azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Have a good day? You mean have a good day a month ago when I posted it?Yeah it is my opinion that is based on the fact that you keep accusing people incorrectly of using them. Its pretty clear to anyone reading that you don't have a clue about most of the fallacies you talk about.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

The slippery slope at work for you. Women are banned in the bible from being pastors or bishops. In fact, they are banned from being in any position where they teach or have authority over men in the church. Of course this regulation does not apply to the business world or education etc. etc, just in the church. Such a rule does not fit in with our egalitarian world, so many major protestant denominations changed the rules in the 1960's and 1970's. Essentially all of those denominations embrace homosexuality today. The argument was made at the time that allowing female pastors would lead to other things, arguments that were probably dismissed by people like you.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Have you signed the petition to legalize zophilia yet? ...................................................................................................
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Do you mean Zoophilia? If you do, what does Zoophilia have to do with same-sex couples allowed the ability to adopt?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Not a whole lot, except they are using the exact same argument as homosexuals to de-criminalize their actions. Goodmale has even gone so far as to tell me it is an "orientation"
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Not a whole lotAside from the person arguing for Zoophilia being an orientation, does it have anything to do same-sex couples being allowed to adopt?except they are using the exact same argument as homosexuals to de-criminalize their actions. Goodmale has even gone so far as to tell me it is an "orientationAnd I certainly will not support Goodmale's argument on it, he is in the wrong and I could refute his arguments if necessary. I absolutely disagree with his opinion on the subject.With that said, is there is another reason?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Isn't it a little hypocritical to support homosexuality but not bestiality... As he says his partners consent just like gay partners? Why are you judging his lifestyle, he isn't hurting anyone.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Isn't it a little hypocritical to support homosexuality but not bestiality...Nope. Not even in the slightest.As he says his partners consent just like gay partners? Why are you judging his lifestyle, he isn't hurting anyone.His desired partners, being non-human animals, cannot give consent. Hypothetically, let's pretend that objectively, the non-human animals wants to consent to sex. Humans have no way of verifying this. They are not able to tell us whether or not they give consent. Consensual sex is all about ethical law and non-human animals cannot contribute to that.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Do you support neutering and spaying because they can't give consent to that but we do it anyway but let me guss you will say there is a difference because "neutering is not as bad as rape" so before you say that, there are still both wrong and until you take action at banning neutering and spaying your just a hypocritical. And anyway animals can give consent and your are getting yourself into a argument that you don't even know much about like I do.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Do you support neutering and spaying because they can't give consent to that but we do it anywayI support the owner in legally neutering or spaying their animals. It does not require consent in a court of law to do so. Where as, if the issues were to arise about rape or consensual sex between humans and animals, that cannot be established in a court of law.but let me guss you will say there is a difference because "neutering is not as bad as rape"No actually, it's not as bad, but that is definitely not my reason. Don't get me wrong, I don't like neutering, but I realize if I want to have animals and they have territorial issues, I just might have to. so before you say thatYeah I wasn't going to.there are still both wrong and until you take action at banning neutering and spaying Way to convince me. They're wrong, so believe it.your just a hypocritical.Again, I didn't argue for that reason, you assumed. But even if I did, it's not hypocritical.And anyway animals can give consentProve it. and your are getting yourself into a argument that you don't even know much about like I do.Certainly doesn't sound like you do.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

I don't know why you are jumping in here... you do understand I am just making a mockery of your position right?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

So is disputing me just an effect of you mocking goodmale's argument? Do you even believe any of the crap you're arguing in your dispute to me?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

His desired partners, being non-human animals, cannot give consent.  How would you know, don't you have any conception of privacy? What are we going to start spying on everyone who is "different" now, just to find out what they are doing? Sounds like you have some kind of personal conflict with this, are you sure you have never though about it? They are not able to tell us whether or not they give consent so you admit there are no "victims" going out and reporting a crime? Why do you even defend laws you can't enforce without breaking his constitutional right to privacy. It's called the Constitution, read it some time. Just think of all the soldiers in all the wars fighting for our freedom. They gave all they had so we could have a country where bigots like you don't go out and judge people when they aren't even hurting anyone. Consensual sex is all about ethical law and non-human animals cannot contribute to that. Says who? your stupid bible? Maybe someone doesn't want to live under what you call "ethics." Did you ever think of that?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

What I believe is the exact same oversimplified arguments homosexuals use to justify their behavior can be used by a lot of other groups we all agree are immoral. A victory for homosexuality is an indirect victory for feminism, transsexuals, bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, and perverts of every kind.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

What I believe is the exact same oversimplified arguments homosexuals use to justify their behavior can be used by a lot of other groupsIncluding heterosexuals. we all agree are immoral.We don't all agree it's immoral.A victory for homosexuality is an indirect victory for feminism,That's not even a sexual identity....transsexuals,Possible.bestiality,Nope.polygamy,Possible.pedophilia,Nope. and perverts of every kind.And nope.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

No and i never will. Even I have limits. Salaam. .
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Probably because it is right at the core pf your soul you know it is wrong.22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman...... 23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an anmal and defile yourself with it......The close proximity is starting to seem kind of ironic.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Dont tell me what i can and cannot believe. I will do what I want. Being gay or bisexual is not wrong because people do not choose to be gay or bisexual. Im bisexual and Im not sorry. Homosexuality and bisexuality involve consenting adultsa and have nothing to do with pedophilia or zoophilia.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preference.  -thousandand1Sounds a lot like a choice to me.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

You are stupid. People do not choose who they are attracted to.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Gay activists has been working for decades to make everyone believe in principals that favor their side. "They aren't hurting anyone." "Love is love." "Just because the bible says it is wrong doesn't make it so." "They were born that way." There is nothing that says those principals can only be applied to homosexuals.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

I feel very uncomfortable when there is a gay in the locker room with me. I see him look at other men in the locker room and it gives me the creeps. I sewer he will never look at me in the locker room. I have my locker far away from his.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

That sounds like you need your own locker room, not one for those who aren't you.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

There's more straights than gays in are locker room so the gay one should have to go. It's not just me that don't want him in the locker room but most don't want him in our locker room.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Um, provide a source for that, and we can see. But really, from what I've seen, gay people don't care about you in the locker room. And if you are uncomfortable, there are already private places (bathroom stalls, etc.) in which you can go if you feel like you may be violated. But really. Gay people aren't as in to you as you think.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Provide what source? Well from what I seen and what other's in the locker room seen is that he has a staring problem. There is a strange thing he does too is he puts his hand over his penis when he is talking to someone. Most people are uncomfortable with him in there.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Right... most people are uncomfortable. What makes you think a gay person wouldn't be uncomfortable with someone looking at them, the same way you are? How do you deal with that problem?If only we had some form of individualized privacy for those who were uncomfortable. Like bathroom stalls.Creating a new locker room doesn't solve any problems. It just makes you feel better.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

This is how life works. The bigger party win's and the little party has to go. It's not right for the greater numbers in the locker room to feel uncomfortable just because a gay can't stop staring at people in the locker room.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

This is how life works. The bigger party win's and the little party has to go. That is absolutely not the case, and that is a clear example of ignorance, bigotry, and highly un-American values. One of the key points of America, at least, is that minorities get representation. If that's what you believe, why do you speak English? A bigger party on this planet speaks Spanish, and an even bigger party speaks Mandarin. Guess you have to go. .That was a pretty shameless example of a way of thinking that is really not ok.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

This is how life works. The bigger party win's and the little party has to go. It's not right for the greater numbers in the locker room to feel uncomfortable just because a gay can't stop staring at people in the locker room.First, you assume you are in the greater number based on a very small sample size. Second, you assume that all homosexuals, or even most, are going to be staring lustfully at everyone around them. This seems to imply that you think homosexuals are incapable of having any manner of restarting, which makes me question your thoughts on the nature of human sexuality in general.Third, life is not inherently democratic. In fact, much in life does not work based on such democratic principles, and quite often smaller groups end up with more power than the bigger group in question.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

I based my facts on what goes on in are school and in are school students don't want a gay in the same locker room. Plain and simplePlease give me a link
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

That's my point: Your "evidence" is your personal experience within one small group in one small location. That's called anecdotal evidence, and isn't particularly legitimate when trying to make claims that apply to larger groups.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Is it unreasonable to assume that if you did a quantitative study on whether heterosexual men feel perturbed or not when scrutinized, while being stark naked, by homosexual men, you would find that most do find it unsettling?Ask yourself: Why is it that most women would feel unsettled by a man--stranger--viewing their nether regions? Then, apply that to the anecdote in question.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Doing your usual pro Gay anything. Do you think men would be into watching women in the dressing room? Of course they would and the same for Gays! Denying the obvious as always.Since I believe no one should know who is or is not Gay, separate rooms would be a waste of money. Gays should learn some respect if they are looking at other men.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

This is a completely irrelevant point. Gay people could feel just as uncomfortable as straight people. Therefor, separate changing rooms solves nothing. The solution I have presented, an option for individualized privacy, would certainly make whoever wanted to feel more comfortable the ability to feel more comfortable. Also, I'm a little confused by your argument. You seem to say that it is self-evident that gays would look at other people of the same gender, because straight people would do the same. But then you say that gays should 'learn some respect.' What are you arguing?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

I say there should be no separate changing rooms because of the cost, and Gays should be told to show respect to others in the dressing rooms. NO ONE should be flaunting their sexuality on others.We have had enough fixation with Gays for decades now and it is time to stop talking about all the abnormal sexual orientations out there and get on with life.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

NO ONE should be flaunting their sexuality on others.I agree. My point was... who's to say that gay people aren't already doing it? My original argument was responding to the premise that all gay people in locker rooms are constantly looking for sex. You made that argument as well, but then presented the idea that this doesn't have to happen if gay people had some self-control. Who's to say they don't already have this self-control?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

The people commenting said they have been stared at in locker rooms so OBVIOUSLY some gays have no respect. They need to be told to show some respect just as women tell men not to oggle them. Can you grasp such a simple point or must you always get on your PC bully pulpit and excuse Gays?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Having a seperate room for gays is not going to solve anything. That would be a room full of gay people who will be looking at eachother. It would be no different then having them with us straights.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I aready said that having different rooms is not the answer. It would cost tax payers or private businesses much more for duplicate rooms. All that has to be done is tell Gays to quit eye balling men in the locker rooms.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Not all gay men are looking at men in that way in the locker room.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

No one said all Gay men look at men in the locker rooms. Don't tell me you are another politically correct zombie who does the knee jerk defensive reaction against anyone who dares mentions Gays and their behaviors.I want you to repeat 100 times, I wil treat all people equally the same and will not put Gays on a pedestal and protect them from other's slanders more so than I will protect Christians, or other groups from slander.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Ok then make them gays and Christians equal. And there is a reason we took God out of public schools. By having creationism in public schools that meant the government was choosing a religion that was correct. It would be totally different if they were private schools. Also, your words were.Tell gays to stop eye balling other straight men.That meant that you were referring to all gays. You should have instead said.Ask this certain man to stop looking at me while we are in the locker room.We just speak English we are not politically correct.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

You say the same mindess anti religious expression rants that most Liberals spew. You use words like Government forcing a religion on the people.With the lie of separation of church and state(no where in the constitution), it is GOVERNMENT FORCING THE PEOPLE TO CENSOR ANY PRAYER A COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE DECIDED THEY MIGHT WANT!No community is forced to have a prayer or not have a prayer. IT'S CALLED FREEDOM!It's amazing how anti religious expression bigots censor the very mention of God in public schools but have no problem with our very impressionable kids being exposed to Gay awareness propaganda. Such hypocrites!
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS TO PROTECT THE CHURCH OF ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENT CONTROL! SOMETHING THAT THE CONSERVATIVES VOTED FOR! YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT IF YOU DISLIKE SEPERATION OF CHURCH OF STATE BECUASE THEN THE STATE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO WHATEVER REGULATIONS AGAINST THE CHURCH! GOD FUCKING DAMMIT YOUR ARGUEMENTS ARE STUPID! I GO TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL THAT HAS A PRAYER GROUP. EVERY FUCKING DAY THEY GO AROUND THE USA FLAG POLE AND PRAY BEFORE SCHOOL! THEN THE MUSLIMS DO THE SAME! SAME WITH EVERY OTHER RELIGION! PRAYER IS ALLOWED IN SCHOOL! YOU DONT KNOW SHIT!!!
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Sorry, I got very angry at the ignorance you have and the lies you believe about the liberal party. Yes there is some that wish that God wouldn't be even mentioned in school, but there are very few that think that way...
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Also I looked at the constitution and the first amendment states"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"For us Agnostics or Atheists: Meaning the government cannot say what religion is correct and by having Public Schools teach Christianity or any other religion, They would be choosing a religion that is correct.For the Religious: Meaning that the government cannot make laws against the practice of any religion.You really need to research your claims before ranting... It makes you look stupid when you don't.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof!You really need to understand the english language!The free exercise thereof would be a community having the free exercise of choosing to have a prayer.The community's freedom to choose a prayer (NOT FORCED ON ALL SCHOOLS) is not Government establishing a religion. It's a community of the people who vote to have a school prayer. You don't like the majority's vote, go to a different school if you are so intollerant to the very mention of a prayer.You are the young ignorant generation conditioned to twist the constitution to fit the anti God bigoted Left's definition.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...That means:1. Government cannot choose a religion to be correct.-This means that no teaching of any religious beliefs (unless it is for learning cultures) in schools.2. Government cannot ban the practice or exercise of any religion.You are the one who needs to learn English. I read over my comments a few times and look up words in the dictionary to make sure that I am correct. Your bending the use of 'free exercise'. At my school the religious go around the flag pole and pray. Enforcing a person to god(s) that they don't believe exist is very much so a large problem. Would you enjoy being forced to pray to Allah? Or to Buddah? Your religion strictly states not to pray or worship or believe in other gods. Also to take out your majority rule belief. If the majority rules and they ban guns (which I am not for) then go to another country!"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"Do you want me to give you the definition of every exact word on the statement?Congress= The national legislative of a country.Shall= Expressing an instruction or command.Make= Compose, Prepare, or Draw Up.No= Not any.Law= Rules or instructions of a country.Respecting= Deep admiration of someone or something.An= Any single.Establishment= The action of establishing something.Of= The relationship between a part and a whole.Religion= The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially in god(s)Or= Forming nouns denoting a state or condition.Prohibiting= Formally forbid by law.The= Denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.Free= Not under the control or in the power of another.Exercise= The use of a faculty, right, or process.Thereof= Of the thing just mentioned.I don't think it gets much clearer that you are either A. Way wrong. B. Don't speak English. Or C. Both (The most likely).
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Did you know that our Congress starts every single day with a prayer? Can you grasp what that means? Since the time our constitution was wrtten, Congress has said a prayer each day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So you tell me in all your knowledge, what does that tell you to the intent of our Constitution in regards to religious expression?It tells a thinking person that the intent of the Constitution was NOT to censor prayers from public buildings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!But I'm sure since you know more than our entire Congress and the words of the Consitution, you will simply say that Congress is wrong. LOLOLOLOL, DENIAL?