azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Even the demographics with the lowest risk factors STILL contain people with STIsThat statement is untrue, I'm rather sure no Catholic monks have AIDS.And even if it was true, it's still pointless. It's the proportions that matter here.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

The rate is largely immaterial.1. OK, dude. Here's a math test:Suppose the overall male population is N, total number of men with AIDS is aN, the number of gays is gN, and the chance that a gay man has AIDS is c.Suppose that the chance of a straight man to have AIDS is p1, and the chance of a gay man to have AIDS is p2.What is the rate p2/p1?2. Have you noticed the domain of that site?It's not like we're taking blood and just injecting it into another person without looking at it.Gays have also alarming rates of other diseases, staphylococcus and typhoid are an example. Those deceases are very rare among the majority of the population, so the relevant tests are not done. Should we start testing donor blood for everything? And also, the AIDS test, and almost every other test, has a false - negative probability. Even if it's 0,5%, then for gays as a group the overall chance to transmit AIDS through blood donation would be unacceptably high.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

We aren't concerned with the proportion of gay men with AIDS vs. the proportion of lesbians and heterosexual men and women with AIDS.We are concerned with the proportion of individuals that are HIV positive and not aware of it. While it's true that this proportion is higher amongst the homosexual male population, the gap is far narrower than it is in documented cases of AIDS.Are you familiar with how donated blood is stored? Red cells and plasma are frozen. This process is lethal to both staphylococcus and the salmonella variants that are responsible for typhoid. In fact, this process is fatal to MOST bacterial and fungal agents. It is primarily the viral ones that have a sizeable chance to survive the process.Edit: Also, even in the first world, people die daily for want of a blood donation. Given the choice, I'd roll the dice with questionable blood rather than die. Given the choice between dying right there in the ER, I'd rather spend the remainder of my life controlling AIDS with medication.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

We are concerned with the proportion of individuals that are HIV positive and not aware of it. If we are coherent, then we should talk about the ratio of those proportions: Q1/Q2,where Q1 is the proportion of gay men who are infected with AIDS and unaware of itand Q2 is the same for the rest of the population.I'm pretty much sure, that this ratio is still ridiculously high.Are you familiar with how donated blood is stored? Red cells and plasma are frozen. This process is lethal to both staphylococcus and the salmonella variants that are responsible for typhoid.Really? Staphylococcus is highly resistant to low temperatures; the bacteria can stay frozen for many years, and survive.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Actually, undiagnosed hiv infections are less common amongst the homosexual community in this day and age, given the emphasis on testing. On the other hand, a not insignificant number of heterosexuals engage in the same high risk activities as homosexual males, and that demographic gets tested far less frequently.I believe the ratio is going to be close to even, given that.Good call on staph though, I'll cede that point (though not the salmonella variant that causes typhoid)- I was working on memory there, and obviously a faulted one. I wonder what other one I was thinking of there?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

1. I admit I shouldn't have chosen HIV for all those calculations. The main problem is that AIDS being caused by some retrovirus, is a highly questionable statement.2. If we take syphilis as a marker, then I'm still right. Gays have some forms of syphilis, which are very hard to detect until the later stages.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Ultimately, I still maintain that it is foolish to exclude an entire demographic because they MAY be at somewhat higher risk of carrying this, that, or the other. I could continue and point out other demographics that have a high recorded instance of various infections, but I've already made my point, and reframing it isn't going to sway your opinion any. Furthermore, detailing those other demographics is going to be even more politically charged than the gay argument, so I'll refrain.Fact remains that there are still people dying for want of a blood transfusion, and I would personally take infected blood over death.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Answer to the math test:p2/p1 = c(1-g)/g(1-c)So, if 52% of all HIV positive men are gays (that's statistics), and 2,5% of all men are gay, we get:p1/p2 = 42,5which is very close to the data from CDC.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.The issue is, they use data from 2007 from walk-in tests. Heterosexual men RARELY get tested, while it is EXPECTED of homosexuals. That alone invalidates the legitimacy of the data.-Also this was funny...Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.30-34% of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, and of those couples that cohabit, 45-48%, and those numbers are on the rise. Compare that to homosexual and bisexual men: Anal intercourse occurred among less than half of participants (37.2%) and was most common among men ages 18–24 (42.7%).Data:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02438.x/abstract
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

The issue is, they use data from 2007 from walk-in tests.Now, where did you get that from? Here's a quote from CDC on how they gather their data:"CDC’S National HIV Surveillance System is the primary source for monitoring HIV trends in the United States. CDC funds and assists state and local health departments to collect the information."Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/index.html
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Now, where did you get that from?I put it in bold in my argument, directly from your source.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnosesThat's what you put bold in your argument. How does that prove they only used data from walk - in tests?Maybe you need a reality check? The CDC is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services.They have access to the largest possible quantity of health data sources.If you care to follow the link I'd posted, you'll read this:CDC’S National HIV Surveillance System is the primary source for monitoring HIV trends in the United States. CDC funds and assists state and local health departments to collect the information. Health departments report de-identified data to CDC so that information from around the country can be analyzed to determine who is being affected and why.Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/index.html QUOTE: "Heterosexual men RARELY get tested, while it is EXPECTED of homosexuals.That alone invalidates the legitimacy of the data."That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the survey data.You should read the whole description of the survey, at http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html It says that the survey was made, based on results from 100000 gay men, 100000 straight men, and 100000 women.So, the sample groups were of equal quantity, and that's all that matters here.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Black women account for 67% of all HIV/AIDS cases that are diagnosed. Why doesn't the FDA exclude them? Because their rights are more established. I am gay and donate blood. The rule isn't enforceable anyways. Being gay is a self appointed identity, just appoint yourself straight for an hour.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Its a fact that AIDS first appeared in homosexuals. So I can see why they do not want to take homosexual's blood.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

It's a fact that AIDS appeared in heterosexual blood as well. They test all the blood they get now.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

If you read again, I said it first appeared in homosexuals. So therefore I believe they just are very cautious of blood.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

You can't edit your argument and then claim I read it wrong. Who cares where it first appeared? If it can be in all blood, and we screen all blood, why not take gay blood?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

I didn't edit my argument and I was just stating a fact. That's all.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Sorry, next time I will quote you so you can't lie.What about the fact that AIDS has appeared in heterosexual blood. Now it doesn't matter where it was found first. The rules are in place from the time before blood testing was done. Why keep those rules around?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Well it's that I really didn't want to debate this issue, I was just making a point.And by the way, I did not lie.Personally, I don't give a rat's #$@ as long as I get healthy blood.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Yeah, clean blood is good.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Alright, my argument is this: if this was an attack on sexual orientation then they would simply bar females in same sex relations too. The FDA's purpose is to reduce the risk of transmitted diseases in relations to blood: HIV, Hepatitis B and A, etc. etc. etc.Currently, the chance of getting HIV from blood is 1:2000000. That means from the 30000000 transfusions a year(2006), statistically speaking 15 will get HIV from direct blood transfusions.Seems quite reasonable doesn't it?Let us add in homosexual males now.MSM constitutes for 52% of the HIV population. here are approximately 1.2 million people with HIV. So 624000 MSM have HIV.How many don't know they have HIV? It is 1 for every 5, so about 124800 don't know.There is no percentage of men who are gay that give blood, so for the sake of argument, I will use the percentage of current donors in the U.S. and equate them to MSM. 3% of American's give blood yearly. So let's just say for argument sake 3% of MSM give blood. 124800*3% is 18720. 18720 HIV positive males will be donors. How many will pass the screening? If it is 1 in 2 million get HIV from contaminated blood now, then that means right now, if I were to give blood and were HIV positive I would have a 0.00005% chance of transferring HIV to another person If I were a homosexual male with HIV and didn't know, then I would have an 0.00005% chance of passing the screening and giving the HIV to someone else. As it is now, only 15 people get HIV from blood transfusions. Adding homosexual males to the group, would push the number to 16 for every 30000000 and that is an approximate increase in contractions of HIV alone. If I am right, the FDA has more than reason. 1 for every 18720 MSM person will pass screening, that is far greater in terms of percentage than the current arrangement. America has a stable blood supply too, so not having 18720 does not affect them negatively.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

According to the CDC, black women make up 67% of ALL HIV/AIDs cases that are diagnosed. If this is not an attack on sexuality, why are black women allowed to give blood?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

That doesnt make sense. 52%+67% is not 100%. And gay black males and black females are not overlapping demographics.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Fags shouldnt LOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

I love when the gay agenda picks up this debate, it really exposes their disconnect with reality.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Disconnect with reality? You would rather let someone die than accept gay blood.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

That is not a situation I do, or ever will face...........................
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

You won't ever need a blood transfusion? That is a bold prediction. Are you a Jehovah's witness and you don't accept blood transfusions?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

I won't be put in a situation of a doctor telling me, "well, you are going to die unless you get a blood transfusion from Steve over there. Yes the one in the girl pants." So your original question is stupid.Worst case scenario I'll get a transfusion that has like a 2-3 percent chance of being from a homosexual, and twice the risk of getting HIV from it. I'll come find you and give you a big ol' kiss if I'm one of those lucky ones.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

No, you might be in the situation where the doctor says you will die unless you get a blood transfusion, and we are out if blood. This is happening to people.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

This is happening to peopleSource?..........................
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Just did some fun calculations. Found a source that says about 2% of men are gay... so there are 313.9M Americans which means 3.139M male homosexuals. According to the CDC there are 440,408 gay men who are living with a HIV diagnosis (since 2010, and I'm working with 2014 population numbers, giving homosexuals an error in their favor). 440K/3.13M is about .14... so roughly 14 percent of gay men have HIV. 14%... holy crap... the typical homosexual has hundreds of partners in their lives... Anyways, the infection rate for everyone else is .28% ... So A homosexual man is about 50X as likely of having HIV than everyone else. This matches some other estimates I have seen, granted I don't have access to the best information, etc. etc.... Who the hell really wants them in the nation's blood supply? If I was gay I wouldn't want myself to donate blood. The prospect of killing someone, even if it is rare after testing, is still killing someone for what... a half of 1% increase in the donor pool (male homosexuals who don't have a positive HIV test)???
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Then test them first. It's easy.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Pretty much every lab test has a chance of producing a false negative. It might be one in 10,100,1000, or 100,000. It does happen. Those who administer the test have to balance the dangers and odds of a false negative with a related probability and expense of false positives.In addition, what they test for isn't the actual HIV virus, but instead they have to look for the anti-bodies that develop weeks after someone is infected. Homosexuals typically have a lot of partners and have open relationships. A heterosexual has lower odds of changing/acquiring a new mate in a random month.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Homosexuals typically have a lot of partners and have open relationships.Proof please. I don't care about your source, if it's unreliable I'll point out why.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xxfactor/2011/09/07/cheatingratesdeclineforgayandstraightcouplesalike.html
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Interesting, thanks.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Your facts are retarded! Fist of all, straight people are having just as much sex and with multi partners as we'll.. Saying that gay men have more partners than straight men, is a false statement. Just as women can have just as many partners and a gay female. I find this argument discredited on so many levels
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Found a source that says about 2% of men are gay...I'd like these sources.-so there are 313.9M Americans which means 3.139M male homosexuals...that are openly gay, open to the point of writing it on a census or study or wherever you found your statistics.-According to the CDC there are 440,408 gay men who are living with a HIV diagnosis (since 2010, and I'm working with 2014 population numbers, giving homosexuals an error in their favor).Four years is a long time to embellish and project statistics for medical records.-440K/3.13M is about .14... so roughly 14 percent of gay men have HIV. 14%... holy crap...  &Anyways, the infection rate for everyone else is .28% ... So A homosexual man is about 50X as likely of having HIV than everyone else.First, you've failed to address the likelihood of error in testing, (which is a lot greater than you might suspect) but more importantly, you've also not taken into account the probability of an average american getting tested compared to that of a homosexual male. Due to the stigma that lies on homosexual males, gay men are expected to get tested very regularly. Compare this to the entire demographic spectrum of the U.S, and it's easy to see how more people have HIV/AIDS than is calculable. Consider also that, as listed from your source, gay men only account for 1% of Americans; rendering a comparison of infection rates as inconclusive at best.-the typical homosexual has hundreds of partners in their lives...This is a complete and utter fallacy created by homophobes to demonize gay culture as some sort of biblical Sodom-esque culture. Just because your gay doesn't mean you get a lot of action. In fact if anything, the inverse would be true due to the infrequent chance of first finding another gay man, and secondly finding one that would have sex with you. All of the challenges and complications of hetero relationships still exist, ergo there is no insta-sex for being gay.Who the hell really wants them in the nation's blood supply?Any person dying and in need of a transfusion.-If I was gay I wouldn't want myself to donate blood.Your blood is no different whether or not you're gay.-The prospect of killing someone, even if it is rare after testing, is still killing someone for what... a half of 1% increase in the donor pool (male homosexuals who don't have a positive HIV test)???The prospect of killing someone IS NOT AFFECTED by your sexual orientation AT ALL. The odds of any of the multitudes of tests done on blood samples failing is equally probable among gay and straight men. An AIDS/HIV test will fail just as frequently for a gay man as much as a straight man, infected or otherwise.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

First, you've failed to address the likelihood of error in testing, (which is a lot greater than you might suspect) but more importantly, you've also not taken into account the probability of an average american getting tested compared to that of a homosexual male. Due to the stigma that lies on homosexual males, gay men are expected to get tested very regularly. Compare this to the entire demographic spectrum of the U.S, and it's easy to see how more people have HIV/AIDS than is calculable.I've already answered those claims in this very debate.The CDC gathered their statistics from test results on 100000 homosexuals males, 100000 heterosexual males, and 100000 heterosexual females. This means that the samles were of equal quantity, so your "stigma" argument is irrelevant.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

2% of men admitted being gay. I'd say it's much higher than that so your percentages will be inflated.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

no because the blood could have aids and it could be murder.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

While a person may not agree with it morally, Gay marriage does nothing that physicly hurts anyone. Opponents of this, are forgetting that there is a separation of church and state. Its time to quit policing peoples morals and learn that two concenting adults should be able to have the same rights as anyone else. Its called America folks...Remember "The Land of the Free"?
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Actually, the person on the receiving end sometimes gets butt hurt. Or so I'm told ;)
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

What is it that makes you think you're funny Joe? What makes you think you can write anything you please on the debate boards and not have to pay the piper for it? I just voted you down for the remark you made in this debate and will continue to do so every time I see an answer from you that is not germane or is disguised as a piece of humor because you don't really care to take a stand. On this one you used the tag to get your true feelings on the board and decided to make a "butt" joke out of the topic. I can't be an ally anymore Joe. Even though my sense of fun and humor are intact...yours really isn't because you use it to injure and hurt people. You make a mockery of things that are important to many people and you just don't care about anyone else but yourself Joe. I don't really know what you're doing here! You put up debates that are ridiculous, you put up arguments that are even more ridiculous and, quite frankly, I don't know why CD allows it. You lend no credibility to this site nor do you even think about it in that way. You said once that all you want to do is have fun and show people that they take things too seriously in life. This IS a debate site...don't you think that one of the reasons for its existence and success is the fact that people do take things seriously enough to come debate whatever issue they feel is worth discussing? Why don't you take a moment to think about what I've said Joe. Until you can really be an ally or a friend...Adios!