azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

A lot of people who would disagree with this seem racist (or "religionist", I suppose) against Muslims. Let me tell you that 9/11 was not caused by every single Muslim. It was an attack against our nation, orchestrated by an extremely radical group of Muslims. Not every Muslim is a terrorist!
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

or "religionist", I supposeAnti-Semitic is the proper word.Let me tell you that 9/11 was not caused by every single Muslim.Of course not, there's too many of them rat bastards!It was an attack against our nation, orchestrated by an extremely radical group of Muslims. Not every Muslim is a terrorist!Prove both claims; that is, prove that not all Muslims are terrorists and prove that Muslims were even involved in 9/11.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Anti-Semitism refers to Jews only.And to prove that not all Muslims are terrorists is simple. Go to a mosque in the US and meet one. They're Americans just like us. When the Nazis were on rampage throughout Europe, we didn't single out Germans (specifically Aryans). And maybe that's because they never attacked our soil. But what about the Japanese? They bombed Pearl Harbor and we turned around and imprisoned countless Japanese-Americans in internment camps. We imprisoned innocent Japanese people simply because other Japanese people were our enemies.If you want to block all citizens of those Arabian nations from entering our country, that'd be one thing. But treating fellow Americans like that is unconstitutional. Whatever happened to the freedom of religion?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Anti-Semitism refers to Jews only.You do realize that Arabs are Semites, and that Muslims believe that Muhammed was descended from Ishmael, the first son of Abraham with his wife's Egyptian [slave?], Hagar?Go to a mosque in the US and meet one.What would that prove? They can say anything they like, that doesn't mean it's the truth.When the Nazis were on rampage throughout Europe, we didn't single out Germans (specifically Aryans). Maybe we should have? Down with the Krauts!And maybe that's because they never attacked our soil.They most likely would have, if only Britain didn't stand in their way.They bombed Pearl Harbor and we turned around and imprisoned countless Japanese-Americans in internment camps.That was a good idea, most likely. It could easily have saved countless true-American lives, rather than the recent-immigrants.If you want to block all citizens of those Arabian nations from entering our country, that'd be one thing. If they treat us horribly, why shouldn't we treat them in a similar fashion? Non-Muslims can't even enter Mecca.But treating fellow Americans like that is unconstitutional.They're immigrants! They aren't 'fellow Americans', they're foreigners with some naturalization papers.Whatever happened to the freedom of religion?Freedom of just about anything went out when political correctness came in (oh, and when we were attacked!).
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

"If they treat us horribly, why shouldn't we treat them in a similar fashion? Non-Muslims can't even enter Mecca."Well in this case, Mecca is a religious city and they're allowed to govern their province however they want. New York City, however, is a completely secular city and, because of this, should allow people from any religion or race to live, work, or vacation there."They're immigrants! They aren't 'fellow Americans', they're foreigners with some naturalization papers."So were your ancestors. All of our first ancestors in the country (except for Native Americans) were just "foreigners with naturalization papers." That's what makes America so amazing- is that we can all come together and accept other cultures.And if there's one thing in this world I cannot stand, it's political correctness. People have to learn that it's impossible to say something without offending someone, so just learn to accept that and get on with your life! ;) (That's a general 'you', not specifically you)
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

So were your ancestors.Yet, after fifteen generations, my family is firmly rooted in America. Most Moslims are still first-generationers.All of our first ancestors in the country (except for Native Americans) were just "foreigners with naturalization papers."As were the Natives, except they didn't have naturalization papers; things were much, much simpler back then.And if there's one thing in this world I cannot stand, it's political correctness.Good for you, that's why your a terrific ally.People have to learn that it's impossible to say something without offending someone, so just learn to accept that and get on with your life! ;)How could I possibly get on with my life after having insulted one person out of 6,700,000,000?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Well in this case, Mecca is a religious city and they're allowed to govern their province however they want. New York City, however, is a completely secular city and, because of this, should allow people from any religion or race to live, work, or vacation there.You're missing the point. Sharia and Muslim law are hostile towards secularism. The spirit of secularism is that every religion is equal through separation from government privilege. Sharia (and Islam) demand privilege and government entanglement, there can be no equality with this religion because every other religion is wrong, and of Satan to it.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

If you want to block all citizens of those Arabian nations from entering our country, that'd be one thing. But treating fellow Americans like that is unconstitutional. Whatever happened to the freedom of religion?This isn't a matter of freedom of religion. Muslims are allowed to worship freely. This is a matter of deeply offending the relatives of some 3000 citizens who lost their lives because of a religion that the mosque endorses, with the mosque's erection being a political statement.Don't let hubris get in the way of tactical politics.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Ultimately, you have to understand that 9/11 was not committed by Islam.No one here is arguing that it is. Followers of Islam perpetrated that crime, in the name of their god.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

And yet somehow, their individual actions which they took as a result of their radical beliefs -beliefs which make up an extreme minority among muslims- reflect on every single other follower of Islam as a whole.Right.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

And yet somehow, their individual actions which they took as a result of their radical beliefs -beliefs which make up an extreme minority among muslims- reflect on every single other follower of Islam as a whole.That IS how a religion works. More exactly, it's how a shared belief structure works. If you are a Nazi, the actions of men like Adolf Hitler reflect on you. If you are a communist, men like Mao, Castro and Stalin reflect on you.It's this way because the beliefs which the extremists acted upon are shared in a central text, that everyone else follows.It's a politically incorrect truth, which is probably why so many liberals take the position of "extremists don't speak for everyone."
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

I think I've found your problem. Extremists are called extremists AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR VIEWS BEING MORE EXTREME THAN THOSE OF THE AVERAGE PRACTITIONER. By calling them extremists, you admit that their views do no reflect those of the whole BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION. If every single muslim were out bombing buildings, then we wouldn't call the attackers extremists. We would call them "muslims" with no need for further identification, because they would be the norm.But this is not the case. While islam itself is admittedly an archaic religion with great potential for violent interpretation, the vast majority of its followers are not inclined to terrorism. The church being planned has no direct ties to terrorism. Your claims that it is only being built as an insult is baseless speculation. As such, we have no legal right to prevent the church from being built, regardless of how disgusting the religion of islam may be.Are you starting to get where I'm coming from here? I don't want the goddamn church. I don't particularly want any churches, muslim or otherwise. But constitutionally, we can't let our biases get in the way of the law.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

"It perplexes me why you feel the need to defend the religion where if it was "just" an ideology like Nazism or Fascism I'm fairly confident that you'd condemn it for what it leads people to do."I don't defend the religion at all. I defend its legal right to exist , if not its moral right - in much the same way that I believe that the KKK and neo-nazi parties have the right to exist, if not undertake illegal action based on their disgusting beliefs. Honestly, I'm against building the church - what bothers me is the faulty logic being used to justify opposing it.>"Since the base of the ideology stays the same with the distinction being between sects, using words like extreme, average or moderate only would indicate a magnitude of propensity to trust the ideology and to act on it. It does not change the underlying beliefs."Granted. But no matter how much you play with words, the fact remains that the vast majority of muslims do not fall into the category of extremist, and as such should not be discriminated against.">"Where did the beliefs of those who flew a plane into the World Trade Center come from, ultimately? The Quran. What is a mosque? A shrine to the Quran. It boils down to this, no matter how much you feel we need to appease those Muslims by letting them defile a memory in the name of tolerance, they are building a temple to a book that inspired the 9/11 attacks."Here's another problem you have with connections: You boil them down too much. Just because A and B are related, and B and C are related, does not mean that A and C are related. It's like rectangles and squares. In practice: Just because the bombers (a) followed the quran (b)and those building the mosque (c) followed the quran (b) does not in and of itself imply that there is any connection between the mosque and the bombers.I play video games. The Virginia Tech shooter played video games. Am I going to shoot up my school?>"This is a zoning issue. The community around a proposed building has the right to protest it if they collectively agree it damages the neighborhood in some way."And how does it damage the neighborhood? So far your only argument was that it would offend the survivors. Which means that by not protesting, the locals have proved that they are not offended. Which means that, without the guise of moral outrage, you no longer have any legal reason to oppose the building.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Do you see no hubris in defending the right of something to exist which has imperalistic overtones and would try to destroy your freedom-loving society?I can't quote your paragraphs by the way, on this device, so bear with the broken paragraphs.I'm not using wordplay, I see it as an important aspect of religion and authoritarian ideology that a central book which holds the details of all beliefs that members are expected to hold, can only mean that regardless of quantifier every member may become extreme to docile or the other way around, with the same overall beliefs. This means that asking me to grant a pardon to moderates is useless in the long term because they are ticking timebombs, ripe for conversion to extremism with the proper environment. This is afterall how terrorists are born in a number of countries, they are recruited as moderates with fliers, often a money reward to the family is promised. Then they are indocrinated. This is entirely possible in the US in the poor urban ghettos. This is what makes Islam presently so horrific.As for my boiling down, you missed the point I believe. I wasn't saying that the mosque is tied to the bombers in a physical sense. I was saying that they share the same ideology, the difference only in magnitude. I don't understand why I must point out the obvious here for how it is so very wrong to endorse the ideology of people who bomb civilians right near the attack site. If these people cared for the victims they would build elsewhere. How would it look if Americans built a military celebration memorial right at the site of Hiroshima?About the protests, people did protest the building. Their pleas were ignored. I expect that if the victims of the 9/11 attacks had brown skin or a foreign religion that promises death to those who disrespect it, their voices would have been heard. After all, that's what political correctness is getting us right now.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

"Do you see no hubris in defending the right of something to exist which has imperalistic overtones and would try to destroy your freedom-loving society?"Do you not see the hubris in stooping to repression in order to defend freedom?>"How would it look if Americans built a military celebration memorial right at the site of Hiroshima?"That's a faulty analogy. They're not praising the terrorists, or pissing over the bodies of the slain. They're BUILDING A FUCKING CHURCH.>"This means that asking me to grant a pardon to moderates is useless in the long term because they are ticking timebombs, ripe for conversion to extremism with the proper environment."So to you, every muslim is a potential terrorist.You know, that actually clears things up. See, you know that sinking feeling you get when you realize the person you've been arguing with is a xenophobic nutcase, and that all the time you spent was essentially wasted?I just got that feeling.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Do you not see the hubris in stooping to repression in order to defend freedom?Freedom cannot exist without protection. Think of a society like an organism, if it has no barriers or immune system it will succumb to pathogens.That's a faulty analogy. They're not praising the terrorists, or pissing over the bodies of the slain. They're BUILDING A FUCKING CHURCH.A building which supports the same book that served as the source by which the terrorist ideology could manifest.The analogy is correct because the military memorial is being built by people who, to borrow your reasoning, didn't bomb the Japanese (it was the bomber pilots who did), and do not necessarily agree with the bombing, they have no link to the bombers and are merely praising the military of America. Further they would be within their rights to construct it, or is Japan now arbitrarily stifling free speech and expression? To go even further using your reasoning, because they are committing no crime, stopping them from from erecting this memorial would undermine Japan's liberty.So to you, every muslim is a potential terrorist.Right. Just as every Nazi, skinhead, and Klan member is potentially liable for a hate crime.You know, that actually clears things up. See, you know that sinking feeling you get when you realize the person you've been arguing with is a xenophobic nutcase, and that all the time you spent was essentially wasted?I just got that feeling.Don't take your problem with me. Read some of the Quran. Stop buying into the PR campaign by American Muslims which says that the Quran doesn't preach intolerance or hate, misogyny etc. READ THE BLOODY BOOK YOURSELF and see that it is a very scary ideology. Of course if you just wish to live in a world where we can co-exist with an ideology that seeks to overtake the west and destroy secular society, and its adherents would sooner become atheist than militant, go ahead and call people nutcases. I won't be able to help with your delusion though.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

I don't care, and neither should the relatives of those who died there. A mosque shouldn't be associated with their deaths in such a way that it makes building a mosque offensive, and even if it is such: so what? Having the mosque there doesn't violate rights, its not in the realm of law to deny the building of it.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

I suppose I don't really understand the opposing side here. For what reason would we circumvent local law? I assume the mosque has already been cleared with zoning and safety regulations, and so forth. As long as they are complying with the law, we are only allowing them to do what everybody else in this country has a right to do. Are they merely spiting Muslims out of prejudice? Do they hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a sectarian radical group that attacked the twin towers? I don't really see any logical argument to deny such a structure.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

I suppose I don't really understand the opposing side here. For what reason would we circumvent local law? I assume the mosque has already been cleared with zoning and safety regulations, and so forth. As long as they are complying with the law, we are only allowing them to do what everybody else in this country has a right to do. The issue is that nine years ago Muslim terrorists (in the name of Allah) killed 3000 civilians nearby, as in close proximity to the proposed mosque. Further the Mosque is named Cordoba, after a previous province that was a capital of Muslim rule 1000 years ago.It is perceived as insensitive to promote a religion which condones conquest, intolerance and allows for terrorism near the site of victims of said terrorism.The reaction is similar to what you might get if you zoned a Neonazi fellowship building in Jerusalem or a Zyklon B factory on top of the old concentration camps Austria and Germany.Are they merely spiting Muslims out of prejudice? Do they hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a sectarian radical group that attacked the twin towers? I don't really see any logical argument to deny such a structure.It's not prejudice. It's being offended at something that is intended to be as provocative as possible. The construction of said mosque is designed to be offensive to the memory of the victims of those attacks, that is why the mosque was built so close to the site of the attacks.You need to look deeper into the construction of this building, the motivations behind it. They are not benevolent or innocent. It's like you're being slapped in the face and you're just looking at the fact that no laws prohibit this.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Maybe so, but do you not see the problem with blaming an entire religion of some 1.6 billion people for the actions of a small radical group within that religion? It is difficult for me to reason that prejudice is not playing some role in your response. Yes, the attack was done in the name of Islam, but not all of Islam condoned the attack. This would be the equivalent of blaming all white people for the actions of the KKK or blaming all Christians for the actions of Fred Phelps. It's sheer absurdity.Islam uses the Hadith and Quran as the ultimate authority. The Quran condones terrorism, because it is legitimised as destroying unbelievers who attacked and insulted Muslims (because we support Israel and are in war in Afghanistan and Iraq). The beliefs and actions of the terrorists were not made up from unrelated material to Islam.The correct analogy is to use a group assembled by ideology. This isn't a matter of race, so using it is a flawed analogy. Islam is a form of ideology, a belief structure, with divisions based on interpretation. They are required share similar beliefs, just like in Christianity, and the Quran is their authority. Because the Quran condones violence and intolerance it doesn't matter if we're talking about radicals who perpetrate the violence, or believers who are intolerant or merely unaware of the Quran's deeper theology, because a mosque endorses the Quran.To use a parallel you might understand, imagine that Nazi radicals massacre a village of Jews then ten years later try to construct a tributary and study centre for Mein Kampf near the site of the massacre. These new Nazis didn't massacre anyone, and by your reasoning should be allowed to construct it because to deny them the right would be based on prejudice. They merely wish to promote the teachings of Mein Kampf.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Any religious text written thousands of years ago is going to have some bad things in it. The old testament commands us to stone disobedient children to death, although we don't see very many Jews doing this. Why? Because no one is forced to follow every single thing their religion teaches, and in fact most people don't. People have minds of their own. Sometimes they invent excuses for why they don't follow a certain part of their holy book.You are blaming all Muslims for what a few have done. This reminds me of when a friend of mine, who was born in Germany, but lived most of her life in the States, was physically attacked by the grand-daughter of a holocaust survivor. She automatically associated all Germans with Nazis, just as you automatically associate all Muslims with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.We must not build any churches near a moment to the Jim Jones massacre victims, despite the fact that the Jim Jones church was radically different than mainstream churches.