azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

Abortion is an option every pregnant woman should have, because pregnancy puts not only her mental and social but her physical wellbeing at risk. The legality of abortion is a sign of a developed nation, with the personification of cells being an outdated and illogical stance rooted in superstition and the repression of women; furthermore, there is no reason to give cells the title of 'person' since they cannot survive outside of the woman's body. Yes, they contain genetic information and the potential to become a person, but I don't see any pro-lifers campaigning to save every sperm cell.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

If someone is a strict constructionist who interprets the Constitution word for word, the sanction for abortion is given under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution defines a citizen “a citizen” at birth. If a woman is carrying a fetus in the womb, the U.S. Constitution does not designate the fetus as “a citizen.” It would take an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to declare a fetus a citizen. You have to be born in order to be recognized as a citizen. Therefore, a woman does have the right to choose. A fetus inside the womb is not designated as a citizen according to the U.S. Constitution so by default is not entitled to life, liberty, or prosperity. You have to be born in order to be endowed with those privileges. To conclude, neither the Federal government nor any of the States can deny a woman the right to choose. If abortion is murder, abortion would have been terminated years ago due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause under the Eighth Amendment. Again, proof that a fetus is not recognized as a citizen of the United States of America.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

I support abortion because of young people who get pregnant and don't want a kid because it may have been accidental or she got raped so she wouldn't want to keep the kid. But with adults it's a different matter, I think that the only time an adult should abort is if the baby has some incurable genetic disorder.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

The only society worth defending is the one that protects the weakest and the defenseless.Unborn humans are incapable of using democratic procedures and structures through which to defend their inalienable rights with - primarily their right to life. Their only hope is a government that will defend them and won't allow the stronger (the mother) to impose their interests over them at the expense of the most basic fundamental rights. They need a state that will take clear steps for the purpose of their protection.To me, abortion is just insane and is the clearest demonstration of a society obsessed with self-entitlement, privilege, convenience and circumventing any sort of personal responsibility.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

Yeah! Defend the defenseless... unless it is like a girl who was raped or something right? What a fucking whore ._.So really, defend clusters of cells with no capacity to feel. If you are alive and have the capacity to feel fuck you.And this god fucker is such a "self-entitled, privileged" ass who obviously refuses to take any "personal responsibility." Someone needs to do something about that guy.I mean he forces millions upon millions of abortions each time a man ejaculates into a woman!Who's defending all the sperm that didn't make it to that egg?This is a travesty. The only society worth defending is one that protects the weakest as you say after all, and if there is anything weaker than a non-feeling cluster of cells, it is the sperm and eggs that never get to turn into a cluster of cells.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

Yeah! Defend the defenseless... unless it is like a girl who was raped or something right? What a fucking whore ._.The state already protects that girl through laws. That's all it can do really, you can't have a policeman at every streetcorner and a surveillance camera in every room. The state defends the girl by deterring rapists via law.If you mean that your hypothetical girl should be allowed to get an abortion - is that defense? Defense from who? The baby who is innocent? What an interesting precedent - lethal defense against innocent people. So really, defend clusters of cells with no capacity to feel. If you are alive and have the capacity to feel fuck you.We are clusters of cells too. And feelings have nothing to do with rights or preferential treatment. Even if people were in a state where they can't feel anything, it would still be unethical to kill or hurt them in any way. - this is why we don't murder people while they're drugged or asleep. Who's defending all the sperm that didn't make it to that egg?Well, the sperm isn't a developing human being. A zygote is - a separate organism that results in the fusion of the egg and the sperm. The sperm itself has no capacity nor potentiality to develop into a fully grown human being - I don't ever have to worry about giving birth from my ballsack. Killing a sperm means exactly that - killing a sperm.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

If you mean that your hypothetical girl should be allowed to get an abortionNot hypothetical, rape does happen and girls get pregnant from it. - is that defense? Defense from who? The baby who is innocent?It's not a baby yet. A cluster of cells is incapable of innocence or guilt so your premise is incorrect.What an interesting precedent - lethal defense against innocent people.That would be, if that were what this was. It is not though. You are saying something which is not a person is a person. You might as well say my stapler deserves all of the rights of a conscious self-aware person.We are clusters of cells too. And feelings have nothing to do with rights or preferential treatment. Even if people were in a state where they can't feel anything, it would still be unethical to kill or hurt them in any way. - this is why we don't murder people while they're drugged or asleep.People asleep or drugged or in a coma are people with the capacity to feel. A feotus is not. It is not self-aware, only potentially so. You're arguing potential human life, not human life. By your argument each drop of sperm should be saved and injected directly into an egg, less some innocent potential life be lost. It is the exact same thing. Exactly. You have no argument outside of theological dogma otherwise.Well, the sperm isn't a developing human being. A zygote is - a separate organism that results in the fusion of the egg and the sperm. The sperm itself has no capacity nor potentiality to develop into a fully grown human being - I don't ever have to worry about giving birth from my ballsack. Killing a sperm means exactly that - killing a sperm.The sperm has the exact same potential as any zygote. The only difference between the two is the stage of development. You are knit-picking when you think something is "human" and it is inconsistent. Since this potential exists and not allowed to develop by nature, potential cannot be a measure of the morality of abortion. If potential cannot be a measure of morality then something else has to be.So instead of silly superstition and projected feelings onto a thing with no feelings, use what we know. We know about when a very primitive, insect-like self-awareness begins, and abortion is all but illegal except in the very rare circumstances well before this point.More important than any of that, abortion laws don't work. People who want one don't buy into your bullshit morality argument anyway, and so when they cannot get an abortion legally they get one illegally. None of your imaginary baby friends are saved when you outlaw abortion. Real women do die though, because they can no longer go to a doctor for the procedure and so go elsewhere.You are not the one getting an abortion, and no one is forcing you to get one. Why then do you feel you have the right to force others? If your god truly doesn't like it, let him say so. You have no more knowledge of what is or is not moral in this case than anyone else, including those who don't have a problem with abortion at all.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

The laws do not require that a child in the womb have any of the attributes that YOU are requiring of them for personhood. We already have laws which define them as children and which make some of their killings 'murders.'For now, those laws make an exception for abortions. We are going to fix that. "the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

The laws do not require that a child in the womb have any of the attributes that YOU are requiring of them for personhood. Then I disagree with the laws, that is the point of politics isn't it? to adapt our laws, to change how society works? That is what I thought.We already have laws which define them as children and which make some of their killings 'murders.'I don't define unconscious fetus's as children, but regardless of whatever you call them my point is if a conscious life itself hasn't been born yet, the being hasn't began to think or feel, they are indifferent to abortion, they don't care, why should we?For now, those laws make an exception for abortions. We are going to fix that. So now the laws being different isn't a good argument? you just said laws do not require for the fetus to have any of the attributes I am requiring for them for personhood, as if I'd care... yet you couldn't realize that I wouldn't when you realized that the laws disagree with you at the moment thus you wanting to change them?"the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.My point still stands. You can't wrong a being that has never existed as a consciousness yet. The fetus is essentially a bag of cells, killing a fetus is no more immoral than killing a tree.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

"My point still stands. You can't wrong a being that has never existed as a consciousness yet. The fetus is essentially a bag of cells, killing a fetus is no more immoral than killing a tree."I'm so glad our many of our laws are already passed the point of your ignorance.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

I'm so glad our many of our laws are already passed the point of your ignorance.Wow such a good argument, bravo-bravo you deserve a gold medal for that...If a being hasn't began thinking or feeling yet long enough to oppose or support it's own existence, and is essentially indifferent, then there is no issue. No thinking or feeling conscious being is being harmed, the fetus doesn't care one way or another because it hasn't developed those feelings or thoughts prior. Just like a tree. Instead of throwing insults around, devaluing your own intelligence why don't you pick apart my argument it is so ignorant based? I'd like to see you try honestly... That would be something to see... sort of like the special Olympics :D.While I have been trying to skew away from impulses of uncivility and offense to my respectable debators I have decided to not go that route with you. Just remember though, you started this potential flame war, and if it essentially gets to that level of ridiculousness I will stop responding to you. Have a nice day :P
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

"If a being hasn't began thinking or feeling yet long enough to oppose or support it's own existence, and is essentially indifferent, then there is no issue. No thinking or feeling conscious being is being harmed, the fetus doesn't care one way or another because it hasn't developed those feelings or thoughts prior. "yet we have laws on the books already that make the UNJUST killing of one of these non thinking and non feeling children a crime of MURDER. Imagine that.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

That's only when they mother is killed as well.Imagine that.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

Seriously. How much would you like to bet on that?I can find you a case that proves against that claim in minutes.In the meantime, browse these State's laws and tell me which ones if any require that the mother must also die for the perp to be charged with killing her child.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

I can find you a case that proves against that claim in minutes.gl.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

There are just too many of these for me to pick one.let's see..."A Missouri truck driver is one of the few people charged under Ohio's 4-year-old fetal-homicide law. Ernest L. Westerberg, 52, was charged with two counts of vehicular homicide Saturday in Friday's Interstate 74 crash in Green Township. A 52-year-old teacher from Green Township and her 20-year-old daughter's unborn fetus died in the three-vehicle accident. Two women remained hospitalized Sunday. Before 1996, Mr. Westerberg would have been charged with only one count of vehicular homicide. But that changed when a Middletown man lobbied to modify state law, which originally did not consider a fetus a person until it took its first breath. Joseph Daly took up the cause after his wife and her unborn fetus were killed in a 1995 accident near Indian Hill. Gov. George Voinovich signed into law the Daly bill in June 1996. The law makes it a crime to harm or kill a fetus at any stage of pregnancy, with the exception of legal abortions."Time!
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

yet we have laws on the books already that make the UNJUST killing of one of these non thinking and non feeling children a crime of MURDER. Imagine that.You have already used this argument against yourself not acknowledging it as an argument, and I actually pointed that out to you... wow... ok.I could replace that to oppose something else. "yet we have laws on the books already that make the UNJUST marriage between two grown, consenting, loving men not allowed.Imagine that."Really? using "The law disagrees with you" as an argument against someone's politics... either you are not thinking this through or simply have no comprehension of what politics is for... we don't have political opinions so we can agree with everything the government and laws say but the opposite (sort of, not completely), it is meant to be independent of what the laws say, I wouldn't see the point in having political opinions if that is what politics were supposed to be.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

I hate to interrupt but... Are you done with arguing with yourself?
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

I will keep my word now. Have a nice day .
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

gee arent you glad you didnt get aborted so that you could be supportive of aborting things that will be just like you when they grow?
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

Had I been aborted I'd not exist to know the difference. So no. That's a childish notion.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

I am against abortion because even though some of these unborn children are not wanted, they can still be given to someone who does want them once they are born. Even though the mother does have the choice, shouldn't that child's life be considered at all? It's not just some little spec of dust that you should just wipe away. That's a child, no matter how small. It's still alive and it still has a heart. Now in some circumstances, abortion should be considered. But more often than not, the baby could still live a good life. I think that if someone doesnt want a child, they should put it up for adoption, that way it could still have a chance. That little "spec of dust" is one of God's children, and he wouldn't have put it there if it didn't have a chance. I know that everyone has their own opinion, and I am definetly not the only right person. Everyone on both sides of the debate bring up really valid points.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

I feel like if you are not prepared for a child, then you should take the necessary precautions beforehand, such as using protection such as condoms, or birth control (which is not a guarantee that you will not get pregnant by using this solely on its own.) Or abstain from sex altogether. I don't feel much sympathy for those who end up getting pregnant when they weren't careful, and then they want an abortion because they are not 'prepared' for a baby. But it is a consequence that they need to deal with I think. They should 'grow up' and take responsibility for their actions and do what it takes to raise the child they brought in to the world, even if it wasn't supposed to happen. The child should become the priority. However, in some cases I understand abortion, for instance if a woman is raped. I feel she has the right to carry out abortion, or if there are severe health risks involved in the matter.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

then you should take the necessary precautions beforehand,Do tell how does one prevent rape pregnancies?
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

Well, if you took the time to read all of it, then you would see that I do believe in abortion in cases of Rape, because there is no precautions that can be taken. The line you are disputing is for those who are involved in sex at their own will who are careless about it.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

I have a logical problem with that. So abortion is okay if the woman was a "good girl" and did not have consentual sex, but if she consented to sex she is a "bad girl" and she should suffer for it? Bullocks. Either abortion should be allowed or it should not. The rape exception is just another way of "slut shaming" women who consent to sex, and that is sexist and wrong. No one does this to men, and besides, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

Until there is a fool proof form of contraception this argument is moot. There is no way to truthfully prove what pregnancies are caused by carelessness and there for we cannot know if that number is substantial enough to have any sway in this argument.The real problem is that most people who support pro-life agendas fight against contraception as well as sex education.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

I don't agree that MOST pro-lifers are opposed to contraception at all. In fact, polls suggest otherwise.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

Really? Then why do most prolifers oppose contraception ?
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

Did you not click on the link I provided? They don't. Most pro-lifers and anti-aborts completely support birth control methods and devices that are not abortifacient in their results.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

Au contraire, ma chère. Most of the prolife organizations are against coverage for contraception. Have you heard of the Blunt Amendment? It would have given employers the right to deny contraception to their employees. That would have been a violation of civil rights. Employees do not have the right to violate people's rights. People have the right to choose whether they become parents or not by using or not using contraception. Religious freedom does not include the freedom to deny people's rights based on your beliefs. Everyone talked about employers conscience rights. What about the employee's conscience rights? They are just as import. And that link is biased. I want factual information that is not from an antichoice perspective. Do try again. Last edit: most antichoicers lie about whether certain contraceptive methods are abortifacient in nature. The copper IUD the hormonal IUD, the combination pill, the progestin only morning after pill and others are not abortifiacient.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

How can anyone be for abortion. You're killing innocent lives!The only time I see abortion being used is in case of a medical emergency in which they mother may not survive.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

I take it you don't eat meet and have never accidently stepped on an insect then. I mean, that's innocent life too. Animals actually have a far far far far greater capacity for feeling than a feotus. Otherwise you would be a hypocrite and I'd feel justified calling you a murderer and forcing my morals onto you even though it's none of my business and I completely don't know you or how you've come to the decision to eat meet or step on bugs.Still, feel the wrath of my moral indignation! I know so much more than you and am so much more moral! blahblahblahblah.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

Due to the fact you started calling me a murderer off the bat, I will no longer respond to any of your disputes on this topic. When I am debating someone the one thing that tells me they don't know what the hell they are talking about is when they start calling the other names. I would have gladly explained the reason why I said that.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

Due to the fact you started calling me a murderer off the bat, I will no longer respond to any of your disputes on this topic. When I am debating someone the one thing that tells me they don't know what the hell they are talking about is when they start calling the other names. I would have gladly explained the reason why I said that.Ah, so you do not understand irony. Probably best we do not converse then. I'd only confuse you.
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

I'm pro choice, but the problem i see with your argument is you are basically calling it murder and yet you don't seem to have a problem with it if the mother's life is at risk? Is the foetus life worth less than the mothers?
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

A life is a life mate. If the mother has a high chance of dieing while giving birth, I see no problem with aborting the baby. I would rather see one life taken then two. Get my gist?
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Supportive of Abortion

So what you’re saying is most murder is wrong. Where is the line? What if the mother consistently gets pregnant knowing that she will get an abortion? At what point does the mother become willfully negligent?
Debate: Are you against Abortion? Or do you Support it?
Side: Against Abortion

I believe you misread my comment. I'm saying IF the mother has a chance of dieing in birth, then she should be able to have an abortion. I'm not saying I'm for abortiion.