azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

All we have to do is follow the Constitution, but of course those on the left hate the Constitution because it is based on Christian principles of individual liberty and freedom
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Says the guy who hates demonstrated a hatred of the 14th Amendment over and over. How hypocritical.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

you do realize most people on the left are Christians
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

All we have to do is follow the ConstitutionIn other words, you believe that whatever was believed a couple hundred years ago is correct, regardless of changes in society and mustn't be deviated from? The Constitution originally allowed for slavery and kept rights away from women. Are you in favor of these activities?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

http://eaglerising.com/18303/is-the-supreme-court-supreme-who-gets-the-final-say/ As Thomas Jefferson noted in an 1804 letter to Abigail Adams:You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it: because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. That instrument [the Constitution] meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. 1Indeed, Mr. Jefferson. And that is exactly what has happened.So, according to the Founding Fathers, there was no final or supreme arbiter of the Constitution. Each branch of the civil government had the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of its action within its own sphere. The President was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of enforcement. The Supreme Court was final arbiter of the constitutionality of its judicial decisions. And Congress was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of its laws. And the states could challenge the constitutionality of any of the general branches. This was necessary to check despotic power.Perhaps Ben Carson didn’t word his statement very precisely, but the effect of what he is saying is constitutionally and historically sound.We can see that judicial supremacy, in direct contradiction to the original intent of the Constitution, has become so accepted as to be a commonplace. It’s apparently taught in Civics 101. In spite of the fact that it is completely unconstitutional. And teaching it as fact is an Orwellian distortion of history. Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s also destructive to this nation. The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done. This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

So, according to the Founding Fathers, there was no final or supreme arbiter of the Constitution. No, according to one founding father that is the case.Each branch of the civil government had the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of its action within its own sphere. The President was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of enforcement.What a wonderful recipe for executive abuse. The idea of Bush or Obama being the ones to determine which of their actions are or are not constitutional is downright horrifying.The Supreme Court was final arbiter of the constitutionality of its judicial decisions.Considering how the Supreme Court only rules on matters of Constitutionality, that is hilariously redundant.And Congress was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of its laws.Yet again, ripe for abuse. That would mean that Congress could go ahead and disarm the United States populace, 2nd Amendment be damned, so long as they declared it constitutional. A very scary thought.Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s also destructive to this nation. The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done. This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.Declaring it unconstitutional does not make it so. The only argument you have provided are the private correspondence of one singular Founding Father, one whom ran into many disagreements with other founders.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

You really show why liberals are such ignorant peopleIt is evident you do not understand what you are reading, maybe the words are to big for you Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s also destructive to this nation. The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done. This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

You really show why liberals are such ignorant peopleComing from the guy who has been told time and time again that the person he is talking to is not liberal. Ironic.It is evident you do not understand what you are reading, maybe the words are to big for you I do understand what I am reading, actually. Now stop acting so petulant and try to have a legitimate conversation, please.Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional.No, it isn't. It isn't in the constitution, but it doesn't go against the constitution. If anything, it is extra-constitutional . It’s also destructive to this nation. I disagree. If it weren't for the Supreme Court, states would still be allowed to outlaw personal behavior such as homosexuality, my wife and I would not be legally allowed to get married in many states (thanks, Loving v. Virginia), etc.The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done. Nope. It just decides if something someone has done is Unconstitutional.This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.In your opinion. To other people, it hasn't.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Yes, a true free society will have no smoking or drinking age. How did the American youth manage to survive without the government micromanaging our lives before 1984.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Are you aware of what alchol, drugs and cigarettes can do to a human body?It dosen't kill it, it destroys it. Those youth in the 80' had a blast back then, but a third of them are paying for it right now.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

I could less what alcohol drugs and cigarettes can do to the human body. It is more about the freedom to choice and freedom of body, and the youth of 1980's should have to pay for that choice in paying the health costs, so that when people see the higher health costs come out of their own pocket, not someone's pocket, then free people willfully decide not to consume these products. All of this can be voluntary action, but no ideas of coercion appear to be working since people still drink and smoke.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

When you're smoking and drinking, you are causing not only your own body damage, but also others.If my boyfriend smokes when Im with him, he can cause me a lot of diseases.Drinking have killed millions of people, who didn't even drink themselves.One thing is driving drunk.I know you probably say, that you don't do these things, but you can't allow just SOME people to smoke and drink.If it was up to me, both cigarettes and drinking should be banned at all age.Not becouse I don't want people to have fun or freedom, no. I want the freedom too, but as long as people keep drinking and smoking, I don't have it, no one has it.Cuz cigarettes and alcohol is addicting, you're forced to do something. Do you call that freedom? Then your freedom is very weird sorry to say.So while you're having your so called 'freedom' others are suffering from it.Alchololics suffer. The children of the alcoholics are suffering. If you really think, that drinking and smoking is just affecting you, then think again.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

When you're smoking and drinking, you are causing not only your own body damage, but also others.Forcing people into doing things that they are voluntarily unwilling to do also damages others because there will be resistance.If my boyfriend smokes when Im with him, he can cause me a lot of diseases.Weak links between those.If it was up to me, both cigarettes and drinking should be banned at all age.When drinking was banned, it only created the most notorious gangster, Al Capone, in the crime era of Prohibition, and now created the drug cartels in Mexico and United States.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Forcing people into doing things that they are voluntarily unwilling to do also damages others because there will be resistance.What exactly are you talking about?When drinking was banned, it only created the most notorious gangster, Al Capone, in the crime era of Prohibition, and now created the drug cartels in Mexico and United States.So.. ?At least they're keeping it away from me and others who are trying to get 'freedom' from smoke.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

What exactly are you talking about?People won't do someone if they don't want to. The Afghan hate being told what to do by the US government, so they rebel with suicide bombers.At least they're keeping it away from me and others who are trying to get 'freedom' from smoke.You would rather have more dead bodies than people getting high. That is seriously and incredibly stupid.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

You would rather have more dead bodies than people getting high. That is seriously and incredibly stupid.I really don't get what you're saying here, cuz I don't remember saying I wanted anyone dead.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

hmmm... this is not proven yet so it is not a resonable argument yet
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Try to read my argument on the No side, I wrote a loong argumentThose things Im writing about there are proven, and yes. That tobacco is destroying a human body has been proved.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

If it was shown that cell phones cause brain tumors do you think it should be unlawful to possess one? Why do you think the government should outlaw every conceivable hazard to yourself? Do you think the role of government should include protecting you from yourself?
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

If cellphones caused me tumors, no it shouldn't be banned.When you smoke, you don't only cause yourself harm. You cause everyone around har. Thats why it should be banned.If cellphones could give you tumors, everyone should be aware of that.But I hardly doubt, that if I use a cellphone, that I will cause any harm to others around me.But if it was shown that cellphones cause tumors, then I think there should be an age limit to get one of those too.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Yes, but if cellphones cause tumors, then WHY they cause tumors would be important. If it's the cellphonic rays that are emitted from a cellphone, then all cellphone towers would have to immediately be shutdown. You could not even be in the country side, because if those cellphonic waves hit you, BAM. Tumors.Regarding second hand smoke- if you don't like it, stay away from people who do. If I want freedom to do something, and you want to take it away, then that's simply not fair for me. If you want to avoid smoke and drinking, then don't go to bars or hang out with people who do that stuff.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

If you don't like to be killed, stay away from murderers.Seriously that sounds so stupid to me.. stand away from smokers.First of all (I'm not completely sure, but I saw on the news, that cellphones do not cause tumors, but that's not the point here) If cellphones caused tumors, it would only affect you, and the person you're talking too.You both have the freedom to not call, or not to answer the phone. If you do, and you get a tumor, it is your responsibility.When you get lung cancer, COL or asthma or some other disease of smoking, it is also your own responisbility.If you get one of those smokers diseases because your parents smoked in your house .. then you were forced to live in a house full of smoke.That is not fair to anyone.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

I did not say "killed" I said breath in smoke. You can easily tell who smokes and who doesn't, because unlike a murderer who could be anyone, a smoker probably carries around cigarettes. The difference is huge, and the fact that you even compared smoking and murder makes me not want to even finish typing this.I am against smoking. I think it's gross and makes you smell bad. That's why I don't hang out with smokers.If parents smoke, it is sad and unfortunate, but I would not try to force people to not smoke.Perhaps making a law forbidding parents with children under 18 to not smoke would be reasonable, but to prevent a single adult from smoking on his own time because you feel you are morally correct is only taking away his freedom.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Why is smoking so far away from murder?Are you aware of how many have died because of second hand smoking?Children living in their parent's home, where the parents smoked inside. Leading the children to die of either cancer or some other disease?
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Can you find more than 500 cases where children developed cancer and died solely due to their parents smoking?I ask for 500 cases because although I doubt you could even find 50, and even 500 is barely a dent in the population, it would provide evidence for what you are claiming.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Wow.. that is the most stupidest question I've ever heard.Are you seriously asking for proof of that poeple die of second hand smoking?Some people are more sensitive than others you know? Some facts I found on google (if they're true or not I don't know) say that one out of 100 people die from second hand smoke every year.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Well, that's just it.You don't know if they're true, there are no statistics, there is really nothing but your uninformed opinion.I already said it would be reasonable to ban parents with children under 18 from smoking.Yet, you want to remove that right from all people, which I think is unreasonable and despotic.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

And again, I do not find it stupid to ask for proof. 500 cases of this is not unreasonable. With a population of at least 5 million kids, with 10% or so of the parents smoking, that would lead to a LOT more than 500 cases. Yes, sensitive people exist. What should I do about it? Should I stop swearing and wear a mask in case they find my face offensive?Should I abandon being an atheist because it might insult people who believe in the supernatural? Should I just bow down to every person who says I shouldn't do something because it might hurt other people? Did you know that breathing produced CO2? That's a deadly gas. Perhaps we should all stop breathing as well, in case someone chokes on my breath.My point is I couldn't care less if my second hand smoke, smoke that either lingers in my own house that I own with my money, or smoke that blows away and dissipates in the breeze if I'm outside makes someone 5 feet from me cough. Either move upwind or stay away. I don't even smoke. I do that. I stay away from people who smoke because I find it gross and smelly. I would NEVER dream of taking away their right to do it though.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

I am really surprised you think that there are less than 500 incidents of people dying of second hand smoking.If you know that less about smoke, then I think we should stop right here.Yet, you want to remove that right from all people, which I think is unreasonable and despotic.I want to remove the right from parents to destroy their children's lungs. Thats what I'm trying to do.When do you think we have freedom? Is it when alcohol, marijuana and whatever you can come up with is legalized without age limit?How is that freedom. How is it freedom to be forced to live in a smoke that kills you. I don't understand you people.. to become a free country, legalize everything. Legalize murder, legalize robbery.. as long as you feel free, who cares about others?
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

Are you aware of what cars, sharp objects, and paracetamol can do to your body?They can destroy it. The youth right now are having a blast of a time, and in 30 years we'll have good memories and stories to tell. Do you think we should never have fun in case we hurt ourselves?You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

What I don't like about cigarettes, alcohol and drugs is, that it doesn't always cause only yourself harm.Are you aware of how many people die because of these things, without doing any of them themselves?Are you aware of how many innocent victims died because of some drunk driver? It wasn't their fault, they didn't drink.Are you aware of how many people struggle today, whit asthma, COL, lung cancer and several other diseases, because their parents smoked in the house?The people who have diseases from smoking, they didn't all smoke by themselves. Someone smoked for them.When you smoke, you only get about 30% of whats in a cigarette in to your own body. the rest goes in to the air, for others to breathe.Can you see why I hate these three things so much?If I drank and it only would cause myself damage, I wouldn't say anything about it. Then I think everyone should be allowed to do all of them. But that's not the way it is.But I didn't really get if you were supporting or disputing me.You say you support, but I can' figure it out :o)
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Are you aware of how many people die from crossing the road? Do you know how many people have been hit by sober drivers?Yeah, parents shouldn't smoke near their kids. Simple solution: smoke outside.When you smoke, you only get about 30% of whats in a cigarette in to your own body. the rest goes in to the air, for others to breathe.I have no idea where you got that statistic from, but there seems to be some strange rumour going round that second hand smoke is actually worse for you than smoking. This is clearly a load of bollocks. If that was true, hardly anyone would have to buy cigarettes, they'd just stand around some other person with a fag.If you don't want to breath in second hand smoke don't stand next to someone who is smoking it really is that simple.So, to recap: People crash cars whilst drunk. People will also crash whilst sober, and the majority of people, believe it or not, are not retarded enough to drive whilst drunk.Second hand smoke has a small effect on those breathing it in. Don't stand next to smokers.Don't ban everyone from having fun just because you don't want to.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: NO

I doubt you've ever touched alcohol in your lifeyour doubt is wrong.I'm not standing here and telling you about stuff I don't know anything about.Yes, I'm not 3Then stop acting like one ;) just kidding.Only ten percent of long term smokers actually get lung cancer.Lung cancer is not your biggest fear when it comes to smoking.You ever heard of a disease called COL?8 out of 10 patients who have COL are smokers.COL stands for chronicle obstructive lung disease.It means, that you're lung is working like an old hair elastic. You know about those? If you're a girl you probably do.See, hair elastics, they're strong. If you stretch them out, they stretch in again with no problem.When you have used it for a while, their strength becomes weaker and weaker, and suddenly, when you stretch the hair elastic out, it won't in again.Thats just how a lung with COL works.You can breathe in, but you can't breathe out.You're daily life becomes a hard and horrible battle, because you will feel like you're being strangles every day, every time you breathe.And there is no cure for it at current point, except lung transplant.And that is hard to get.If you have COL and you want a lung transplant, you have to be smoke free for a minimum of 5 years.You remember I said 8 out of 10 are smokers?One of those two who don't smoke, they get it from being around smokers.And that is just the saddest thing.
Debate: Should the age for smoking and drinking be lowered down?
Side: yes

Clearly, you didn't read the last argument I posted properly. In it I talked about the risks of smoking. I stated that the biggest risk by far is the vascular diseases caused by smoking, not the cancer part. I also talked about misuse of statistics, and you've done exactly what I was talking about. You've given me a backwards statistic. You've given me percentage of people with disease who smoked rather than people who smoked that got the disease.I don't think you understand I don't give a shit about how bad smoking is for smokers, you seem to think that because something harms the user, it should be banned. Go live in North Korea for a while and see how that feels.And by the way, it's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and I can't find the right way round stats because anti smokers prefer to use backwards stats as they look worse.