azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

Man, this is a really dumb post for you. You should stop and think a little bit on this one.With regard to spreading these unscientific ideas, do you report directly to Barack? Or some of his cronies?I would appreciate a sincere answer, and I'm sure I won't get one from you.You want a sincere answer to whether I report to Barack Obama? Really?Just for the record, and so we don't start a meaningless conversation: I detest Putin.Discussing Putin would actually add meaning to this conversation.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Man, this is a really dumb post for you. You should stop and think a little bit on this one.Well, you were first to say "dumb", and to imply I did was not thinking when I was posting. This, of course, proves that I'm dumb...even if I call you dumb now, I'll be second and so it won't count.You want a sincere answer to whether I report to Barack Obama? Really?Ok, here's the deal.In many debates you demonstrate a very good grasp of logic. Othertimes it's just a good rhethorical habit, which still requires a high level of intellect.At the same time, you defend the so-called "gay agenda" cause totally, without question, even the most stupid and unscientific aspects of it. You are an ardent supporter of every "gay rights" banality, as long as it's spread by your mass media. All your arguments, in any debate about these issues that I've seen, repeat the stupidest available cliches.To me, this is an indication of a clear bias on your side, with regard to the so-called "gay rights" issue.Your profession would rule out a possibility of personal bias on such global issues...which leaves me to conclude that it's political bias.This is consistant with the fact, that in many of your states the courts make decisions on the so-called "gay rights" subject, which go against the will of the people. These decisions always support the political trend of the Obama administration.So, my question wasn't so "dumb", after all.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

I said that there will always be people who don't agree with this new gay rights issue. So, you telling me that I blindly follow this gay rights bandwagon is dumb no matter how you explain it. Asking if I report to Obama is dumb without question.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

People Continue To Believe That Ridiculous Idea. I Can't Change Their Thoughts.A quote from your previous post in this tread, with reference to the "ridiculous idea" that people choose to be gay.you telling me that I blindly follow this gay rights bandwagon is dumbSaying that it's a "ridiculous idea" to think that people choose to be gay, without providing any serious proof to the contrary, is blindly following the gay rights bandwagon. Your "when did you choose to be" non-argument, is what I was referring to when I spoke of "cliches"."Asking if I report to Obama is dumb without question."How is it dumb? Many of your colleagues have played a huge role in implementing his political agenda, which often goes against the will of the people.With regard to these issues, you demonstrate the same techniques of "debating without debating", as in some...of these institutions where the said people work.Which is unusual for a person who can actually debate.Yes I know about the three branches of power, but...rules can be bent, can't they? They have been many times in your country (and many more times in mine).Saying "dumb" so many times looks like defensive aggression on your side.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

A quote from your previous post in this tread, with reference to the "ridiculous idea" that people choose to be gay.Why didn't you respond to that then?Saying that it's a "ridiculous idea" to think that people choose to be gay, without providing any serious proof to the contrary, is blindly following the gay rights bandwagon. Your "when did you choose to be" non-argument, is what I was referring to when I spoke of "cliches".I did not choose to be straight. I assume that human sexuality works the same for other people. Therefore, I believe that homosexuals don't choose to be gay. Not following it blindly. But, I didn't provide the information earlier.How is it dumb? Many of your colleagues have played a huge role in implementing his political agenda, which often goes against the will of the people.There is no reason to believe that I would have reported to the President, or a reason that I should have reported to the President.Saying "dumb" so many times looks like defensive aggression on your side.It is defensive aggression. I was hoping you would discuss something that we could actually talk about. Your first post was so far off topic I had no way to respond to it. The best I could do would be to be aggressive and get you to give a better response. Looks like it worked.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

I personally know Cartman and he does not report directly, nor indirectly, to Obama or his cronies. ;)Also, it is a well known fact that once you invoke Putin, you've lost the debate ;)
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

He didn't bring up Putin. Everyone brings up Putin against him. You just proved him right in like 90% of his posts.I personally know Cartman and he does not report directly, nor indirectly, to Obama or his cronies. ;)I think BigOats considers all liberals to be Obama cronies, so I must at least report indirectly to one. ;)
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

Whilst one doesn't choose to find gay sex pleasurable or disgusting (nor straight sex), they choose the lifestyle they lead and should toughen the fuck up if they want to survive in a religious society.Life isn't meant to be fair; it's meant to be brutal and spontaneous because we are animals, not robots.Either be normal or be good at hiding it.That is it.Humans are not a merciful species, we were designed to dominate, destroy and bully not only other species but our own fellows.We thrive off programs, movies and stories where death, torture, backstabbing and bullying are all intertwined. We need bad guys to exist for good guys to be good.If no one bullied the gays then the gay activists would just be evil fucks without a purpose to be good.In reality we don't choose anything; even our belief in choice.If we are to consider, realistically, what society should deem it to be then the gay chooses to be a faggot, regardless of internal feelings. Otherwise we might as well say the murderer didn't choose to murder; it was an involuntary urge they had.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Or, and it's just an or, you could stop being such a bitch about it and stop living in a fantasy world where everyone conforms to your totalitarian religious-come-dictatorial society. I mean seriously?"In reality, we don't choose anything" you say, however you argue homosexuality is a choice..? Sir, go home, you're clearly confused...
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

First legalise all things that society has deemed as an invalid lust, such as that of pedophilia, necrophilia or bestiality, and then homosexuality will make sense to allow.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Haha, I suppose you think that they are all related, as they come under 'sexual attractions', but may I remind you sexuality does not come in to bestiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, e.t.c. You can be straight and like these things too. In any case, your argument is invalid, as despite harm being inflicted upon a person/persons within the act of necrophilia, paedophilia, e.t.c. Homosexuality causes no harm to anyone, simply two people who are in love with each other- something perfectly normal.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

You can be straight and gay too, it's called bisexuality, or if you go beyond that and like the trannies it's pansexuality so what's your point really?Necrophilia has a dead person; no harm.Pedophilia is considered a mental illness and animated porn for it is banned (notice how no one would be harmed by that).Bestiality harms who exactly?Homosexuality harms those who are religious and our species' reproductive capacity if we are to be considered monogamous.Regardless of this I do not agree or disagree with either sexual orientation. I simply care to point out the hypocrisy of supporting gay rights whilst being a human being and hoping our species survives to the next generation.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Necrophilia dishonours the dead person, counts as rape, and traumatises the deceased's family.Bestiality is animal cruelty, and morally wrong to procreate with another animal- the offspring would have no decent quality of life.I can just about manage up to there without resorting to foul language..! I mean really, you honestly think supporting gay rights means the eventual demise of the species?? And as for "Homosexuality harms those who are religious" one could equally argue " Religion harms those who are homosexual" and homosexuality has been around far longer than religion. I could equally argue that everyone in the world should be exactly the same, by your logic, and just be an absolute master race, all the same, all 'perfect' so that no one can disagree. I hate to bring along the godwin point here.. But it seems people like that who want to get rid of different religions, sexualities, social classes and just have one perfect race (sounding a lot like Ze Fuhrer here..) tend to be frowned upon by society, to say the least. Bottom line, learn to fucking get along with people.Whether you know or not doesn't matter, but I thought I might just say that I am a homosexual and don't see how my being so should affect you, or anyone else's well-being. What I want to do in my bedroom is absolutely none of your business, just like what/who you want to worship as a God is none of mine.And for the record, bisexuality is not "being straight and gay" as those are two different things, bisexuality is something on it's own.I especially loved how you try to justify Paedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia, that was charming XD
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

Oww wait nener mind. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Bisexuality is not being straight and gay you idiot. It is different to both of them and is a completely different category.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

It's being both at once.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Are you Bisexual or Gay? No. So I don't know why you seem to think that you know what it is like to be one.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

I just study the words and the science behind it. I never said I was gay but I probably am slightly bi since no one on Earth is 100% either way.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Homosexual love is a consensual love between two conscious, consenting adults; capable of choice and old enough to do so. In a necrophilia, only one person may consent, along with bestiality. In pedophilia, the child is -much too- young to consent.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

Homosexual love is a consensual love between two conscious, consenting adults; capable of choice and old enough to do so. In a necrophilia, only one person may consent, along with bestiality. In pedophilia, the child is -much too- young to consent.So is incest
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

lol
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

Homosexuals should be put to death as another user said................
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

Homosexuality should be punished by death......................................
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Because of Leviticus? Where tattoos are banned, you are to kill a son who talks back, you cannot eat shellfish, and you cannot wear clothes of mixed fibres?
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

Homosexuality is also condemned in Romans 1:26 which is in the New Testament
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

No one deserves to die unless they are a murderer themselves. how would you like it if someone started saying you should be killed due to something about you?
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

No one deserves to die unless they are a murderer themselves. how would you like it if someone started saying you should be killed due to something about you?While God is not ordering it
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: It's not a choice.

Why ?
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

I certainly don't think one can just choose what gets their rocks off, but that doesn't mean your sexuality is stagnant throughout your life. It may not be as easy as straight or gay for some people. A lot of people straddle on their orientation, and those people should be who we look to when we ask these kinds of questions. How much is choice, how much is predisposition, and how much does it ultimately matter whether it is one or the other? Choices define people no less than their genes, and if someone chooses to date someone of their own sex, I don't see how anyone would have the right to question them.
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

I believe homosexuality is wrong according to the bible.............................
Debate: Can we all agree that gay people do NOT choose to be gay?
Side: They can change.

They can change, it's proved by tons of evidence.But we can still all agree they don't choose to be gay: ITS..THE...GENES...TELLING...THEM..WHAT..TO...DO THEY...OBEY
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: in the long run

The Dahli Lama is right.The current terrorists are completely brainwashed, and there is absolutely no way to reason with them. They have a death wish, and they want everyone to die with them.But it's not as simple as just blowing up large portions of the earth where they may or may not reside.Because while non-violence cannot deter the current terrorists.Non-violence is the only thing that discourages new terrorists.And for every innocent civilian killed in Palestine, Iraq, or Afghanistan by any western force, two or three new terrorists are made, with a zealous will to kill as many as they can, even if it costs their own life.Luckily the days or "cowboy" diplomacy are over.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

nah, it's more like al-Jazeera propaganda that create new terrorists.when an innocent dies, they blame it on the Americans NO MATTER WHAT. So, if we start to take it easy even more (which has been hurting our troops a shit load already), we are just being counter-productive.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Pyg, can you show some examples? I don't really pay much attention to Al-Jazeera, but it seems you do. All i know is that the US kills enough people that AJ would never need to pin any deaths on us to make us look bad.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding NO

"Pyg, can you show some examples? I don't really pay much attention to Al-Jazeera, but it seems you do. "Look it up tard. Pay attention before you debate.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

K, I thought you were talking out your ass. Just had to make sure.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

here's the source itself.http://english.aljazeera.net/and for the Troop's perspectives (since you obviously think they're murdering innocent people all the time), read "Lone Survivor".
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I could have google Al Jazeera myself. Show me an example, I said.Re Lone Survivor: Anecdotal evidence is not admissable in a debate. Look instead at patterns of behavior. The US military has many bona fide heroes, but WAY more people who are frighteningly psychotic given the chance.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

very much agree. non violence is not the answer. but violence only creates a bigger problem. we can not sit and wait nor can we attack. terrorism is very real. it will never go away, it will always be a problem and the way we deal with it will always have negative impacts. its a lesser of two evils
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Maybe we could try the technique used with annoying children, and I'm completely serious about this:They do something bad, we don't take notice. I know this sounds extreme, but maybe we could work somewhere in the middle. Don't give them all of the media coverage. Don't let them get the satisfaction of chaos in the Western world. When/If Osama releases another video, give it to the CIA and the President and don't play it. They might notice that they are blowing all of their children, neighbors, and friends to bits, and they are getting nowhere with it.If they still insist on killing their fellow countrymen, let them. Let it happen, because by then we have tried counter-violence and non-violence. There really would be little more to do to stop these terrorists. Maybe then we could re-evaluate the situation and come up with an idea.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

The Dalai Lama's government in exile has proven CIA connections, and thus is tainted such that its political opinion cannot be considered objective. Even if there were no connection, he shouldn't be treated as the foremost authority on peace. The title of Dalai Lama was more of a Pope/ Feudal Monarch before the illegitimate Chinese Invasion.As far as violence and peace go: Let's say I live in a large family. You kill my sister (For Oil? :P). Any reason at all. If I then express murderous rage against you, what would have been the best way to avoid it? Not kill my sister, or kill me, enraging the rest of our siblings? Yes, I am the king of terrible analogies. They are often brainwashed, yes. Instead of contemplating that, ask yourself how you may be brainwashed. Instead of by a manipulative Imam, by the incredibly efficient Capitalist machine. Advertising, entertainment media, most news sources, the educational system-- all have an interest in keeping you ignorant of the whole story. It's easier to call them brainwashed maniacs than to explain that they too are people, with human motives for their actions. They are just as convinced of their righteousness as you are of yours.In essence, what I'm saying is that violence probably is an okay short-term answer to terrorism. Long-term, it will only incite more people to the cause until it can't be contained. A much better strategy would be to refrain from egregious exploitation and mass murder such that people don't want to crash planes into us.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

I very much like how you put together this argument. I would also agree with you on the point that capitalism has much, MUCH, to do with the violence that we see today.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

You cannot believe that you can just muscle your way through problems. Look at Gandhi, He was a firm believer in nonviolence and he helped set in motion the Indian Independence Movement. If Gandhi had taken the violent approach it would have never gotten close to accomplishing what was accomplished in India. It is not always appropriate just to pull out the big guns, sometimes it is better to use non-violence
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

first off all your argument is irrelevant. the government he protested peacefully against was not a terrorist group, it was great Briton with people in London who supported Gandhi. we are talking about terrorist, negotiating with a terrorist just shows they can get their way. if your child screams and yells for a cookie, do you give it to him? no he would think he could do it again to get a cookie later. if a terrorist group abducts or blows up a building then asks for money, land, or some other thing, do we give it to them? no they will do it again every time if they don't get their way. you must use force and knowledge to kill terrorist. not agree or negotiate terms with them after they slaughter innocents.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

If terrorists learn this lesson, the world would be a better place. They are only adding to the problem. If only they would realize that they are part of the problem.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

well mr. peace and sunshine terrorist wont learn "this lesson" so get real!!!
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

If American can learn this lesson, the world would be a better place. They are only adding to the problem. If only they would realize that they are part of the problem.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

You forgot to mention the UK as well xaeon. Are they not involved with Iraq as well?
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

They are indeed, and they're just as bad.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding NO

good freaking point
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

If only you learn this lesson, the world would be a better place. You are only adding to the problem. If only you would realize that you are part of the problem. (;
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: A resounding YES!

Wow, thats some poetic shit. I wonder to you roam around disagree with the people who boost about Americas greatest, or how their a force for good. I wonder to you post wise ass comments next to these people. You have no idea how much of a hippocrit you are do you.
Debate: Can we use Non-Violence to destroy terrorism?
Side: What? Are you on drugs?

Would you prefer Al Qaeda? Are they better? If they are so much better, why don't you go live with them in their country and use your science degree to help them out? I'm sure that would be better than working for some blood sucking corporation ;)