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

Woah, looks like we have ourselves a case of passive aggression.I mean you can insist on that one point, but you're still just fixating on the weakest point of the argument. Dozens of times of an increased rate is absolutely ridiculous and you just don't want to admit it. The fixed rate is irrelevant when you're talking about a single group.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

There is nothing for me to reply to until you give me the ratio I asked for. You clearly don't understand how debating works, butting in and parroting your unsolicited opinion won't convince anyone of anything.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Oh, waaah. I said that if an individual is 5 times more likely to be infected, I will draw the line. I actually unloaded a ton of facts and sources, while you've been trying to turn the discussion into a matter of which fixed rate is better. That part is irrelevant when you're talking about an individual group.There is no need to have a discussion there since the likelihood of transmission would raise for a tiny amount of blood given. I already tired to explain that to you, but it's not getting through.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Of course, you're probably aware of this but you just don't feel like taking the point on the chin, you'd rather throw in a new topic of a fixed rate that is past the discussion here and especially the topic that I was pointing to.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

While the risk of transmitting HIV would increase a small amount, that is vastly outweighed by the benefit of increased blood donations.For first time blood donations the percentage of false negatives is:Heterosexual Men: 0.036 per 100,000 (0.000036%)Homosexual Men: 1.584 per 100,000 (0.001584%)The false negative rate for HIV positive people is 0.3%Once someone has tested positive for HIV, they are banned from donating blood in the US, this means that only 3 people with HIV our of every 200,000 male homosexuals will be able to donate blood more than once, and of those, only 0.009 will be able to donate a third time. Preventing those who test positive largely negates any risk of male homosexual donation as the ratio of false negatives to total donations will always be trending towards zero. Another benefit of allowing homosexual men to donate blood is it will alert more men to the fact that they have HIV, as it is unlikely that someone who knows they have HIV will donate blood (at least where they don't pay you for it). That means for every 100,000 homosexual men, 520 will learn that they have HIV, this knowledge can help stop the spreading of HIV, as well as help these men get treatment for a disease they didn't know they had.Over all the benefit in both volume of blood donated, as well as the benefit of slowing the spread of HIV are two very good reasons to allow homosexual men to donate blood. If people are really worried about it we can just test male homosexual blood twice, which reduces the chance of false negative to less than that of single tested heterosexual men.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

That is all fine and dandy, but I would be upset to know that when I wake up I have HIV from contaminated blood. How many people will get HIV from false positives? I think personally the faction itself should live a better sexual life then attempt to donate blood versus just getting up and donating it.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

All you are trying to do is appeal to emotion, yeah, it would suck to get HIV from a blood donation, but the math I provided show that risk is extremely minimal especially when compared to the risk to people who need blood when there isn't enough to go around. Double testing male homosexual blood reduces the rate of a false negatives to less than that of single tested heterosexual blood. There is no argument to be made against this, all anyone can express is a personal distaste for homosexuals.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Argument1: false negative results for HIV mainly have to do with the screening window,so double - testing will result in almost no reduction of false - negative results.Argument2: Gays as a group are notorious for having a whole bouquet of infectious diseases at a rate way above median for the population, and donated blood isn't checked for all of them. Example: antibiotic - resistant staphylococcus. For those deceases, the chance of transmission will be 100%.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Argument1: false negative results for HIV mainly have to do with the screening window, so double - testing will result in almost no reduction of false - negative results.They test all positive results with a different kind of test, you can read about it in that link I posted.Argument2: Gays as a group are notorious for having a whole bouquet of infectious diseases at a rate way above median for the population, and donated blood isn't checked for all of them. Example: antibiotic - resistant staphylococcus. For those deceases, the chance of transmission will be 100%.Please provide sources so I can do some maths. I also still need a number from you, what is the acceptable ratio of infected blood donations to total donations?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

They test all positive results with a different kind of test, you can read about it in that link I posted.The screening window is a period of time after HIV infection, spanning 3 to 6 weeks, during which no tests can show that the person is infected, since the immune answer has not yet been formed. So, no matter how many times you do the tests over 1 or 2 days, it will not reduce the false - negative chance (unless it had been caused by something else than the screening window, but that is really rare).Please provide sources so I can do some mathshttp://thesop.org/story/health/2008/01/15/epidemic-feared-gays-may-spread-deadly-staph-infection-to-general-population.php I also still need a number from you, what is the acceptable ratio of infected blood donations to total donations?Look there can be two ways to understand this question:1. What I think is the acceptable ratio2. What the FDA considers to be the acceptable ratio.To me, even 1 possible case is too much.As stated by the FDA, the current figure is 2 per 1 million transfusions.I still cannot understand how they have achieved that, since the 0,003 false-negative ratio should yield 3000 per 1 million. They must have some other mechanisms for reducing this rate, and I suspect that excluding certain demographics, like gays, is one of them. I myself need to obtain more information, to work out the maths.But what I've already said, about the screening window, should be enough to justify the FDA's position.(Good job there, multiplying 0,0036 by 44. Just kidding. I admire your thoroughness in preparing arguments).
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

The screening window is a period of time after HIV infection, spanning 3 to 6 weeks, during which no tests can show that the person is infected, since the immune answer has not yet been formed. So, no matter how many times you do the tests over 1 or 2 days, it will not reduce the false - negative chance (unless it had been caused by something else than the screening window, but that is really rare).Oh, I see what you are saying.Since 2001, donated blood in the United States has been screened with nucleic-acid-based tests, shortening the window period between infection and detectability of disease to a median of 17 days (95% CI, 13-28 Days, assumes pooling of samples).But this 28 day window is still a problem, I agree. A possible solution would be to hold onto male homosexual blood until the donate again (usually 16 weeks later) and if that blood test negative also then the previous blood is okay, and they just do that over and over. I'm not really sure this is an issue though, I would need to do some maths to determine the number of new HIV cases would be in this window for any given day and factor that into the risk, but for the 28 day window I think it would make since to ban anyone who has had sex with a new partner in the last month, there is no reason to not also ban slutty straight people.http://thesop.org/story/health/2008/01/15/epidemic-feared-gays-may-spread-deadly-staph-infection-to-general-population.php This doesn't have any sources or use-able numbers, it is written like a propaganda piece threatening that gays will spread decease just by touching you. Link me to something with sources, or just the study they are referencing.I still cannot understand how they have achieved that, since the 0,003 false-negative ratio should yield 3000 per 1 million. They must have some other mechanisms for reducing this rate, and I suspect that excluding certain demographics, like gays, is one of them. I myself need to obtain more information, to work out the maths.Banning gays does help, I'm not saying it doesn't, I just think the flood of new blood donation outweighs the risk.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Dude, how many people will leave the operation room alive with a new lease on life only to unknowingly pass HIV on to others, like there girlfriends and wive?. How many at least get HIV via donated blood? That is all I wanted to know.Double testing male homosexual blood reduces the rate of a false negatives to less than that of single tested heterosexual blood. Obviously, the numbers are skewered.Double test them on spot? The gays would play the discrimination card and would win. But by all means, to reduce the chance of getting HIV, triple test everybody.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Dude, how many people will leave the operation room alive with a new lease on life only to unknowingly pass HIV on to others, like there girlfriends and wive?. How many at least get HIV via donated blood? That is all I wanted to know.Yes, this is an emotional appeal. I provided a source, read it. You don't need me to do all your thinking for you.Obviously, the numbers are skewered.Point out where in my math I made a mistake, or where in my sources there is faulty information.Double test them on spot? The gays would play the discrimination card and would win. But by all means, to reduce the chance of getting HIV, triple test everybody.There is no point for you to reply, if you won't take the time to understand an issue you aren't worth discussing it with. I disagree with BigOats but at least he raises valid concerns.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

I asked for a number, you refuse to give me a number. It is obvious you have nothing to say to the victims who will get HIV.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

The number you are asking for isn't relevant to my argument. You are asking what is the number, that is something you can look up for yourself. Providing you with random facts that you ask for isn't something I am obligated to do.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

What the hell? I can point out when you do that to everyone. You are asking Bigoats for numbers right now, numbers that are apparently random facts you should look up. and it is relevant to the argument, since the FDA is attempting to prevent the unknowing spread of AIDS through contaminated blood.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

You need to take the time to read things before making assumptions. I asked BigOats for a number that represented his opinion of an acceptable infected blood to total blood ratio, this is important as it is the core of his argument. You are asking me for a random fact that I never mentioned. If you want to look up some facts and do the math to figure out how many people are infected from false negative HIV donations go for it, and if you think that makes a good argument against me, present me with what you found out, but I'm not obligated to do the research and construct an argument for you.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

And me asking you for how many people would get HIV from a gay person's blood does not help your argument?
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.Go to town with it.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

America has a stable blood supplyCould you provide me with a source?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

That is where I got the information on blood stability.http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm FDA realizes that this policy leads to deferral of many healthy donors. However, FDA's MSM policy minimizes even the small risk of getting infectious diseases such as HIV or hepatitis through a blood transfusion. Due to the generosity of millions of eligible donors, the blood supply in the US has been very stable.Here is one based on numbers.The number of blood donations collected in the U.S. in a year: 16 million (2006)The number of blood donors in the U.S. in a year: 9.5 million (2006).The number of patients who receive blood in the U.S. in a year: 5 million (2006).http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blood-facts-and-statistics The same site says that only 38% of the population can give blood, so the FDA has strict policies concerning donors and risk factors. I think this poses a problem because for some reason, it is touchy when a small faction of the homosexual community cannot give blood but it isn't when you:>Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor>have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977>have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above>received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophiliaWhy was it that an argument to allow these people to give blood never came up? Aren't they citizens being "discriminated" too? Or is it just that they have less of an ability to use affirmative action?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I think this poses a problem because for some reason, it is touchy when a small faction of the homosexual community cannot give blood but it isn't when you:>Have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor>have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977>have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above>received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophiliaWhy was it that an argument to allow these people to give blood never came up? Aren't they citizens being "discriminated" too? Or is it just that they have less of an ability to use affirmative action?I think these are too restrictive as well.Thank you for your sources, I'll review them.If we have a stable blood supply and it is affordable, I would be okay with waiting for a second donation before using the first, this can be used to ensure that the first donation is clean.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I think it is fine, I am worried about the patients. Not any offended demographic, because blood transfusions are for the patients.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I am worried about the patients. Not any offended demographic, because blood transfusions are for the patients.Well we can agree on that at least, these restrictions should not be discussed in the context of any offended demographic, the only thing that matters are the patients.Sure we may disagree about how best to help patients, but at least we are talking about the part that matters... and not "how best to not offend homosexuals."
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Beggars can't be choosers. Besides, society as a whole needs a lot more gay.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Given the current population and growth rate, I'm actually going to have to agree that society needs more gay.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

And let's admit it, the sooner there's more gay, the sooner everyone can get over themselves and just live their own lives.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Um, no. Ever heard of a demographic dividend? A declining population would mean more older people in the long run combined with an increase in life expectancy will sap our resources by shifting the mean age higher.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I don't want gay blood it'll turn me gay, I only want parts of straight manly men inside me.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

So you're opposed to having blood transfer from a woman?You're an anti - woman chauvinist!
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I'm not at all anti women I think their great but a woman's blood might taint my manly blood making me less manly
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

What about blacks?Will their blood make you less racially pure?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I'm English with Irish heritage so hardly racially pure and Blacks tend to be stronger than Whites so a bit of black blood could be an asset
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

What if they're Jews? ..........................Have you thought about that?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

So what if they are. ..
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

To me, it's nothing. But it might tangle with your racial purity.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I never said I was striving for racial purity, I just don't want to end up "womanly"
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Well this is one of the greatest things I've ever read. xD
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

It's like when straight men intentionally pursue heterosexual porn with well-hung men and don't admit to being a tad gay, hilarious.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

Lmao. That statement is a hilarious contradiction......You funny
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

If they're not infected with anything, why the hell not? Blood is blood.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

WHAT?! I had never heard of this " lets not accept blood from homosexual" thing. This is outrageous I mean what the hell is with people? "If he's a homosexual, he simply must have AIDS..."
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

Yeah, it is pretty insane. When you donate blood in America it asks if you have had sexual encounters with someone of the same sex. If you write yes they are supposed to deny you.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

They also ask you if you have been to another country or had a positive TB test... the nerve... don't they know that is personal information?
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

It isn't asking if you have a disease. Mexicans are more likely to have TB. It would be like asking if you know Mexicans. See the difference?Plus, I think they still take your blood if you were out of the country.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

We should be testing the blood regardless of who, it comes from.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I didn't know this was a law! And I am surprised about it. The blood is tested.. I don't see how this law is even needed. I get it, that in the 70's and early 80's HIV and AIDS was called GRAVES disease and was thought to be a gay born illness, but we now know this is not true. In any form, we should do something about this law and have it over turned.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

It isn't a law. It is from rules that the FDA put out. The FDA makes rules that aren't governed by laws.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

They should not be singled out. The ban should be lifted.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

According to a survey made by CDC in 2010, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says.Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

The rate is largely immaterial.The heterosexual community has a larger than 0% rate of STDs.The homosexual community has a smaller than 100% rate of STDs.It's not like we're taking blood and just injecting it into another person without looking at it. The blood is analyzed, typed, checked for infectious agents, etc.We have no business discriminating against potential donors when there is still a need for donors. Sort them based on whats ACTUALLY IN THEIR BLOOD- not what you THINK MIGHT BE IN THEIR BLOOD.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

I completely agree. Even the demographics with the lowest risk factors STILL contain people with STIs.
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Disagree

It's the details that matter here................................
Debate: Homosexual males should be able to donate blood.
Side: Agree

What is this a pointless statement just to say you got the last word or do you actually have a point here?