azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: YES

So you are saying that lying is aggression? Although similar, scamming and theft are different.Your views are toward what you THINK is a healthy humanity and your vanity makes you think that only you are right.I've given some examples. You think that would not be healthy for humanity?Have I said that I think only I am right? Nope, I have not.I am not saying that the only things that are "wrong" are those that are the initiation of force.And how would you try to correct others from making those wrongs? First you tell them, if that does not work, other methods are needed.So, when you come to take away my cigarettes and try to force them from me I will feel no remorse whatsoever in using lethal force upon you because you have indicated that you have no regard for not using force.I'd say you are stupid to be a smoker in the first place.If nothing else works, only one option remains - the use of force. And that final option can be used for different outcomes.Let me ask you, do you enjoy sports? Those should be forbidden, they cause unnecessary injuries and even deaths and for what? Entertainment?This is a very stupid example.And no, i do not enjoy them, at all.But whether I like them or not does not matter. They are good for people, they increase and keep up physical health. Those who get injured, it is their own fault they could not be more careful.Entertainment is also healthy because it lowers stress.Do you like TV or Movies? They both waste a TON of resources. They are a blight on humanity and we should forbid them.Another very stupid example.TV and movies are good for people. TV has programs and series that educate people, give good information, make people think over pretty much anything. Movies are the same. Even though there are stupid and pointless ones.They can also help lower stress. But sitting all day long watching at a screen is bad., while we have children starving in EthiopiaYeah... I'm not gonna respond to that... You'll go nuts if I did.I'm telling you, you're wrong to eat meat, and I'm going to forcibly take your cows and fish and chickens from you.Okay... I thought you could not get any more stupider. Look at who was wrong (pointing at myself).I am not wrong.You proved yourself wrong with your comment.See how abusive that was? You're equivalent to that.You know, truth tends to hurt, I know it from experience. But you seem incapable of accepting it, bad for you.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: YES

THANK YOU!!!!! The last thing i want to think about is being 6 years old sucking on my moms breast, that would be ummm very disturbing!!! Honestly i dont want to depend on my motheres breast when im hungry.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: YES

You didn't ask if there should be a law to stop women from breast feeding children after a certain age, you asked if there is an appropriate age to stop breast feeding. Now tell me, when do you think would be the appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: YES

I totly agree with people making their own decisions but this the development of a child and i think its not only disgusting but damaging on the childs mental development especially for a boy
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

NO! THERE IS NOT!MUMMY!!! WHERE'S MY BITTY!
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

GayySomeone downvoted me.Gayy
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

I don't believe there is a "correct" age to stop breastfeeding. I also don't believe it has to be a hard stop. Is three too old? I don't think so...but certainly by the time a child is in Kindergarten, they should be weened from the breast.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

The idea of freedom is to allow people make the best decisions for their own individual lives.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

Shame that so many don't support freedom like nummi above.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: YES

The thing going on above wasn't enough and you had to add something as pointless as your comment down here?Shame you're such an idiot.Honestly, it's best you don't claim knowing someone you clearly don't. It just shows how stupid you are.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

True, to some people such as nummi, freedom scares them because of making independent decisions. These people like being told what to do; hence, they have no brain to think for themselves.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: YES

to some people such as nummi, freedom scares them because of making independent decisions.You have nothing smart to say and thus you go for insults? Clearly shows you have a lot of mental growing to do.These people like being told what to do; hence, they have no brain to think for themselves.Care to clarify what you mean under "these people"? Are you racist? You seem to be.The fact that you said "These people like being told what to do" proves you don't know me.Oh... you are religious. Rather typical, you can't think of anything smart to say and thus you go for insults. The pointless book of your's tells you how to live your life and I am the one who likes being told what to do? When I use my own mind for thinking, not repeat the same old and pointless crap over and over again? You are so stupid.As you are religious, you are the one who has no brain to think for yourself, because you take this bible nonsense as reality. How about actually trying to think for yourself and not repeat the same crap over and over again? Have you tried that? Of course not because if you do you will go to your nonexistent "hell". Moron.I don't have a brain to think for myself? So who came up with all that stuff above? Care to clarify that for me?The fact is you know almost nothing about me and as I have stated before, it's best not to claim to know someone you clearly don't.Did you like my very accurate reply?
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

You have nothing smart to say and thus you go for insults?Again, this is what I posted before, "The idea of freedom is to allow people make the best decisions for their own individual lives."Care to clarify what you mean under "these people"? Are you racist? You seem to be.Oh, racist card. Classic move of a Liberal Democrat. These people was reference to liberal Democrats.Oh... you are religious...Blah, Blah, Blah. YAWNDid you like my very accurate reply?What?
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

The topic of debate depends. Im not a psychologist but if there is any psychology that is programmed in our head from the start of birth that will guareentee you trauma by drinking milk from your mother's breast all your life....then i will support yes. I can't guareentee this but what if i decided to get breast feeded from my own mom. The thought not only grosses me out but the way society has taught me, i would feel immense "wrong." But is it really wrong? I say if there isn't any trauma connected to this and the child becomes fuctional to society, i will allow it. Though because of how i was raised, i will never allow my children (future children) to be breasted feeded if they are five, or if they are 15. I will never allow it because the thought "ews" me and i do feel the aura of "wrong." If you don't think so, then that is your opinion and i respect that. :)Edit. I do have to say what if a 15 year old drank from her mother's breast, is it wrong? No, if there is no harm to the mother or child. And that is what i believe we have to resort to when we think about these things...harm. Does it cause harm? If it did cause harm, then yes, it is wrong. And what do we mean by harm? Nipple bruises...lol. Well, the harm i generally mean is psychological harm. If there is any psychology harm, then i vote against it. I wouldn't worry about small physical harm like bruises because that to me is not major. And sometimes things that cause phsyical pain is good for you, like excercise.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

Surely, this can't be photo shopped?! That kid, is not old enough to appreciate that!
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

If that was my mommy in the picture, I would say 18 years old is about right.
Debate: Is there an appropriate age to stop breast feeding?
Side: NO

No, I dont think this is right. I totally disagree. But to each its own I guess
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

logical sure, worthwhile how ever is another question.We can just take say we find it icky, icky stuff shouldn't be allowed, thus homosexuality shouldn't be allowed. icky can be replaced with whatever, sinful, immoral, tempting, etc.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Yet that's still not logical, because banning anything "icky" is not reasonable. We wouldn't be able to make any bans or would have to ban everything; because something is always "icky" to someone else.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

AA->Btherefor B.strickly speaking it is logical. You can challenge the premises, but its still logical.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Logically speaking we need to disect human bodies to determine what;s wrong with them and learn more about them. Human bodies, and especially cutting them open, is icky, but we shouldn't not do that just for that reason alone.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Exactly. I think you get my point.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

You arguing against the truth of the premise(and badly at that, appealing vaguely to consequentialism) and not arguing that it isn't logically sound. It is logically sound, its modus ponens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

It might look logical, but when you look at the bigger picture and take in more information, it seems it's actually or becomes illogical.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

The sky is the color green If the sky is the color green, then aliens in the see like to eat cactus. Thus aliens in the sea like to eat cactus. its a logical argument. The question of if it's logical doesn't take into consideration the truth of the premises. Modus ponus is a logical argument.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Your statement "Thus aliens in the sea like to eat cactus." *is a conclusion of "truth/fact".Logic, in fact, does consider truth.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Logic asks the question "if these conditions are true, what else is necessarily true"
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Although I understand your point. My question was "Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?". It leaves too much room for interpretation, it's not clearly defining if logically illegal, logically immoral, just logical. And logically speaking some people find homosexuality 'icky' and they'd be against it. Just like in my example some people find cutting open bodies 'icky' and they too wouldn't do it.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

There is only one type of logical, and it has to do with the structure of claims. Logic is basically a math.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Society's logic is based on facts.Where as individual logic is based on opinion.Society can't ban gays because of it's logic proving that gays won't do any harmWhile individual logic can not like gays because they think them to be 'icky'.The reason it's still logic is because people logically don't like things they find to be 'icky'.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

You do realize that your basically claiming that society has a different meaning behind + or - then an individual, because you don't like the value of a variable in an equation which uses the operator, when the equation is alright no matter the value. Like Y=XA, A and Y are inconsequential, so long as X is left as a variable, the equation always works out. It is that type of relationship which we ask about if we ask if something is logical, not if the values are ones we like or should be included in our domain.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Society is more rational and as a whole must stick to facts. While each individual can cling to their own emotions.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

1st. whats the relevancy of this? 2. Herd mentality .
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

You said how there is only one logic and I was explaining how logic depends on the subject.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

The link between finding something personally "icky" and imposing that distaste upon others for no reason other than your personal comfort is inherently flawed and illogical. "B" does not follow logically from "A".
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

But the question just asks logically. Not logically a reason to ban, the person that is against homosexuality isn't banning it. You see his point?He's not banning it, he's just against it. He doesn't support it, and logically people find things 'icky' to them are against them.A better question would have been is there logically a reason to be disgusted by homosexuality and even there there is.I would visit that debate if you made it also.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

I understand the point being made. However, I still do not think that it necessarily follows from logic that finding something icky means you are against it. I personally find worms to be icky, but I am not against them. Why should I be? It is not logical, it is emotional. I do agree that the question could have been better phrased. It seems fairly redundant at this point to make a new debate which gets at the same point however... the arguments are already being made here regardless of the original question's structure. Maybe a bit later when this one is no longer active.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Ok now I see what you mean also. You can think gay is odd but not have to be against it, and I'm silly, I even think two dudes kissing in front of me is weird but i'm not against their right to do it.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

your attacking the premise, not the logical form of the argument. AA-->Btherefor B. Modus Ponens is a logical argument, you can attack one of the premises truth values if you want, but the fact remains that even if a premise is false, its still a logical argument.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

No, actually I was not attacking the premise. I fully appreciate and do not deny that some people find homosexuality to be "icky". Rather, I was directly targeting the causal link between finding homosexuality to be "icky" and being against homosexuality. The former does not in any way necessitate nor even require that the latter occur. It is not logical for one to transfer ones personal dislike into active intolerance. I do not like worms, but I do not hate them or actively try to abuse every worm I encounter. B does not necessarily follow from A. The link is an arbitrary one that shows a causality but not an inherently logical progression (i.e. you are conflating causality with logic).
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

That causual link is one of the premises. the argument has two premises, A as well as the if-then statement A-->B.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

As I just said, I was not addressing the premises but the causal link. This is not a response. I am quite honestly done with this pointless debate of semantics, particularly since you are not addressing my point.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

The Casual link IS a Premise, there is nothing semantic about it.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

I misunderstood your last post, but understanding what you were trying to say now I do not really see how it was at all a refutation of the point I was making which was an attack upon the causal link premise.The semantics reference was to debating what is "logical" (mathematical/causal logic versus reasonableness).
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Ah, I would attack the premises as well(its the only way to refute it), however technically the argument, despite the truth value of the premise, does take a valid logical form.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

How is attacking "A" the only way to refute the logic that "A" leads to "B"? That makes no sense. Also, if there is no mathematically causal link between personal disgust and being against something then how is being against something part of a logical process?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

A lead to B is a premise. You can attack "A" or you can attack "A lead to B", like i've been saying, A-->B is a premise. Its kinda like F(-X)=F(X) being a condition to a equation, it might turn out that if a function is infact even, then you've found a solution, however a particular function might not be even, and thus not work. So A premis might be true and work, which is really what a logical argument is stating, that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. If a particular premise is false, then the conclusion might still be true, or might not be. Anything can be said to be necessarily true if the causal link is true and the initial condition is true, so modus ponens is a logical argument, the question of if the causal link can itself be logically derived or can be supported is a completely separate thing.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Reproduction... It's really as simple as that.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

That is illogical the world is already overpopulated and also there are many heterosexuals that cannot reproduce
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

This is your logic.1) There exist heterosexuals who cannot reproduce2) The world is overpopulated3) Homosexuality is very detrimental to the human race's reproduction to produce a new generation at all.4) Homosexuality is okay5) Homosexuality is a problem6) If there are no humans for next generation there will be huge underpopulation.According to you, 1+2=4 because 3 = -2 but 3 =/= -2 because of 6According to me 3+6-4=5
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

For 3 and 6, why do you think that homosexuality being permissible will mean all consequent generations after that point will be gay and thus produce no children? Homosexuality has been practiced in abundance throughout history, and even with __% of the worlds population (at any given time) not reproducing because they're gay, we've still ended up with an overpopulation problem.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

That's because of poverty.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Please answer my question regarding 3 and 6. And so what if overpopulation is due to poverty? Homosexuality will not contribute towards overpopulation and will in fact chip away at the problem by not reproducing and also help clean up the mess that heterosexuals already made for everyone, like adopting kids.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

I said it would lead to underpopulation. You misread 6.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Duh. I didn't misread it. Thats why I went on in that point to talk about a lack of people not an abundance of them. Now answer the question, please.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

What question?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

The very first question I posted in my very first dispute and then asked you to answer in every consequent post:"For 3 and 6, why do you think that homosexuality being permissible will mean all consequent generations after that point will be gay and thus produce no children?"
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Because gay people can't orgasm while having sex with the gender that they feel no attraction to.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

So you're trying to assert that because gay people cant get off with the opposite gender, (they can, btw; some of them do it in false marriages for years and years before finally coming out of the closet... gay men in fake marriages have children with their wives - children are the product of a male orgasm... but moving past that...) every single person in the entire world will become gay (worldwide somewhere between 80-99% of the population changing their sexual orientation) if homosexuality is permissible (as it already is in most countries)?Where to start.Well as I said your initial point is wrong. Attraction is not required for orgasms. Really, man, weren't you just asserting something the other day about how a woman can feel pleasure getting raped? If you're aware a woman can feel pleasure and orgasm while being raped, why would it be difficult for a gay man/woman to get off with the opposite gender in a false relationship?Even if your initial point was right, I don't see how it would somehow mean everyone everywhere will all of a sudden become gay, and you haven't said anything to make that link. You have to explain how and why that will happen. Finally, the condition in your argument has already occurred; homosexuality is permissible more often than not. We no longer prosecute for sodomy. In some places marriage is allowed. And, predictably (though counter to your assertion) 100% of the population has not converted to homosexuality anywhere. Not even close. So plainly put, you're trippin.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

The gays who fake marriages are bisexual gays who leaned more to homosexuality but were not fully classifiable as gay.Attraction is required for orgasm. Raped women begin to emotionally hate the sex while they involuntarily begin loving it in a hormonal, non-emotional manner (lesbians would never be able to get off on a man raping them... THIS is the key factor here).So plainly you're tripping.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Sometimes, sure. Othertimes, no, they are full blown homosexuals who either lie to themselves because they are afraid of their true self or do the deed because they want children, and then come out of the closet later. What information are you using to determine people can't orgasm without attraction? I've came with girls I'm not attracted to. I've talked to men who have had children with women they are not attracted to. And interesting, really everything I've researched on the subject says women usually actually require an emotional investment to orgasm during rape.