exactly this type of issue. Besides that the bible is badly translated."But is that if she had the courage to spread her legs, he also has the courage to have and raise a child" Yes, of course. And tell me where are the raped women? Those who had no choice. "But it is that aborting will generate more traumas" It may be, but it is their decision if they want to abort or not and even so I consider that they are more responsibilities, having traumas due to the rape and having to raise the child and usually those that are violated that way they are minors. AND IT IS NOT EASY TO RAISE A CHILD, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO EDUCATE IT WELL SO THAT IT IS NOT A VIOLATOR, THIEF, ETC. IS NOT EASY."Save both lives" My question is that if you do not know that in the first weeks it is very easy to have an instant abortion ... And if a woman does not want to be a mother, more with the possible depression that may fall for perhaps that her family does not accept her or because it is just too much for her, the rate of a possible abortion increases."Take the children and put them up for adoption, the most important thing is that he is born" And would you adopt the child? Because if you say that so naturally it is because you would be willing to give the child a decent life. That is why you are pro-life. If your answer is no, let me tell you to stop using that argument. Because? Because usually orphanages are not the best place to be, since children are exposed to too many things that nobody wants to go through. If you do not believe me, look for info, you will find stories of people who were in an orphanage and do not speak from the privilege of saying: "The child is born and you give it up for adoption."To be honest, if you weren't the one going to give birth, don't give your opinion. And the fact that abortion is legal does not mean that all of us are going to have an abortion, it is not to generalize that all women want to have an abortion because those who do want are victims of abuse, minors or people with low income.I am not pointing out to anyone, so if you are going to comment that it is with respect and remember that abortion is always going to be the last option and the last thought that passes for a pregnant woman.
Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: for abortion

Everyone should have the right to decide about their body and I think it’s solely their business. For women who decide to do that, the decision is certainly not easy, but there is also a certain reason for it. Condemnations are the last thing they need at the moment.
Debate: Abortion is it right or wrong?
Side: against abortion

Everyone should have the right to decide about their body and I think it’s solely their business.I disagree, I think the state should control everyone's body. Either that or corporations as a close second.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Premeditated, cold blooded murder in the first degree.While the embryo is struggling for survival within the mother's womb it's life is violently snuffed out by callous unfeeling murders.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Oddly again abortion is a self-incrimination to murder only, There is a clear limit. It is then applied to only one of the official ends of life being made by sexual intercourse. The Presidential state of the union here is that all sperm introduced by a male, then swim by placement then their own power towards one embryo. This is a race in the course of human nature for life and death, and a woman’s body cannot be held in religious contempt for not provide ample embryo’s to accommodate every sperm.Gender specific amputation creates an impartial understanding that the woman to become mother cannot be instantly alienated legally by the wining of a mass life and death struggle that ends with just one outcome.Rights Reserved. but serve as no restriction to common defense of the general welfare.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I think you may have had a stroke - please seek medical attention.This is not meant to be mean - the words that you are writing literally don't make sense, and you are disputing someone who seems to have your same position.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

First you association to any medical condition has no bearing on all legality of the self-incrimination that has been past on to doctors. We are talking about the possible crime and not the confession orchestrated to be advertised as the only crime. the use of stroke may be proven as a economic term.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

legality of the self-incrimination that has been past on to doctors.a) Still makes little to no sense.b) Abortion is not illegal in the United States.the use of stroke may be proven as a economic term.again, gibberish. To prove that you are not a word bot and that you have basic comprehension, include the sum of 10 and five in your response.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

legality of the self-incrimination that has been past on to doctors.a) Still makes little to no senseYou are not very bright are you?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Is "legality of self-incrimination" coherent - is self-incrimination ever illegal?Do you think self-incrimination is something that is past[sic] on?Does incrimination for something that isn't a crime make a lot of sense to you?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Yes murder is illegal in the United states. While no the self-incriminating confession to murder is not illegal. Does that help clear you confusion. You can say you are going to Officially end life it is illegal as a threat not murder as said. If you make good on the promise to officially end life. That is murder.This is very important to understand gender specific amputation is not abortion and there are other potential issues that should have been placed in a judicial Constitutional limit.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

murder is illegal in the United states. While no the self-incriminating confession to murder is not illegal. Does that help clear you confusion.No.You can say you are going to Officially end life it is illegal as a threat not murder as said. If you make good on the promise to officially end life. That is murder.Abortion isn't a person saying they want to terminate a pregnancy - it is the termination of that pregnancy.Maybe that is where you keep getting confused.gender specific amputationDo I even want to know what you keep trying to talk about with this one?Are you possibly using some translator that is butchering what you are trying to say? Is English not your first language? I'll try to work with you, but at some point your argument must make sense.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Stroke is also an economical term and can be seen in limited cases as attempt a explain an intellectual bribe.I can say clearly none of you are expressing the same view. Abortion is a self-incrimination to murder as it is describing a commitment to achieve a verbally declared objective. Abort means to official stop. Pregnancy which is a start of a human life is the object being officially stopped. The justification is contradicting the self-incrimination. Justifying the self-incrimination would be describing the process as gender specific amputation. For any abortion to take place the process of stop must have a means to be officially restarted otherwise it is a termination.Abortion is not a murder. Abortion is a claim a person makes to assume permission and control to officially stop human life without United States Constitutional trail to limit harm created by self-incrimination.Can I ask who instructed you in establishing abortion is anything more than a public claim to official stop the process of human pregnancy? Let me make something clear to you can you find a confession to official stop life in gender specific amputation? But given the chance could you establish such a process as murder?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Stroke is also an economicalNo, it isn't.I can say clearly none of you are expressing the same view.Correct. Your view is not shared. It is difficult to share a view that is incoherent.Abortion is a self-incrimination to murderAbortion either is a crime, or it isn't (in the US, it isn't) - self-incrimination has nothing to do with it.Self-incrimination is when you disclose that you have done something wrong. Many abortions happen without anyone disclosing anything to anyone.Abortion is a claim a person makes to assume permission and control to officially stop human lifeIs self-defense the same type of claim?harm created by self-incriminationI think that fixing your understanding of what self-incrimination is would go a long way towards making your argument more intelligible.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

There is a lack of sufficient impartial United State to share with all woman when using the word abortion. Female Specific Amputation is the United State interpretation of constitutional understanding to establish a single United State that can be put together. Without the use of crime. Not only between all woman, but between all people of all Nation. As this description does not asked that people to will part of any intellectual convert global act of Civil War. There is no seeking of public approval by self-incrimination made at any point
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Indeed
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

The baby is an alive human being so yes it is murder .
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

If you shoot someone in self-defense, are they an alive human being?Is it murder?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Murder is killing a human being purposely with the intention to end his life. Self-defense is preventing oneself from physical harm where the intention is to stay safe from a threat.If you shoot someone in self-defense, it's not murder since you just want to defend yourself. But here, abortion obviously involves a deliberate attempt to end someone's life. Therefore it's murder.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Abortion is murder since you are killing a separate human being
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Self-defense is killing a "separate human being" - is it murder?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

That depends on what you mean by murder. Self-defense is not a reasonable argument for abortion
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

That depends on what you mean by murderThen, since you used the term, what do you mean by murder?Self-defense is not a reasonable argument for abortionSure, it is:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Should mostabortionsbeconsideredselfdefense
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Then, since you used the term, what do you mean by murder?Killing someone in cold bloodSure, it isSo asserting that it is makes it so?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Killing someone in cold bloodYou may have to define that too - is self-defense "[k]illing someone in cold blood"?So asserting that it is makes it so?No, but if you think it isn't, then there is a debate where you can make your case.It shows my reasoning behind making the argument which can inform your opinion about whether it is reasonable.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

You may have to define that too - is self-defense "[k]illing someone in cold blood"?That depends, are you looking for any reason you can to try and kill someone?No, but if you think it isn't, then there is a debate where you can make your case. It shows my reasoning behind making the argument which can inform your opinion about whether it is reasonable.We're talking here so lets make the case here. I've read you're arguments on the other debate. There was maybe one case were you actually brought forth an actual rebuttal to an argument someone else wrote. However, where else is there in the debate anything more than an assertion?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

are you looking for any reason you can to try and kill someone?I'm looking for the criteria one should use to distinguish between killing that should be criminal and killing that should not.anything more than an assertionIsn't "Abortion is murder" only an assertion as well?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I'm looking for the criteria one should use to distinguish between killing that should be criminal and killing that should not.How do you, as in you the person, distinguish between the two?Isn't "Abortion is murder" only an assertion as well?It is but you haven’t said anything for which I can bring forth evidence. If you want more than an assertion, then actually ask for evidence
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

For me the factors for justifying killing are the amount of harm posed, and the available alternatives for preventing that harm.In the case of abortion, the alternatives are basically reduced to one, so the issue becomes what level of danger justifies killing someone else.What I look for in that regard is that people show some degree of consistency; if, for example, a person believes they can shoot someone in their house who is about to leave with their tv and some valuables, etc. - thus financial harm and possibly some mental harm, then they should probably support all abortions.Can you kill in order to prevent a rape? What harms are posed by rape that are not posed by carrying a pregnancy to term?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

For me the factors for justifying killing are the amount of harm posed, and the available alternatives for preventing that harm.At what point would you say it is unreasonable for someone to say that another person is causing them harm?In the case of abortion, the alternatives are basically reduced to one, so the issue becomes what level of danger justifies killing someone else.How much danger would you say justifies killing someone else?What I look for in that regard is that people show some degree of consistency; if, for example, a person believes they can shoot someone in their house who is about to leave with their tv and some valuables, etc. - thus financial harm and possibly some mental harm, then they should probably support all abortions.The problem is with the consistency in this line of reasoning. You're comparing someone who is actively trespassing and actively seeking to causing some kind of harm to someone else. You're comparing that to a baby who never asked to be in the mothers womb and is not actively seeking to cause the motherCan you kill in order to prevent a rape?I personally would say that killing the rapist could be allowed should the person try to start killing me or someone else.What harms are posed by rape that are not posed by carrying a pregnancy to term?With rape, theres actual psychological and emotional trauma that may take the person years, if not their entire life to get past. With carrying a baby to term, theres some physical pain with the labor as well as actually giving birth that only lasts as long as it takes to give birth and doesn't stick with the mom
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

At what point and How much dangerWhile I am sure there are ambiguous areas in this regard, the line, for me, is surely passed when I think of the harms (hormonal/mental/emotional, social, financial, physical, etc., etc.) posed by even a normal pregnancy.actively seeking to causing some kind of harmIntent is not a required element for self-defense. You have the right to defend yourself from bacteria, viruses, tape-worms, etc. - who can't be said to have an intent to harm you.Take the case of a delusional person who thinks you have been replaced by an alien (Capgras). If they attempt to kill the alien, they have no intent to kill you, but you still have the right to defend yourself. (Weird example, but I think it helps clarify.)killing the rapist could be allowed should the person try to start killingSo, just to clarify, don't shoot a person if they are only committing rape - wait for them to move toward killing?psychological and emotional traumaPregnancy can certainly have the same. (and so can abortion)
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

While I am sure there are ambiguous areas in this regard, the line, for me, is surely passed when I think of the harms (hormonal/mental/emotional, social, financial, physical, etc., etc.) posed by even a normal pregnancy.Would you be willing to give examples of what you mean by the harms posed by normal pregnancy?Intent is not a required element for self-defense.You’re right but the other person is required to prove if the level of self defense was justified, assuming it was even necessary in the first place. You are assuming the level of harmful intent on the part of the second person that requires that level of self defense. While the example you give does justify self-defense, you were still assuming that the baby in the mothers womb is actively seeking to harm the motherYou have the right to defend yourself from bacteria, viruses, tape-worms, etc. - who can't be said to have an intent to harm you.You do you have the right to defend against bacteria, viruses, tapeworms, and stuff like that. My question for you is, do you think that the baby is no better than one of these bacteria, viruses or tapeworms or do you think that the baby is like one of these bacteria, viruses, or tapeworms?So, just to clarify, don't shoot a person if they are only committing rape - wait for them to move toward killing?First off, rape is a horrible crime. I think it should be punished severely. However, your argument is that I only defend myself appropriately against the level of aggression that I am met with which doesn’t justify defense of another. How do you factor in the defense of another in this case?Pregnancy can certainly have the same. (and so can abortion)How so?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

You are assuming the level of harmful intentI am saying intent is not a necessary factor at all.the mothers womb is actively seeking to harm the mothernot actively seeking - just that it will happen.do you think that the baby is no better than one of theseThe argument was about intent, and the examples don't have any. Your response is the typical one which is why I also included an example of a human without intent which should answer the question. Is a baby no better than a person - becomes a non-argument.do you think that the baby is no better than one of theseDo you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?your argument is that I only defend myself appropriately against the level of aggression that I am met withWhere did I make this argument?How so?Changes in hormones that influence mental state. The possible mental anguish from fear of response by family, friends, the father, etc.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I'll put both responses into one for convenience.With the list of side effects that was listed, I'll tell you what I told him. It either doesn't happen as often as you think it does or its made out to be worse than it actually is. Some of the common "side effects" that are on the list are either natural biological reactions that are there to prepare the mothers body for being pregnant or are a side effect of the biological reaction. They are only as bad as you say they are if you make them out to be that bad.I am saying intent is not a necessary factor at all.A couple things. First, if you're going to make a habit of taking what I say out of context, I would respectfully ask you to stop. Otherwise, I would like to discontinue this debate. Second, I never said it was. In fact, I started off my response agreeing with you that intent on the part of the person defending them self does not need to be proven. Regardless of whether intent for self-defense needs to be there, it is still being assumed the intent is harmfulnot actively seeking - just that it will happen.Only if the baby is actively seeking to harm the motherThe argument was about intent, and the examples don't have any. Your response is the typical one which is why I also included an example of a human without intent which should answer the question. Is a baby no better than a person - becomes a non-argument.I didn't ask if the baby is no better than a person. I take it you know that since you had to stop mentioning what I said right in front of where the rest of the question is. What you choose to highlight in terms of what I say makes me inclined to think that you are deliberately trying to take what I say out of context and for this case twist what I say in order to make a straw manDo you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?Shoot what perpetrator? I thought we were talking about bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms?Where did I make this argument?Maybe not that one specific argument. I shouldn't have just said that you said this, but this is what I gathered that your argument for self defense was based on what you have been sayingChanges in hormones that influence mental state. The possible mental anguish from fear of response by family, friends, the father, etc.Are we still talking about a pregnant woman or are talking about a teenage girl going through puberty thats hanging out with the wrong crowd?