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

First of all for their to be no generation at all 100% of the world population would have to be homosexual based off your claim that homosexuals can't reproduce which is highly improbable. Secondly homosexuals can biologically reproduce, they just can't reproduce with each other. Why couldn't sperm donations be used, gay male couples can supply the sperm and lesbian couples could be carriers. Not only is this argument based on a highly improbable threat to which having you'd have to be very paranoid but the delusional threat itself isn't even a threat when you really think about it.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

The question is is there a ('a' meaning 'one') logical reason against homosexuality.I'm an anarchist and really I don't care if there is no next generation because frankly I myself am suicidal and wish I hadn't been born.All I was doing was answering the question.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Yes and I was arguing that it wasn't logical. I am just playing the game here to, to be honest I'm pretty sure you are just trolling us and that is the real reason you are making this argument.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

I didn't make this argument, Quocalimar did and besides, my argument is extremely logical.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

You made the argument that the possibility of everyone becoming homosexual is that if everyone were homosexual humanity would die out. I was making the argument that not only is there no reason to think that everyone will become gay as it is highly improbable but that if everyone did through scientific means humanity would still keep going due to the ability of sperm donations. Refute that, then I will be convinced your argument is logical.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

1) Why would gays bother to donate sperm for lesbians to have kids?2) Why would lesbians bother to go through 9 months of hardcore pregnancy just to give the baby away to gays?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Because the government would be willing to pay a lot of money for these services, nobody wants to see humanity end their would be activist to get this system started. And as long as SOMEBODY does this humanity won't end and people already do, do this.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Logically speaking, the populace wouldn't simply die because every body is homosexual. The situation Zeph added gave a clear way humanity could still thrive if homosexuality were total.Personally I even believe that that'd cure over population because children would only be made when they needed to be, and never by accident.there could even be some impregnating season where so many children were made, and a birthing season when those children are born.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

You are assuming that homosexual lesbians would be willing to be a 'birthing machine' who simply have a baby for a gay couple.This is very naive.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Only in my perfect world scenario. in reality, the population would be so high that some lesbian couples would be bound to want children, and some gay couples would too.As for the supply of semen needed the gay men could just as easily go to a sperm bank and donate for any reason they'd like or for money.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Why would, on a large scale, lesbians bother to have kids for gays?!
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Because heterosexual women already do it for gay male couples and etc and heterosexual men donate sperm for lesbians and etc. why would they stop when everyone turns gay?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Heterosexual =/= Homosexual.According to many religious scriptures the homosexuals are insane Satanists just like me... Oh... wait... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT WOMEN NOOOOOOOOO
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

On a large scale lesbians would have children for gays for the same reason gays would give semen for future children.Their could be some money gained, and a natural knack for kindness.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

A 5 minute jack off versus a 9 month intensive labour pregnancy... Ah... Same thing right?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

So it doesn't happen in modern times? Is that what you're saying?Surrogate mothers don't exist?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

They don't really exist more than maybe 0.01% of world population AT MOST.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Yes, this is in a time where the population of people who actually need children is low. In a population where the demand for children is higher, the demand for surrogates will increase and the law of supply and demand, though not normally applied to this situation, dictate that they rise together.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

MOST PEOPLE (IN THIS CASE FEMALES WITH A HIGHLY TESTOSTERONE FUELLED MIND) WILL NOT WANT TO SACRIFICE 9 MONTHS OF HEALTH FOR A F*CKING GAY COUPLE TO GET THEIR BABY!
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

They would if the chance of getting paid higher was available, which it would be in a system where everyone needs children but can't have them their selves.gays would pay right out of pocket, someone might even make a website called uSurrogate.com or something.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

F*cking capitalism my ass.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Sperm donations are already done why wouldn't they be in a purely homosexual world? What would change, 7 billion people is 7 billion people who may decide to, and I'd imagine the government paying everyone for it since they wouldn't want to see humanity end. With 7 billion people there's bound to be volunteers or at least enough willing to do it for money, there already are right now.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Sperm donations might happen but not the reverse.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

The reverse already happens in today's society. There would be people who felt passionate enough about humanity to participate.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Naive assumption is not sufficient basis for an attack.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

But homosexuality or no there will be a next generation. Just because homosexuality is allowed does not mean 100% of the population will be homosexual, so your argument that there will be no next generation if you're not against homosexuality is not a logical argument.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Your justification for homosexuality only works if, by chance, a particular group of people are fortunate enough to luckily have randomly been granted a MINORITY (as opposed to 50%+) of homosexuals.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

First of all, what information are you using to determine that if 51% of the world population was gay, presumably, civilization would crumble?And secondly, you say it's luck that a particular group of people would be granted a minority population of homosexuals... but homosexuality is by and large legal in the world today and the most gay city in the world is San Francisco California with a homosexual population around 15%. Worldwide that number generally floats around 1-8%. So is it "lucky" and "random" that every single city in every single country in the world has not only a minority homosexual population, but a very small one (far from 50%) at that? Or is it simply the fact that homosexuality is what it is, a deviant, abnormal sexual behavior, and is practiced by few and maintained by even less? So it's not "by chance" at all; homosexuality by its nature is a minority activity. In places where it's legal and welcomed and embraced and celebrated it's still a minority activity. Out of curiosity, do you have any instance of a society where 50%+ of the population was homosexual? Or is this a far fetched, baselessly speculative "what if" "argument" you've constructed against homosexuality?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

It's pure luck that majority of human race isn't homosexual. Pure luck.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Sometimes I don't know why I bother. I go through the motions with you to invariably find you're talking out of your ass. Why is it pure luck?How do you know that?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Don't use ad hominem attacks, they are childish.It's pure luck because if we permitted gay sex and then a lot of gay babies, by chance, were born we'd have a huge issue if it weren't for religious restrictions.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

That wasn't ad hom. Ad hom you be something like "you're a stupid poopy face." Or, "I don't like you," an ad hom you threw my way not to long ago. When I say you're talking out your ass it's not an ad hom, it's a statement that you are making assertions with nothing to back them up. MW doesn't define "talking out of your ass," but Urban Dictionary (lol) says it's "When someone says something stupid that they have no proof of," which is exactly how i intended it. It's pure luck because if we permitted gay sexWe already permit gay sex.and then a lot of gay babies, by chance, were bornIs this a "by chance" like "what if" like it's impossible to the extreme but you're suggesting it might happen for the sake of your argument? What is the link between allowing gay sex and more gay babies being born? You've said before gays cant have kids, so you're suggesting the more gay couples have sex the more children of heterosexual couples will turn gay? The fuck? This is why I think you're talking out of your ass. we'd have a huge issue if it weren't for religious restrictions.Personally I think the countries that have and carry out religious restrictions on homosexuality are a "huge issue," like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan where gays get somewhere between 100 lashes in public to their head chopped off just for being gay. What religious restrictions are in place in the US today that prevent 100% of the population from becoming gay?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

All I'm saying is the irrefutable point that it is 100% possible for a 100% gay generation to be born and then we're screwed unless we restrict them.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Surrogates and sperm donors would be the cure. The population wouldn't be doomed it'd just be lowered a little.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Abandoning the other "points," are we?In the sense that everything is 100% possible, sure, it's possible. It's also 100% possible we'll all wake up as apes tomorrow. Better start laying down regulations on excessive banana eating and unwarranted shit-flinging.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

There are already regulations for the latter issue.The first issue wouldn't need to be regulated as this would simply result in death (from too much of one nutrient killing the creatures off).
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

I thank you for supporting the debate, and disputing the the place where falsities are claimed, but that guy's a troll. It's best to ignore him.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

For this to make homosexuality logical, you must first prove that reproduction is logical.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

you must first prove that reproduction is logical.I'm on your side but I see a problem here. Are you specifically calling out prodigee's opinion or are you really asking why reproduction is logical?In any regard, reproduction is logical for the purpose of a thriving species that wants to continue to thrive, to replenish it's dead.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Well, it's logical to some people, but to an asexual person, or a person who does not want kids, it is not so logical.To a gay person, reproduction is likely the last thing on their mind.When logic isn't universal, it causes problems like this, I suppose.--EDIT--Read your comment from two hours ago about the music, and yes, that wasn't idiotic, it was exactly what I explained here.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

I guess you caught me in a double standard. Reproduction is a case of personal logic vs natural logic. like the logic that occurs naturally in all of nature.So in that regards you are correct, and so is anyone arguing the logic behind it is because they don't like it.I do need to work on my presentation of questions. I left too wide a whole in this debate.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Research indicates that the genes associated with producing homosexuality in some individuals increase general fertility along the maternal line, which is why homosexuality has persisted as a trait in the human species despite homosexuals often not having their own biological children (or at least not until recently).
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Why is this a logical reason against homosexuality?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

He's on your side. I think he was just stating some facts.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

If everyone was gay, reproduction would become extremely impractical because if it didn't happen in threesomes/foursomes then we'd be doomed to be perfectly honest.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

That makes absolutely no sense. If everyone was homosexual, their threesomes and foursomes would still be members of the same sex as them.And to the main fault of your argument, I could say the same for infertile heterosexual couples. If everyone was infertile; we'd be doomed. Or if everyone did not want to reproduce, we'd be doomed. And finally, if everyone wanted and did reproduce, we'd be doomed.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

There can simply be a logical reason out of sheer consistency. I've not seen a single argument for homosexuality that cannot be used to defend incest, polygamy, necrophilia, beastiality etc. While the last two are more nuanced, it still falls under the '' While I think it's disgusting, it's not my business what other consenting people do in their privacy.'' If I support homosexuality, I will also have to support all these other deviant behaviors. Homosexuality is rooted in moral relativism - and because of that, I cannot support it. You can also argue against gay marriage from the view that since homosexual unions, by their nature, are incapable of reproducing - it makes no sense to offer homosexual unions the benefits attributed to marriage. Marriage is mostly encouraged for the sole reason of creating families and thus, more offspring, which is vital for any society's continuance.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

1. It is a logical fallacy to deny a group of individuals equal rights based upon an assumption that doing so may open the door to other groups claiming those rights as well. Each category that you have mentioned ought to be evaluated on its own terms as they are distinct categories. Furthermore, your assumption is quite erroneous itself:-- Incest is different because it is clearly and explicitly linked to serious genetic inbreeding which has marked health effects born primarily upon society; this is not the case with homosexuality. -- Polygamy involves three or more parties, whereas both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships involve two people. While some argue that polygamy necessarily opens the door for abusive relationships this remains a largely unfounded claim. At any rate, if two-member homosexual relationships were to open up that door then there is no reason heterosexual relationships would not do so as well. -- Necrophilia necessarily cannot include consenting parties, whereas homosexuality can.-- Bestiality likewise cannot include consenting parties, whereas homosexuality can.2. Many homosexual partners do raise children, either through adoption or other methods. We also afford marriage/union to heterosexual couples who are not fertile or who choose not to have. Marriage was introduced not to ensure propagation of the human race (which is hardly a concern) or individual social populations, but to provide a stable household unit (whatever the side) which supports a stronger economy. Marriage benefits are specifically tailored to support a partnership, with or without children, through such means as shared health insurance and shared finances.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Two people unable/reluctant to concieve a child together, be they straight or gay, do not deserve the stabilty of marriage?You can also argue against gay marriage from the view that since homosexual unions, by their nature, are incapable of reproducing - it makes no sense to offer homosexual unions the benefits attributed to marriage. Marriage is mostly encouraged for the sole reason of creating families and thus, more offspring, which is vital for any society's continuance.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

What is, 'logic' though? There is logical reasons to be against it, for example, the bible. They believe it's wrong, they're logic is correct and there. You can dispute that they're wrong, but it's their religion.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

In my opinion i dont agree with homosexuality. Governments should reject this thing. There no logical reason of homosexuality.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Homosexuality is mental disorder of people and, according to medical researches, homosexuality is illness. People can be alone, can live with family, can get marriage, BUT they cannot have sex with the same genders. Even in Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were crashed by God power. It means that homosexuality is not right thing. It is not insult, it is just information which I learn from TV and Web.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

The bible does not count as logical. As for your alleged proof of it being an illness could I see a link?
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

I think that we should at least abolish gay-parades,because it is clean propagation of homosexuality.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

Although this isn't a reason I do see it as slight favoritism. Heterosexuals don't get a parade, nor do black people, or females, other people who are getting their rights pretty recently.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

Natural law and natural complimentary of biology is the first and most important logical argument against. It is obvious from the outset that it is not an intended use for the human body to have sexual relations with members of the same sex. It really shouldn't NEED to go farther than that, but thanks to the ruination of natural law, logic, common sense and pretty much every other facet of classical thought by a Godless, immoral, unethical, hoodwinked, lied to, and frightfully unaware modernist culture.Seriously, just find a picture of someone of the opposite sex. Look at their bioligical features, then look at your own. Read the first few chapters of a middle school biology book on human anatomy, and reproduction functions. I'm not sure what more "logic" is necessary. Beyond that, you get into social and cultural experiments, and bad philosophy. Wrong is wrong. It's not a relativistic notion. We KNOW what is right and we know what is wrong at the base level of the natural complimentary. Everything else is politics and morals. In this case both morals AND science line up. There is nothing redeeming or logical about homosexual sex, and much wrong with it. It is just one of many ways, since the "sexual revolution" of the 60's that we have found to denigrate the prehistoric, and pre-religion, easily understood relationship of marriage between a man and a woman, and it's importance in the creation and continuation of families. We have now defined marriage as a union between x number of people who love x number of people exclusively, to no apparent or functional end apart from sexual objectification, and satisfaction. It is a deeply selfish reationship in which the fecundity of life isn't even a factor. Yes homosexuality was always around, and always will be around. It was just understood by all other cultures, epochs of history, governments, religions, philosophers, scientists etc. to be biologically unsound, morally unsound, ethically unsound, and to have no intrinsic value apart from sexual gratification outside of the reproductive and unitive value of sexual relation within a heterosexual marriage open to life. So how did we get to this point? The best compendium of these phenomena I've read is a book by Robert Reilly called "Making Gay Okay". I highly recommend this to hetero and homosexuals alike. It goes through everything in history basically leading up to where we are today, and does it in an honest and stratightforward way which leaves no real stones unturned. It cites sources galore, ranging from Abe Lincoln, Economic harmoines (Bastiat). Aristotle, Plato, Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Medical and pshychological studies, important research journals, etc. There's about 25 pages worth of just source citations alone. I could only do better in answering this question by re-publishing the book here, which would be illegal, so please just buy it.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

When confronted, excuses against homosexuality inevitably prove themselves to be thinly veiled defenses of ignorance and prejudice.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: Yes

The the down-voter: Thank you so much for validating my argument with your obvious disapproval unaccompanied by any counter-argument. You have effectively proven the point that there is no valid argument that is not rooted in ignorance and emotional insecurity. Bravo.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

There is no logical reason for hating homosexuals. They are ordinary people just like the rest of us. There is nothing that makes them inferior to any other human being. They are not dangerous or threatening to society or the world in any way, shape or form. Homophobes are narrow-minded people who hate gays for no reason other than the fact that they are different, or they have been taught to hate them since childhood.Oh, and Homophobia is not a phobia. You are not scared of gays. You are just an arsehole.
Debate: Is there a logical reason against homosexuality?
Side: No

You have my side in the description.