azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Rape and murder also have laws against them... I agree that it's difficult to argue weather or not it's natural but, when stacking the position of "it exists so it's natural" vs. the position "that it is not common or typical and not subconsciously accepted so it's unnatural." I believe logic swings in favor of it not being natural.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

But that only works if you throw out the actual definition of "natural".
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Natural:2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Going with the secondary definition because the primary definition proves my point, eh? :PStill, homosexuality is in agreement with the character or make up of a homosexual. It is not statistically normal for humanity, but it still remains natural.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

No, I went for the secondary definition because it supports my argument. You're excluding part of that definition to support your argument... I couldn't find a definition that fits your argument.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural1. existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from naturehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural1.existing in or formed by naturehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural 1.Present in or produced by nature:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/natural 1.Existing in or caused by natureI could go on and on and on.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Go ahead and go on and on... The reality however, is there is no such thing as primary and secondary definition to a word... It all depends on the context in which you're using the word in and to repeat myself for the millionth time, there is no evidence that homosexuality is caused by nature!!! The fact that it exists, does not mean it is natural and as long as there is a lack of scientific evidence that it is caused naturally, under assumption, it would be more correct to think it is caused by people which clearly refutes the definition of natural which you just supplied.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

But the context we are using it in is if it exists in nature, which it most certainly does. If it exists in nature, then it is still natural within your definition. If it exists in nature, and thus is natural by both the primary and secondary definitions referenced, then what evidence do we have that the same does not apply to humanity?You are saying there is no evidence that homosexuality is caused by nature, yet the fact that it EXISTS in nature is in fact evidence of it! Unless you are claiming that non-human species choose to be homosexual?And there is no scientific evidence that people choose to be homosexual either, so how can you assume that is true when you refuse to recognize another claim as true due to the lack of evidence?
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

No that's the context you're trying to use it in and it doesn't apply to human nature. You're context is a broad view where my is narrowed... I can't explain why there is "so-called" same gender sexual activity within nature on this earth but, the fact that it's a conflict within human nature makes it unnatural because once again, if it were natural to our nature, we wouldn't even be conscious of it... It would be a subconscious accepted behavior.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

But you have not proven how it conflicts with human nature! The fact that we take part in it on a fairly consistent amount is evidence that it is natural within your context as well. Additionally, the fact that it is subconscious behavior is part of the reason why it is increasingly accepted. You also have not proven how homosexuality, or any sexual orientation, is a conscious decision (again, bisexuality exists and is an important factor in this discussion).
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

There this internet search engine you seem to be aware of. Its to be found at (Google.com). It can be used to find information such as this.Gender AssignmentSexual OrientationI offer two of thousands of links to widely published science on the subject of homosexuality.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Daver, I'm aware of the internet but, I'm not aware of any valid scientific information. There are theories and laws and at this point in history, any scientific information on homosexuality in based on a theory, thanks.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Any information can be put online, be it true or false, and science can often be wrong. There was once science for a geocentric universe and the existence of only four elements.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Are your opinions based only on information that you have gathered via personal experience, or have you taken ANYTHING in the way of information from any other source.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

That science has been replaced. We can use modern tech to show this.Anyway what "Science" was this? Speculation.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Gay rights is a vague statement. We all have certain rights just for being living human beings. I believe Gays deserve every bit as much rights to live life as any person. This does not mean they have rights to change our marriage laws, etc. They have become the poster child for special treatment only because their unnatural lifestyles are spoken of in the Bible. This is why Gays get all the attention and media coverage to their plight in life. No other minority groups get anywhere near the same mention and special rights as Gays. Do men who want 20 wives get any coverage in the news or our marriage laws?The problem being that anti Christian Bigots on the Left must spend their lives demonizing the Bible and what it stands for. It is no secret why Abortion, Feminism and Homosexuality has been at the fore front of our politics and culture for decades. The so called Progressive movement has been doing all in it's power to twist and ridicule the Bible. Homosexuality is their current tool to do so. If the Left indoctrinates people to believe that up is down or that Homosexuality is normal, they can then water down the truths of the Bible. This is their goal and explains why a couple percent of the people get CONSTANT MENTION in our media.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Your statements about the goals of liberal progressives are 100% correct, almost. Their tactic is to discredit all religion, as part of changing American society into their socialist utopia. :-)
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Come on Daver, you aren't that ignorant! Most liberals are religious, liberalism does not inherently dislike religion, and if one is liberal they do not want to turn anything into socialism.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Remember Daver, Genericname did not call you an ignorant person.... he just said you aren't that ignorant are you? LOL, these hypocrites are something amazing.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Actually, I said that he ISN'T, not that he is. I know for a fact he isn't ignorant, as I have told him multiple times.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

I apologize, I just realized I said "that ignorant", it should have been simply "you aren't ignorant".
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

x_xI really hope that you're being sarcastic .
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Except via Due Process and Equal Protections, they do have the right to change our marriage laws, that way they get equal treatment.They do not have a lifestyle, they have a sexual orientation.Many people have given you evidence that homosexuality exists in nature.People working for civil equality for gays are not bent on demonizing Christians. Most progressives are Christian (most people of any political stripe in this country are).The left is not indoctrinating people to think it is normal, they simply have opinions that differ from yours. Their goal has nothing to do with the bible, it has to do with civil equality for others.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

The Bible is clear on Homosexuality being a sin and a perversion. The Bible does not speak to anyone's special rights. No group gets special mention like Gays get in our Liberal media.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

"No group gets special mention like Gays get in our Liberal media" You mean the special mention to be treated the exact same as everyone else?
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

I am not saying the bible is bad because that would clearly be an offensive remark towards somone besides which I'm most cases i belive is wrong however it is no ones matter whether you like somone the same or different as you. Imagine a world where everyone was gay and you were different. How would you feel if you were called a sinner because of how you were born or forced to marry somone who you are not at all attracted to
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

I don't believe in homosexuality. These people that say they were born gay, weren't. What happened is that they were either molested as a child or when they were infants their parents would let anyone hold them and those who held the new infant may have passed on a spirit to the child, as Satan does pray on young ones. So, Lesbians, Gays, Homosexuals, Transies, you were not born that way, you just have a homosexual spirit on you, the Sucubus and Incubus. There is a reason why women and man were created and there is also a reason why a woman and a man can produce a child during sexual intercourse. Those who teach homosexuality is okay and The Most High loves you, are lying to you because G-d hates sinners (Psalm 11:5, Psalm 5:5-6), he hates homosexuality and it's an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), which is worse than sin.1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.{Even though this is talking about adultery, it is clearly saying that a man should have his own wife and woman should have her own husband. It does not say to avoid fornication let a man have his own husband or wife, and let every woman have her own husband or wife.}Sodom and Gomorrah all over again.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

That's the problem. People change Scriptural doctrine to match up with modern day. That can't be done because it's adding and taking away from the The Most High's Word. Those who teach homosexuality is okay are false prophets. If you are a believer in The Most High and you believe homosexuality is okay, your living a lie. Every word of The Most High is true. Those who see what Scripture says, and knows what it says, and chose to ignore it, are wicked.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

And most countries in this world are secular. That means they don't care about God. Go stone your children when they disobey you.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Great, that's your perogative, go back to the pits of hell where you were unleashed from :)
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

As I said to another dispute, evolution in any context is a theory.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

But a scientific theory is not a theory in the form you are meaning it to be.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Huh? That doesn't make any sense... Can you please clarify?
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

Normal definition of theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."Definition of a scientific theory: "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."You were using the word theory within its colloquial usage, but when it comes to scientific topics, theory has a different (and much stronger) definition that gives said theories more weight and legitimacy.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

Okay, either way a theory or scientific theory falls short of a scientific law which is what I'm looking for.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

But that is fairly unreasonable to expect in the overwhelming majority of topics.http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/ when-does-theory-become-law This website might help you understand what I mean.
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Against Gay Rights

I don't think it's unreasonable in this context or under this topic...
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

I'm guessing my edit didn't get through in time. The reason I say it is unreasonable is covered in this link:http://thehappyscientist.com/study-unit/ when-does-theory-become-law
Debate: Gay Rights (In the Bible)
Side: Pro Gay Rights

And I just read the original post so I'm refuting anything I've disputed under this post because that guy is ignorant.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Zimmerman screwed up and should not have killed Trayvon. He could have easily avoided the situation, and caused it to escalate in such a way that he needed to defend himself. Unfortunately, though he didn't actually break the law, so he should be found not guilty by the court.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Why did you vote yes and then argue against yourself?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

I believe that he wrongfully killed someone. I think Trayvon was defending himself, and Zimmerman defended himself from Trayvon defending himself. So, I feel Zimmerman is guilty, but according to law he is not.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

I'm not so sure. They found Zimmerman with a beaten up face, grass strains up the entire back of Zimmerman's clothing and only grass stains on Martin's knees. This means that Martin was almost undoubtedly straddeling Zimmerman and beating him up. I dont see anywhere in this scenario where Zimmerman posed a threat to Treyvon. I dont thing what Zimmerman did was totally called for, but still.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Imagine this. It is almost completely dark out. A person comes to you asking what's up. You say "what", dude back off what are you doing. They approach you even more. You feel threatened, a scuffle happens. During this scuffle you feel that the person has a weapon; you reach for it because you're scared they will use it on you. Scuffle. The other person grabs the weapon and shoots you. Who's at fault?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

A "scuffle"? In a scuffle both parties are attacking equally and not that intensely. In this case Treyvon was on top of Zimmerman pounding him in the chest and face!! That isnt a scuffle! And if you feel threatened, you should run away or call the police, not engage the assailant.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Which one of the 2 called the police before he intentionally confronted and killed the other? Zimmerman was completely safe when he called the police. He had no injuries. Then he ignored what the dispatcher said and went after Treyvon. We have no idea what Zimmerman did to cause Treyvon to beat him so badly, but I am operating on the assumption that Treyvon was provoked.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Well it was found that Zimmerman had a 10 piece krispy bucket when he approached Treyvon so id say youre right .
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

It is clear Zimmerman approached Martin first. How do I know this? Zimmerman called 911 to let them know that he's been watching Martin. Almost simultaneously, Martin tells a girl on the phone "I think someone is watching me." (The girl says this as proof while Martin is walking he is on the phone with this person) Zimmerman says "I'm going to follow him", the dispatcher tells Zimmerman "You do not need to that." < - - This is obvious proof that Zimmerman acted on his own, without the consent of 911 dispatcher; following Martin, Martin was not following Zimmerman. Sure, this is not a crime. Moving on... No one knows who started the fight. However, in this case, I believe the evidence points to Zimmermans' approaching of Martin makes Zimmerman the one "who started this whole mess", that Zimmerman was the instigator. No following, no approach, no death. You keep pointing out that Martin was "on top" of Zimmerman, which means Zimmerman bit off more than he could chew, probably started the fight, then was getting his ass beat by Martin. During this scuffle, yes a fucking scuffle, Martin probably felt the gun on Zimmerman, and that's when Martin probably got scared and "reached" for the gun, prompting Zimmerman to open fire on him. Had Zimmerman not had a gun, I bet Martin would have given Zimmerman more of a beating, but I digress, that hindsight. Martin probably didn't call the police because he was already on the phone, and things escalated quickly I imagine. Martin probably didn't run away because he wanted to "stand his ground" (Florida self defense comes into play, obviously) against the approaching Zimmerman. Zimmerman might have gotten beat up, but Martin received a fatal gunshot wound, this is lopsided. Zimmerman did not have to approach Martin in such a way he did. I bet if Zimmerman had from afar said, "Hey, man, what are you doing? I'm the neighborhood watch, just making sure everything's okay.", the situation would have been a lot different. I bet Zimmerman barely IDed himself, approached Martin, Martin felt threatened, and the rest is history. The whole situation is fucked up and Zimmerman had a responsibility and he fucked up by A. Not listening to 911 dispatchers. B. Approaching Martin in an aggressive manner (Why else would Martin feel threatened?) and C. Not properly identifying himself as a Neighborhood Watchmen/Wannabe Cop.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

You are still contradicting yourself. Wrongfully killing someone is against the law.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

I am saying that under the circumstances Zimmerman is saved by his self defense story. I think it is a lack of evidence, and not actual innocence.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Why? Isn't he innocent until he is proven guilty?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Not to me. I am not the one who punishes him. I can decide whether I think he is guilty independently.I think we are violating Trayvon's right to self defense. I don't see how Trayvon could have possible started beating Zimmerman without being prompted by Zimmerman. Trayvon was acting in self defense.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Then you don't know or understand how self defense works. If Martin thought that he was being attacked he could have run, he could have called 911 himself or he could have knocked on a door for help. There is no way that Zimmerman could have caught up with him unless he wanted him to. It's clear that he thought he could pull Zimmerman's punk card and he got himself killed instead.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Ok, so what you are saying is that it is self defense when the latino defends himself, but if a black guy defends himself he had other options. Just kidding, unless you actually do feel that way.I don't think you know how self defense works. Because it works both ways. We know for a fact that Zimmerman knew Trayvon was there. We don't know how Trayvon was able to position himself in such a way that he was able to start beating up Zimmerman, but we do know for a fact the Zimmerman could have avoided Trayvon. What if Trayvon was literally being attacked, not just thought he was being attacked? Let's say Zimmerman shoved him from behind. If he gets a good punch in, he can defend himself. Or should he run away and call the police. Just remember, the only one of them who did call the police refused to back down and run away.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

The evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked before he fired his weapon in self defense. The evidence does not show Zimmerman attacked first. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend and said some guy was following him. That shows that Martin had the time to call 911, to run away from the confrontation or to knock on a door for help. He made the choice to confront or to be confronted and it cost him his life.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

He said he was being followed, then the phone went dead. That's not enough time to dial 911, let alone finish the call to them.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

I'm saying he could have called 911 to report that he was being followed instead of calling his girlfriend to tell her he was being followed.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Dude, he was already on the phone minding his own business like his killer should have been doing.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Or, he was telling his girlfriend about how he's about to go on the offense because he doesn't like being followed by the neighborhood watch.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Now who's being the idiot?Why are you defending Zimmerman? He killed an innocent kid. Now you are disparaging the victim to make this guy look better, Is it just because you feel that Zimmerman has a right to self defense, or is it that you believe that Trayvon is not a great person and Zimmerman is a better person to support on a personal level?
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

Zimmerman doesn't need my defense, the evidence and testimony so far shows that he acted in self defense. I thought that you agreed with me that he is innocent until proven guilty. Character counts but I'm not attacking Martins character when I give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and agree that it looks like Martin attacked first. Zimmerman's injuries seem to support that claim.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

Character counts but I'm not attacking Martins character when I give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and agree that it looks like Martin attacked first. You were giving him the benefit of the doubt. Then you moved into attacking Trayvon saying that he knew that Zimmerman was neighborhood watch. That's all.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

You misread what I wrote. Martin didn't like being followed period. It happened to be the neighborhood crime watch. I didn't intend for you to take that to mean that he "knew" it was the neighborhood crime watch.
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: No

No, you miswrote what you meant. He just didn't like being followed at all, just like Zimmerman doesn't like black guys with hoods in his neighborhood
Debate: George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Side: Yes

There is a point of contention about who started the fight first, with no clear or definate evidence supporting one side or another. However, the police told george to let them handle trayvon, which he chose to ignore and instead confronted him. That stupid "neighborhood watch patrol" attitude of his played a large part in what happened next. He should have left if for the cops to handle.