azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Not really. It just goes against some forms of religion. Also people just don't accept it because either they aren't, it's not popular in society, or it goes against traditional standards. I don't really see a problem with it. Obviously the only difference is that you cant have a child but you could always adopt. Also just because society decides it wrong doesn't mean it is. Society changes too often. The real argument against it always goes back to either religion or the basics of nature and how its always male and female. But we have to take into account that we have more complex minds than the animals in nature and we can form societies and understand freedom and peace. So comparing it to nature makes no sense either.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Always male or female?In nature, homosexuality is common, and in species that -SAY WHAT- have no gender, or have mixed genders, homosexuality is not even a word you can use. Hermaphrodite animals prove that "m/f" pairings are not the law of nature.Without nature to back up homosexuality being "bad" or "illogical", and religion itself being unproven, using religion to say homosexuality is wrong must rely on the religion being objectively correct and true.Why a god would allow nature to have gay animals, or to have animals with multiple genders already invalidates the ignorance or religions. Homosexuality is not bad or illogical or wrong or detrimental to society, it is homosexuality and people can take from that what they wish.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Well yeah but by typical nature like lions or dogs or cats. I know about genderless animals.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Yes, cats and dogs exist for sure. However, there are exceptions to the binary gender system, meaning that for humans to be gay, that must also be a natural exception.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

I agree with you. Your are totally and absolutely correct on that point.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

One logical reason against homosexuality is a dirty Sanchez ;)
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Most people just feel uncomfortable about the relationship due to tradition. Overtime, it will change but not by force.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

I would actually go so far a to say that all people who oppose homosexuality and legally recognized same-sex unions are uncomfortable because of their traditional (and outdated beliefs). I have never encountered anyone who opposed homosexuality whose argument did not come back to personal discomfort and ignorance which were grounded in traditional beliefs. Never.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Then you haven't come across me. ;)
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

The only reason the status quo will change is precisely because of force, though not physical aggression. Vocalizing one's discontent and forcing the issue is the only way things will begin to change. The generational progression is important, but even that is reliant upon people forcing the issue to attention to begin with.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Not as far as I have ever been convinced. Any "normally logical" reason against homosexuality can be applied to other sexual orientations or groups which would demonstrate hypocrisy.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

There is always a "logical reason", in general. Just as there is always an "illogical reason", in general.In this case, many people have hatred toward homosexuals because people, in general, can be stupid and way too judgmental. Many people also believe homosexuality should not exist because how then could our society develop and progress without proper reproduction of the male and female. And there are others whom follow particular literature and scripture that gives them "guidelines" to be "against homosexuality". And then there are other various reasons. So yes, there are logical reason against homosexuality. However, those reasons are not "cool" in my book. I have no problem with homosexuality, in general.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Those are not logical reasons, they are thinly veiled excuses to defend personal insecurities and ignorance. There is no logic to them whatsoever. They do not hold up to even the most mild scrutiny. (Glad to hear though that you do not think those excuses are good ones.)
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

It's not a logical reason in the grand sense but it's the kind of logic that relates to why some people are just against other styles of music, not necessarily prohibiting them.Like if your friend says "Why don't you listen to scream o or pop"you might say "It sucks" he'd say "give me a logical reason" You'd say "scream o is too loud" which is base logic to be against it. or "Pop is too mainstream, I don't like mainstream" which is human logic to just stand against it.I hope I explained myself correctly because even I feel like this is idiotic.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

It is perhaps mathematical logic insofar as A leads to B, but in terms of rational logic applied to thought processes rather than equations there is not a reasonable logic behind A leading to B. Consider your example of the loud screamo music. Someone saying "it sucks" is comparable to a person saying homosexuality just "sucks". Someone saying the music is too loud (i.e. actually hurts or damages hearing) would be like someone who is against homosexuality actually having a tangible and legitimate reason for not liking homosexuality... which they do not. Similarly, disliking pop because it is mainstream without having a reason to dislike what is mainstream is not logical. Disliking pop/mainstream because it has tangible harms or flaws would be logical.Furthermore, I think there is a difference between disliking something and being against it. The latter implies an active dislike, whereas the former is simply an internal bias.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

My apologies for the same argument, this was posted before i read your response to the other one.I now understand that to not like or think icky is a mindset where as to be against or set yourself against is physical action that takes no knowledge to do.Setting yourself against gay people is an illogical opinion.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Alright, cheers then.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

People just dont like different things homosexuals are just regular people they just love there ow sex
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Im going to say no because I think homosexuality is perfectly fine. I can't explain any logical reasoning stuff though. Depending on what you believe in, something can seem either really logical or completely illogical. But I find homosexuality to befine. The persons relationship isn't effecting you personally, so why care. People should love whoever they want. (Very opinionated answer, ik. ^^)
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Very opinionated yes, very true also.The people who stand against homosexuality, have no science to back up their reasoning.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Homosexuals are for real. There is no logical reason for someone to be against homosexuality.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

This scripture prophesy also have a cluster of prophesies that would need to be fullfilled for each to be fulfilled.So prophetic intrusion by God in His Word, takes predictions to prophesy, which is predictions based on possibility, to prophesy - pre-written history, which is complicated.But it also knits prophesies together in clusters like cells, building history.Complicating even miracles of prophesy to clusters of prophesies ALL needing to be fullfilled for the next in a cluster.If you really look at prophesy, and realize it's difference from "predictions"Then you realize prophesy is like layers, with many prophesies knit together like cells all dependent on each other for each individual fulfillment, I think it's a greater feat than cells mutating and accidentally on purpose resulting in intellegent design!My argument is God has proven Himself through history, as the Bible was being written.Can you show me how it's not detailed in prophesy with an accuracy as if history was knit together, as your cells in evolution?And can you show me any historical documentations of the Bible that is riddled with inaccuracies?Another Prophesy:Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion(Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10).Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to 13th power.).http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead.(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 10 to the 13th power.)http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible .
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

My time traveling aliens are an explanation for cluster prophesies. ;)
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

If you follow a religion, you are creating a system whereby any act of selflessness is an act towards a selfish goal of eternal bliss of some kind.This means that every time you are selfless, another person is being selfish to accept your selfless act. This in turn means you have ensure they are more likely to go to hell or to suffer in whatever way your religion states that bad people do
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

Would you be willing to give an example of a particular religion that does this?
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

Christianity: Being selfless sends you to heaven. Being selfish (accepting selflessness) sends you to hell.Buddhism: Karma. Your karmic debt increases the more you allow others to be good to you. The true Buddhist is willing to suffer very much for the sake of reaching zero karmic debt upon death (doesn't go into negatives, so it's very easy to gain debt) Only those with zero upon death will go to nirvana others will be reborn as some creature (goes as basic as bacterium).Hinduism: Dharma. Unlike Karma, can go into negatives. The lower your Dharmic debt upon death, the 'richer' or 'better off' you are reincarnated. Hindus can only be reincarnated up or down the food chain if they have positive Dharmic debt upon death (up) or negative (down). If they abused humans in particular, they will be reborn as a victim of the exact form of abuse or something very close to its severity.Judaism: Hell same as Christianity and Islam but unlike Christianity and Islam, in Judaism there is no heaven. You are either in purgatory (basically obsolete) or in hell until you have 'suffered enough' and then get the reward of actually dying.Islam: Identical afterlife system to Christianity, differs in the exact rewards in heaven and also in what gets you there.Jainism: In Jainism, there is no hell. Unlike Buddhism and Hinduism there is no 'punishment' for being evil. Instead there is some magical eternal gain you get from being good that you simply should strive for, it's almost their currency so to speak. You can't spend it though... Once you do evil you have given up your magical bliss and should try your best to gain it again.Sikhism: Identical system to Hinduism but in Sikhism it only applies to human beings and you can't be reborn as an animal.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

Well I can't speak for any other religion, but our example of Hinduism is wrong. Hinduism does not say in any book that "you will be punished for sinning, so don't sin" or "you will be rewarded for doing good, so do good". It simply says you shall sow what you reap and then lists 10 attributes of a person that makes them better.Unlike Christianity, Hinduism never says to be selfless and unlike Islam, nowhere does it say to donate money to the poor. This is not because we are selfish, it is because we understand that if everyone looks out for themselves and their families and is independent, there will be less problems. We are not trying to please a God, we are trying to partake in actions that benefit us and make us happy.Why shouldn't we steal and lie then? Well, there is nothing that says thou shall not steal in HInduism. However, it does stay that stealing and lying hurt you in the long run because you will have to carry the emotional weight of each lie and theft, which may seem to be intangible and nonexistent but will eventually ruin your life.Also where does it say that Humans will become animals or be reborn as victims of the abuse they dealt out in their past life? I can explain this if you find an example.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

How Dharma works: http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/dharma.htm Reincarnation explained: http://iskconeducationalservices.org/HoH/concepts/102.htm Reincarnation even includes plants.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

Those sources are interpretations. Find me the vedic verse that says I will be born as a literal plant if I do bad, and I should do good karma so I don't end up a plant or animal or untouchable.And before I get sidetracked, let me address your single argument by simply quoting a verse from the Bhagvad Gita which proves that in true Hinduism, you are not worrying about how much Dharma points you have, but that your actions are dharmic. Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana,You have the right to perform your actions,but you are not entitled to the fruits of the actions.Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva AkarmaniDo not let the fruit be the purpose of your actions, and therefore you won’t be attached to not doing your duty.But then a natural question comes up, "Won't this detachment from desired result kill the motivation of Karma?" That is where these myths about becoming a flower or a pig in your next life pop up. They are created to provide motivation. However, as you said, they make people selfish and get caught up in their results instead of in their actions.That is not true Hinduism.Now you may think that even though I'm saying all this stuff, it must be some offshoot of mainstream Hinduism. You are very wrong and a victim of ignorance. the textbooks that teach about Hinduism are written by a Western, British perspective. Our rituals and mythology are too complicated and symbolic for the Westerners, who used to think of us as savages, to understand. Therefore, they tried to simplify them and dismiss them as idol worship and believing in ghosts/spirits.I am in close contact with the President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (world hindu council) of America. He comes over every month to have a discussion with my friends. I was wondering about stuff like reincarnation which I had trouble believing. He, along with the late president of the worldwide VHP, taught me about real Hinduism. If you have any questions, I will try to answer them.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

Hinduism isn't like Christianity. There is no Bible or unquestionable text to go by. You make it up as you go along. Stop pretending you have any authority, I know more about the religion than you do.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

I thought you were atheist. Isn't that making it up as you go along ?
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

No, that's accepting what I don't know and working out what I can know from evidence.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

We do the same. What part did we make up? By the way, I'm not trying to convert you or anything like Saintnow tries every time he posts. People of all religions can be dharmic and Hindu. I bet you already are. I just want to understand what your views of my religion are and debate them based on what I know.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

I'm not dharmic. I don't consider the goodness of my actions when I act, I consider the results and which one gets me the most long term joy.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

So your Dharmic. Goodness has nothing to do with it, kind of...
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

Buddhism: Karma. Your karmic debt increases the more you allow others to be good to you. The true Buddhist is willing to suffer very much for the sake of reaching zero karmic debt upon death (doesn't go into negatives, so it's very easy to gain debt) Only those with zero upon death will go to nirvana others will be reborn as some creature (goes as basic as bacterium). mostly this is wrong. buddhhists do eschew wealth but have no problem in allowing others to do good deeds for them. Why would they have their alms bowls if they did? also..they don't advocate suffering or deprivation. the buddha hisself, Siddarth Guatama, tried the deprivation thing when he travelled with the asthetic monks after he left his palace. He got so malnourished he almost starved and so found it wasnt the way. that there is a MIDDLE PATH between depriving and greed and opulence. THIS is what the Buddhists advise.  And the FOur Noble Truths say NOTHING about needing to suffer. Nor does the 8-fold Path.last.....Buddhists dont believe in transmigration...thats coming back as a bug or an animal. that is the Hindus and the Buddha rejected that doctrine. they believe you only can return as a human. and one who DOES get released from Samsara (the endless cycle on Earth) and can get Nirvana, will sometimes still choose to stay behind and help others. they are called Bodhisatvas.you should know more about this before claiming you know the religion. sounds to me like you have a lot of learning to do about Buddhism. i can help.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

The only one you got incorrect would be Christianity. In Christianity, its grace through faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The acts that follow come from being saved through faith. Also, what would you say you mean by selflessness and selfishness?
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: Just try to be good.

Even outside of religion, No action is truly Altruistic. It's a numbers game, If I save a close relative, I'm still basically passing on my genetics more than if I don't save that member. If I spread my excess resources, I gain favor with my community. attention and a flow of chemicals saying "I'm A "good" person"-Religion serves to strengthen ever present morality. if a God knows what you do in the dark, then no evil will take place to any person who truely believes that God, (Or Big brother) is watching.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

Just because it's not possible doesn't mean you shouldn't strive towards it.
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

I would say that the evidence points to Christianity being the one true religion
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

Which evidence?
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

Things like the moral argument and cosmological argument as well as prophecies that are in the bible
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

All I know is that the God in the old testament is a wrathful God and the God in the new testament is a kinder, gentler, God. I also know that the Jews claim to be the chosen people and Christians appear to have hijacked the Jewish religion, added Jesus into the mix and claimed that anyone can be saved, not just the chosen. So..., I wouldn't bet my life on it. ;)
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

How did you come to all these conclusions that you came to?
Debate: Is there a right religion or is it OK to just try to be good?
Side: The one true religion is:

The God in the old testament wanted sacrifices. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He flooded the world.The God in the new testament was all about turning the other cheek (the cheeky monkey ;). And love thy neighbor and forgive transgressions.The old testament says that the Jews are the chosen people.The Christians took the old testament and added the new testament. Isn't one of the 10 commandments something about adding to the word of God? Christians also claim that the only path to salvation is through Jesus. They seem to always be asking, "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior? He paid for your sins with His blood. Your His bitch now." Is that enough? ;)