azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

My point is precisely that intent does require cognitive ability.And the examples that you brought up of bacteria and insanity would show that you are wrongNo, they definitely don't. Intent requires planning, decision, understanding the consequences, etc.And in both cases, they planned that they would harm someone else, would decide to act on it when given the opportunity to do so, and understand the consequences of what they are doingAgain, wrong. Wikipedia spells out for you that murder requires mens rea/malice aforethought.So now that you agree with me we can move onTrying to hit the person takes less precision than trying to be sure to hit a person in a non-fatal way:luckin: "You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing"I did say that. We have the option to hit the person and we also have the option not to. However, you're assuming that we will be so far away from the person that we just won't be able to no matter what we do. Regardless of whether or not we hit him, shooting at him is still an optionof course something went wrong - the officer wouldn't be shooting them otherwise. Something going wrong is just as likely, if not more, to happen in the rape scenario.Or you can just read the part of the article you put up that mentions how someone simply moving makes it a whole lot harder to hit someone and requires the marksmanship skills that you expect at the distances you expect
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

And in both cases, they planned that they would harm someone else, would decide to act on it when given the opportunity to do so, and understand the consequences of what they are doingThis is where your main error lies. Viruses, bacterium, tape-worms, etc. definitely do not have the capacity to plan, decide, and understand the consequences of their actions.Thinking people can lack the sufficient intent, so belief that a virus has this intent is beyond credulity.Examples of people with Capgras Delusion being found not guilty due to mental deficiency:"Mr. A was found not guilty by reason of insanity for one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder.""In both these cases, not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts were adjudicated with subsequent inpatient psychiatric commitment." refRegardless of whether or not we hit him, shooting at him is still an optionThen, your answer to my original question - 'Do you think it[rape] should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?' - would be yes, correct?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

This is where your main error lies. Viruses, bacterium, tape-worms, etc. definitely do not have the capacity to plan, decide, and understand the consequences of their actions.Maybe not to the level we do, but yes they do. Given that for the most part their sole purpose is to survive at the expense of the host, its reasonable to say that they intend to harm usThinking people can lack the sufficient intent, so belief that a virus has this intent is beyond credulity.This is where you're wrong. Intent has nothing to do with mental capacity. All it is is simply the desire to do something. In the case of the virus, bacteria, and tapeworm, its intent is to survive and will harm or kill me to make sure it does. The same kind of thing can be said about the insane personExamples of people with Capgras Delusion being found not guilty due to mental deficiency:"Mr. A was found not guilty by reason of insanity for one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder.""In both these cases, not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts were adjudicated with subsequent inpatient psychiatric commitment."The only thing these examples prove is that these people didn't have the mental capacity to understand what they were doing. As stated earlier, intent has nothing to do with mental capacity, its just the desire to do something. In these cases, the peoples intent was to either kill or try to kill someoneThen, your answer to my original question - 'Do you think it[rape] should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?' - would be yes, correct?Shooting at the perpetrator would be an option like I said it was
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Intent has nothing to do with mental capacity.100% wrong. Read it again until you understand it.mens rea, malice aforethought, scienter, etc. - these require complex thought (which requires a brain)Shooting at the perpetrator would be an option like I said it wasYour first answer seemed to indicate that since rape was non-legal, you had to respond in a non-lethal way.Me:"If you have the right to shoot, this would include some potential of death."You:"Key word being potential. You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing"Presuming we agree that you can shoot (which is defined as using deadly force), then the only disagreement we have left is the definition of intent.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

100% wrong. Read it again until you understand it.mens rea, malice aforethought, scienter, etc. - these require complex thought (which requires a brain)You do realize that viruses, tapeworms, and most bacteria have malice aforethought right? That they operate purely off their intent to harm us so they can survive? Using you're wikipedia article, the viruses, tapeworms, most of the bacteria, and the insane people are operating off of malice aforethought based off of a direct intent, arguably specific intent, to harm and possibly kill.Your first answer seemed to indicate that since rape was non-legal, you had to respond in a non-lethal way.Me:"If you have the right to shoot, this would include some potential of death."You:"Key word being potential. You could still just shoot a part of the body that would keep the person from doing what they are doing"Presuming we agree that you can shoot (which is defined as using deadly force), then the only disagreement we have left is the definition of intent.You do remember that you're comparing an active aggressor to a passive bystander right?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

You do realize that viruses, tapeworms, and most bacteria have malice aforethought right?They definitely do not.That they operate purely off their intent to harm us They have no idea that you exist, or what a person even is, or that their biological interaction will harm a person that they can't even conceive of. They act to benefit themselves - not to harm you.You do remember that you're comparing an active aggressor to a passive bystander right?the question is:If the only means to prevent a rape is to shoot (including the possibility of killing) the perpetrator, should it be legal to shoot?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

They definitely do not.Don’t just make a blind assertion and bring up evidence and I’ll believe youThey have no idea that you exist, or what a person even is, or that their biological interaction will harm a person that they can't even conceive of. They act to benefit themselves - not to harm you.They don’t know who we are. That doesn’t make them any less of an active aggressor intent on our destruction. If you’re that hell bent on killing a baby in the mother’s womb then don’t have sex that creates the babythe question is:If the only means to prevent a rape is to shoot (including the possibility of killing) the perpetrator, should it be legal to shoot?Only if we are not killing passive bystanders who have nothing to do with the situation
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Don’t just make a blind assertion and bring up evidence and I’ll believe you1) I have already posted references (A, B, C) - you have posted none.2) I shouldn't have to post references to the basic definition of words...malice: desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another.aforethought: a thinking of something beforehand;mens rea, malice aforethought, scienter, etc. require complex thought - viruses, bacterium, and tapeworms don't have brains...
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

1) I have already posted references (A, B, C) - you have posted none.I've already shown that you're first reference proves direct and maybe even specific intent to harm on the part of the bacteria, viruses, tapeworms, and insane people. Your second reference confirms what I said earlier that not shooting a person and simply shooting at a person is only what is necessary to stop someone. Your third reference fails to provide how a disorder removes the intent to harm or even kill. In fact, it shows how this one particular disorder increases their intent to harm or kill2) I shouldn't have to post references to the basic definition of words...Sounds like you're just now learning what the definitions aremalice: desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another.This desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another is ingrained in these parasites that we keep bringing up as well as the insane peopleaforethought: a thinking of something beforehand;Like I have said before, just because parasites can't think at the level we can, that doesn't mean they aren't capable of itmens rea, malice aforethought, scienter, etc. require complex thought All the evidence you brought forth disproves this. The fact that viruses, bacteria, and tapeworms intend to harm or even kill shows that you are wrongviruses, bacterium, and tapeworms don't have brains...That doesn't take away from their intent to harm or kill.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

If you literally don't understand how complex thought requires a brain, then you are not sufficient to the conversation, and I'll leave to people who understand the words to make up their own mind (so apparently bacteria, too....)
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Progressives love Margret Sanger and Hillary even praised the Racist but Progressives are not racist right ?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

when you can't argue the topic, change the topic(to one I already schooled you on)
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

Oh Progressive did you not know Margret Sanger was a racist ? Let me school you. Are you ready ?Margaret SangerFounder of Planned ParenthoodIn Her Own WordsOn blacks, immigrants and indigents:"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor peopleOn the right of married couples to bear children:Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932On the purpose of birth control:The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Even when proven wrong, your brain won't let you take in that information - so, a year later, you are still saying the same lies.e.g. "human weeds"She never said it and is a known falsehood, and I told you she never said that more than a year ago.You're easily duped by any random post on the internet that says something you want to believe and people should treat all of your posts accordingly...
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Let me school you. Are you ready ?Hilarious. He just comprehensively debunked you.Your quotes are fake.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

No one is saying that complex thought doesn't require a brain. For whatever reason, you've made the connection between intent and complex thought and refuse to acknowledge the truth that it doesn't. That connection just isn't there no matter how much you want it to be. The sole intent of a parasite is to cause harm if not kill its host due to an ingrained need and desire to survive. How does that show a connection to complex thought?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

you've made the connection between intent and complex thought and refuse to acknowledge the truth that it doesn'tThat is ridiculous!!"A person intends a consequence when they 1) foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and 2) desire it to happen." ibidDesire, planning, decision making, foreseeing consequences, etc. requires thought!!!A virus does not foresee the consequence of its actions.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

"A person intends a consequence when they 1) foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and 2) desire it to happen."Yeah and at the most basic level, a parasite recognizes the consequences of their actions should they continue or not and they also desire it to happen. No complex thought requiredDesire, planning, decision making, foreseeing consequences, etc. requires thought!!!Yeah and a parasite operates on the base desire to survive, plans on making more of itself, makes the decision to infect a host, and foresees that not doing these things will results in its own elimination, none of which requires thoughtA virus does not foresee the consequence of its actions.It infects hosts specifically because of the fact that it foresees consequences
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

recognizes the consequences of their actionswrong. they don't conceive of humans, much less that their actions will harm humans.desire to survivenot desire - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.plans on making more of itselfnot plans - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.makes the decision to infect a hostnot decisions - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.foresees that not doing these things will results in its own eliminationnot foresight - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.acting in a way the preserves itself does not constitute foresight about harm to others.none of which requires thoughtall do.If some humans can lack the legally requisite level of thought, how would these be considered to have it?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

wrong. they don't conceive of humans, much less that their actions will harm humans.Whether or not they conceive of humans is completely irrelevant. The fact that they can recognize that they need to infect a host in order to survive shows a level of comprehension that you’re not willing to recognize.not desire - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.Yeah those that don’t act on the desire to survive die offnot plans - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.Those that don’t plan on acting that way die offnot decisions - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.Those that make the decision to not act that way die offnot foresight - instinct/genetics/chemistry/physics. those that don't act this way die off.Those that foresee their death should they not act die offacting in a way the preserves itself does not constitute foresight about harm to others.Sure it does. Not realizing that it does is foolishall do.If some humans can lack the legally requisite level of thought, how would these be considered to have it?You mean like those people that think that parasites aren’t capable of the most basic level of thought? You’ve proven time and again that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how intent actually works
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Whether or not they conceive of humans is completely irrelevant.How can they intentionally harm humans if they don't know humans exist?plan / decisionIn order to decide, you have to have options. A virus is acting chemically - it cannot just choose not to replicate, etc.Those that foresee their death should they not act die offA virus does not foresee its death.parasites aren’t capable of the most basic level of thoughtA) malice aforethought is more than 'the most basic level of thought'.B) no, a virus - which has no brain - does not have any thoughts at allok - looks like we are at an impasse. You are stuck confusing mindless action with intentional action.You should do yourself a favor, ask someone whose opinion you trust: "Does a virus have malice aforethought?"
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

How can they intentionally harm humans if they don't know humans exist?Not knowing something exists does not negate the intent to harmIn order to decide, you have to have options. A virus is acting chemically - it cannot just choose not to replicate, etc.Who’s saying the virus does not have options?A virus does not foresee its death.Sure it is. It foresees that not replicating properly results in deathA) malice aforethought is more than 'the most basic level of thought'.Yet these viruses still have the most basic level of thoughtB) no, a virus - which has no brain - does not have any thoughts at all Sure it does. As mentioned earlier, these thoughts just so happen to be the most basic levelok - looks like we are at an impasse. You are stuck confusing mindless action with intentional action.OK. Maybe next time you’ll be reasonable and have a logically defensible argumentYou should do yourself a favor, ask someone whose opinion you trust: "Does a virus have malice aforethought?"How about this. Try telling someone outside of the Internet that abortion is a viable means of self-defense. They’ll know as well as I do it’s childish and foolish to say that it is
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

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

No it is not. It is a reasonable defense for gender specific amputation. This was an act of Civil War taken against the United States Constitution. As it was declared as threat and its demise the means to resolve a legal issue it gave direction to address.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

A bit confused. Which idea were you referring to, murder or self-defense?
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Neither abortion is not American it is a imported process that was created before the United States Constitution was written. It is not murder, and it is not a form of self-defense. It is a confession to a crime being admitted publicly. You take part and join the confession and become active in the crime, or you simple become a witness who has knowledge of a crime and does nothing.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

.Abortion is for sure murder if The Child can feel the pain and has a heart beat.I believe that abortion is ok at the first few days after conception.It is just tiny seed that has no consciousness and is not a baby yet.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

can feel the painAt what gestation do you think pain can be felt?the first few days after conceptionMost women will not know they are pregnant until weeks after conception.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

By Merrian Webster, abortion is defined [1] as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” Several references [2][3][4] suggest that human life begins at conception or fertilization, a process where the human being emerges as a zygote, whose formation is taken as the beginning of embryonic development.[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion [2] https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html [3] https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins [4] https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/yw397w/government-hhs-now-says-life-begins-at-conception  Therefore we can conclude that abortion is a murderous act since it involves deliberately killing a human being in the womb.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

abortion is a murderous act since it involves deliberately killing a human beingIf you kill someone in self-defense, it that murderous?
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. To answer your question, it's not murder as long as you don't intend to end someone's life. But abortion obviously involves a deliberate attempt to end someone's life. Therefore it's murder.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

While people often say this, I think upon reflection you will find that it fails on both sides of the equation.1) The woman isn't necessarily intending to kill the fetus, she is taking action to avoid harm and that has the result of the death of the fetus. If there was a method to remove the child alive and avoid the harms - many women would make this choice.2) If, when acting in self-defense, you do want the perpetrator to die, you are generally not going to be prosecuted for murder.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

"Women have a right to their bodies"As women, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but once you have a living baby or a fetus(with potential for life) in your womb, it is no longer just your body. And don't give me some shit about rape cause less than 1% of abortions are rape. Nevertheless, abortion is murder in all cases (except where the baby poses a risk to the mother) and should be illegal.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I disagree.

I don't think it matters if it can be labeled as murder, but whether it can be labelled as morally wrong. Murder is just a word if you get my meaning.Anyways, using google's definitions, if murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another," then abortion is currently not unlawful in the US, and if a human being is "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance," then a fetus is not a human being. So abortion is not to be considered murder. There is little room for argument within these definitions.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I will keep the dispute short. If a fetus is not a living human being why is the self-incriminating confession used to describe the official stop of something that is said never to have officially started? To me this describes Gender specific amputation not abortion.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

Gender Specific Amputation is not abortion.To clarify a woman’s right to gender specific amputation is Constitutional bound to her by the number of sperm, to the number of embryo that a woman is entrusted with by law of nature in the reproductive process. There is a United States Constitutional argument of common defense to the general welfare of all woman, not only the right of woman who wish to express authority over life.We are instructed to believe that a woman should bear the sole self-incrimination when in fact a male having sex with her is sending more than just one living sperm to fertilize a single embryo.
Debate: Is abortion murder?
Side: I agree.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the self incriminating confession" in this context. I don't understand your question.