azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

This country is founded in principles that go against the Muslim belief. I'm not saying they can't live here, but I am saying that a Muslim, as president, would not be a good choice for us (at the moment).
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

I'm not saying they can't live here, but... No, of course not. You are merely implying that Muslims go against the founding principles of the country, which in turn would imply that they do not truly belong here but we will tolerate them in the name of "diversity" and "plurality". Truly, bravo.Seriously though, what founding principles go against Muslim belief? If you mean to imply that the country was founded upon Christian principles you are incorrect; while there was a Puritan influence in political thought there is not a single specific reference to Christianity in the founding legal documents and the language used primarily reflects philosophical publications of the enlightenment era. Islam is no more against those principles than Christianity is, and the separation of church and state makes Christian belief as irrelevant as Islamic belief in the realm of law.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

That depends, are Democrats OK with a Christian President? Of course not!
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Considering that many of them are Christian themselves and that they have been doing so for decades, I would say yes they would be okay with that.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

There are many Democrats who are Christian. And many Democrats who are just fine with a Christian president.Where's your logic?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

I wouldn't be ok with a Muslim President because all he/she has to do is have the Sharia law come in on the U.S and then we would be forced to believe in "allah"
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

you already believe in Allah .
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

No I don't believe in allah I believe in Jesus Christ not allah.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

How can you believe in Jesus but not his Father? .
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

I believe in God but the Muslims believe in a different God than I do. Its not the same God and there are many difference I can point out. Muslims are commanded to kill people if you don't believe in them. Do Christians do that to people? No.Muslims believe that Jesus never died on the cross and the whole thing about Jesus rising from the grave is a lie. This proves that the Islamic God is different than Christian God if it was the same they would have everything the same and they don't.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

I love how someone down-votes me without any response it brings laughter to me whoever down-voted me because they don't have the guts to reply to me and then they down-vote me.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

You've downvoted me without a response several times, so you have no right to say that.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

I have a right to say that and whatever I want, I have freedom of speech.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Okay... After reading over my original sentence, that meaning totatally wasn't intended.Yes, you have the RIGHT to post whatever you wish within a reasonable extent (probably made by Andy).However, complaning about people downvoted when you, yourself, downvote makes you look like a hypocritic asshole.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Allah is just Arabic for god. .
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

You didn't get my point did you. I just explained the difference between the Islamic God and Jesus and you still continue to say that allah is arabic for god no its not. They say God or they say Jesus. This is what the defintion say from dictionary.com says:  the Muslim name for God; the one Supreme Being
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Also it says Allah definitionThe name for God, the Supreme Being, in the Arabic language;
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Whatever, its not what allah means because in school they teach it and its says a name for the Islamic god. I don't believe Christians would say that. I think they would etheir say Yahweh, Jehovah, and also Jesus or God.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

You do know their are Arab Christians and not all Christians don't live in America.Whatever, its not what Allah meansNice Denying a definition because it goes against your beliefs.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Yah I know their are Arabic Christians that I know that not all Christians live in America. I am aware of that. Well I am denying because no ones says "allah" except for Muslims.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

but how do you know for a fact that non of the Arabic Christians call god, god in their own language?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

-..Silence..- .
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

The bible says kill gays, people who work on the sabbath, unbelievers who wont convert, witches, adulterers, heretics, and the list goes on. Do they do it? No, because most of them live in modern societies where they CANT do it. I believe that alot of christians are crazy enough to do it if they could. Also the bible directly contradicts itself in many places (www.evilbible.com --> contradictions in the bible). If your own bible cant agree with itself between books then how can you say they should be exactly the same? once again, HIPOCRITE
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

The bible says kill gays, people who work on the sabbath, unbelievers who wont convert, witches, adulterers, heretics, and the list goes on. Do they do it? No, because most of them live in modern societies where they CANT do it. I believe that alot of christians are crazy enough to do it if they could. What you just stated was from the Old Testament and the Old Testament is for the Jewish people it has stories from what happened in Israel and that is called history. , Christians don't follow the New Testament. They follow the New Testament because it talks about how Jesus came down and saved us from our sins and that He rose from the grave and He taught us how to live. Where does it say in the Bible in the New Testament that Jesus said to kill people in His name? No where is it stated. Also the bible directly contradicts itself in many places (www.evilbible.com --> contradictions in the bible). If your own bible cant agree with itself between books then how can you say they should be exactly the same? once again, HIPOCRITESome of those contradictions on that site aren't contradictions at all.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Wow, Jesus directly says to follow the OT's laws. He is the flesh embodiment of the stone (10 commandments). The NT is based on the OT and it's the same god!! What just because you don't like the OT u forget it entirely and focus on only the stuff that makes you feel good? The NT is also filled with immoral BS like self mutilation! Not to mention a virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection is ABSURD. but we've already been over this and you don't bother to listen. Ah HA! Reguardless you can not deny the vast majority ARE contradictions! And how do you address those hmm? Explain?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

The Old Testament was for the Jewish people they only thing Christians do follow from there are the Ten Commandments and read some of the prophecies of when He comes back for His second coming. You don't see Christians killing homosexual, or killing people who murder people or doing all sort of things now do you?The New Testament is new testimony but with 4 authors of the Gospel who recorded what happened when Jesus was alive and what He did for us on the cross and that He rose again fro the grave. People in the Bible were witnesses of the Resurrection. I didn't completely forget about it, I know a lot of things about the OT. Sometimes I even read how God created the earth and other things but I don't completely abandon it. I do listen why do you think I am mostly replying to your argument right now?Most of those contradictions were taken out of context and the people who published it didn't read the verse before it or after the verse it proclaimed the supposed contradiction.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Christians don't follow the New Testament. They follow the New Testament Ahh is that why you lie steal and worship a false god?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Pretty sure it's well outside the realm of Presidential power to nullify the Constitution and replace it with Sharia law.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Sorry Srom but not all Muslims and not all Muslim Countries have Sharia law and your argument about Muslims killing non-believers is a bit of a broad generalisation do you know any Muslims? And the Bible talks about stoning Women and Children and "Christians" have committed many attrocities throughout history all in the name of their faith so really having a Christian President is as bad as having a Muslim one
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

And the Bible talks about stoning Women and ChildrenYes it does but the stoning of people was the law of the Jewish people and Israel not Christians."Christians" have committed many attrocities throughout history all in the name of their faithNo real Christians would never kill in the name of Jesus because it says that you will know what real Christians are. Yes there have been people who said they were Christian but they act totally the opposite of what Jesus taught them (which there are many today who think they are Christian but they are not), unlike Islam who teaches if you do not believe what they believe they you should be killed. Christ never said to go out and preach my name and if they don't believe in me kill them.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

So you are saying that every single Christian who went on the crusades are not true Christians?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Yes that is what I am saying. Jesus did not teach true Christians to go to war for HIM or to take Jerusalem for His name sake because He said He would take care of Israel and Jerusalem. He said to to preach His name and if they do not believe just walk away and go to the next town.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

No, I would not be happy with a Muslim President. I voted for Obama thinking it was only right that someone other than an "old white guy" had an opportunity to lead the nation; I now realize that was a terrible mistake. Regardless of what color the President is he should be a real American, with moderate conservative values. Let's face it Obama is not and neither are most Muslims. I personally don't want the US to transform into the Republic of Wadiya so I won't vote for Admiral General Aladeen, lol.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Cannot tell if troll or ignoramus. Only those with moderate conservative values are "real Americans"? This country was founded by a revolution and premised upon plurality. Besides which, electing a Muslim will not lead to the imposition of Sharia law. Only a knee-jerk alarmist would truly believe that.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Well then the knee jerk alarmists are onto something. Sharia law is already practiced (and sanctioned by the host government) in several western countries. Last I checked, Britain had almost 100 Sharia courts operating within its boarders. These are courts where, for example, a raped woman must be able to provide four male Muslim witnesses in order to prove the rape charge. These are courts, lets remind ourselves, that openly discriminate based on sex and sexuality, and courts that dish out some of the most brutal and primitive sentences. And they do this with the full support of the legitimate legal system of Britain. So you'll understand why people feel strongly about resisting Sharia Law; it's opposed to every value we hold in the West, and it has already shown that it can, in fact, impose itself on a nation. Not saying that electing a Muslim would automatically put us under Sharia, but I think it's a more valid concern than you give it credit for, and it's also something that doesn't require a Muslim in the executive branch to occur.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

I recognize that Sharia law has been introduced in other western countries, but I see it as an altogether separate issue from the candidate. We do not worry about a Christian candidate establishing a national church, so why is there such suspicion that a Muslim candidate would establish Sharia law? It is an assumption that seems highly invalid in my view and unsupported by probability. The implementation of Sharia law within other countries was not a consequence of a PM or other elected official being Muslim; it was a consequence of distinct cultural and legal practices and customs of the respective countries with respect to their attitudes towards religion, diversity, and rights. Preventing Sharia law in the U.S. or other Western countries is not a matter of refusing to vote for someone because they are Muslim; it is a matter of safeguarding our civil rights and liberties from a particular brand of extremism that is prevalent in multiple other faiths and political groups.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Well Britain has an established Christian Church; it is officially a Christian nation. But it is still just and civilized. It might not be preferable, but western democracy can operate under such conditions, and perhaps this is why people don't worry about Christian PMs instituting a national church as much as a Muslim instituting Sharia Law.Look at any country where Sharia calls the shots and you will see that Sharia is diametrically opposed to democracy and, for that matter, civil liberties. That is why it scares people more than a national Church, for example. And Muslims involved in the governing process at a position significantly below PM have managed to get Sharia instituted in Western nations, already; what damage do you think a Sharia-supporting PM could do? Given what has already been allowed to happen to our freedom as a direct result of Islamist extremism, I think it's perfectly reasonable to be on high alert for any creeping Islamic values (including Sharia) into our government.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

I do not disagree that Sharia law is oppositional to democracy, however not all of Islam is defined by Sharia law advocates and not all Muslims would advocate its integration with governance (particularly where there is a strong history of separation of church and state). It makes no more sense to me to assume a Muslim to be a radical extremist than to assume a Christian to be a radical extremist, and to make that assumption is indicative to me of an underlying prejudice because it assumes radicalism as the norm absent any reason to do so.I think your argument that people are not as equally concerned about Christians implementing a national church as they are about Muslims implementing their faith into law to be flawed. Firstly, your comparison is of general Christian religious integration versus an extreme form of Islamic religious integration (i.e. Sharia law); I would argue that if we were comparing two extreme versions of religious integration the fear would be relatively equitable. Furthermore, I think that a large part of why many westerners do not fear a Christian state as much as they do an Islamic state if quite simply because the majority of them are Christian. I must say that as a non-Christian I find the idea of a Christian state as worrisome and undemocratic as an Islamic one. A lot of terrible and undemocratic things have been committed by Christian nations, and a considerable number of rights and freedoms have been denied in the name of the Christian faith.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

I think I did conflate your arguments with those of ARMYANT, so my apologies for harping on a point that was not really at issue. You wrote that the current manifestation of Islam being the consequence of various factors did not make it any more excusable than serial killers or mass rapists being the consequence of various factors. I think that you are right, yet for me the both situations (the religious and the criminal) indicate a larger issue at hand than the immediate symptom. I realize now that I have gone rather tangential to the original matter of the discussion, but I do think it goes beyond mere thought exercises. I think there is a practical value to understanding what has caused Islam to be practiced and viewed as it is today, because that knowledge has to be a part of formulating the response/solution to extreme manifestations of Islam.P.S. Thanks for digging up the statistic source - an interesting read!
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

These are courts where, for example, a raped woman must be able to provide four male Muslim witnesses in order to prove the rape charge. These are courts, lets remind ourselves, that openly discriminate based on sex and sexuality, and courts that dish out some of the most brutal and primitive sentences. And they do this with the full support of the legitimate legal system of Britain.News to me and I live here.Sharia courts can be used as an arbitration service (think TV court). They have NO jurisdiction on issues in regards to criminality. there would be no point in a woman using them for a rape case as they have no jurisdiction they couldn't even pass it to HM courts they would have to pass it to the police. They also have the power to disolve islamic mariages something UK courts don't recorgnise. Unfair to women in our/my view yes but not criminal.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179041/You-use-sharia-law-divorce-deal-Muslim-hospital-consultant-told-pay-ex-wife-maintenance-despite-claims-owes-Islamic- rules.html this one is way below your quality of debatemanship
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Hm. Fair enough. I have seen reports of Sharia courts dealing with domestic violence, something regarded as a criminal offense in western culture, and it wasn't handled the same way in Islamic courts (i.e. not a criminal offense) so it seemed fair to assume that Sharia courts both handle criminal matters and that they do so the Sharia way, not the legal way. Upon further research I haven't seen a British Sharia court that handled a rape case. So my classification was baseless. I think you'll agree with my critique of the way real Sharia handles rape cases, even if Britain hasn't allowed their Islamic courts quite so much freedom yet. I might have even been originally referring to Sharia in Islamic countries, but my post wasn't very clear and I honestly don't remember. And regardless of my mistake, I think any court that discriminates based on gender should not be allowed, with the support of the government, to operate within the borders of any western democracy. All in all I think you corrected an element of my post but didn't refute the point I was trying to make. I don't know if you were, but that's where I think we stand.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

You are certainly correct.I was surprised mostly becuase you debate well (better than me) and it is very unusual for you to be misinformed.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Eh. We all make mistakes, or are unclear sometime or other. If I went online to verify every single thing I ever typed or said I'd have time for nothing else, so I don't; I'm bound so say something untrue every now and again. And I appreciate people calling me out on it; it helps me stay informed. So thanks for that, and thanks for your compliment.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

HELL NO are you insane I don't want shereia law the though of such thing scares the hell out of me as it should ALL true Americans
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

all true americans? You mean the white folk who came and stole this land from the natives and wont let anyone else live here? Yup, TRUE americans.....
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Very good point is it not about time America had a Native American as President cant get any realer than that!!
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Damn right lol if we had a native american president... thatd be awesome
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

What the hell now? Stole what land? Boy what version of history did you learn
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

What are you stuck in the 1800s? Im not black dude, dont call me "boy"Stole the land from the indians idiot, we didnt have to kill them, we could have said, oh you live here, mind if we join?Youre a typical brainwashed american
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

"boy" is not a racial epethet you racist liberal and as for the "natives" they attacked the seetlers first the natives on the east coste where smart they played nice (most of them) and enjoyed the benifits of haveing powerful friends but as we went west the saveges on the plains started shit they couldn't finish so we taught those blood thirsty barbareins a lesson they will do well to remember I notice you said "we" so you're white then huh? Liston man don't be ashamed of your history there's nothin wrong with pride
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

There is something wrong with pride and thats the fact that murder is not good at all in any circumstances, i know the indians in the west didnt like the americans but thats because we tried taking their land, so thats why they attacked, they had their pride too, so stop being a hypocrite
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

It was their land, They may have been a warrior race. idk much about it without doing research.But it was their land and it was taken from them.Would you let someone take your land if they offered you their culture, their rules and their religion in return?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Yes they did they had there pride and they let there pride lewd them into rash action and they paid the price ya they lost there land but the onLu reason any one gives a dam is because they lost it to white peaple and there not whit so don't bull shit me all through history europein nations have gained anl lost land empires have rissen and fallen but do you hear anyone crying for THEM no you don't
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

IM crying for them, not just them, but everyone these days, we as a people are having our own fucking land stolen right from beneath us and its sickening