azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

In order to have a harmonious co-existence, a society needs to have an accepted code of behavior.Yes. But this was not what you said initially. The term "harmonious co-existence" is not a synonym of "society".You're not really making a counterargument, just expressing confusion at definitions.I never claimed to be making a counterargument. I was merely probing you to be more specific with your diction."Something" is a pretty standard word which is commonly used to present a hypothetical situation; therefore, I wasn't saying that anything in particular undermined the moral code, just that a hypothetical "something" that did would be bad for society. The moral code is the set of norms accepted by a society.It is not wise to use ambiguous terms to rebut someone who has made specific reference to the topic in the UoD - homosexuality. Even if I were to accept that you're using a hypothetical situation to bolster your argument, I still do not see how you have fully rebutted the other person at all. Next, you're again, getting ambiguous by saying, "The moral code is the set of norms accepted by a society." This is because you mentioned previously that a society is a congregation of people living according to an agreed set of morals. You're assuming that this is a tautology when I have clearly showed that it is not.the abhorrence of all of these are parts of the moral code which keep society functioning well and people questioning those rules is obviously not a good thing.This sounds so much like the Orwellian totalitarian society depicted in George Orwell's novel 1984, where even merely "questioning" anything is not allowed. Are you now advocating for a law forbidding thoughtcrime?It is only when an element of change, such as, for society, a shift in the moral code is introduced that things can go awry.I disagree. You are being very myopic here. Elements of change occur all the time and result in better outcomes for society as a whole. For example, after the feminist movements of the 1900s, women are now treated with more dignity and respect. With more females now in the workplace, the economy is rapidly developing. Don't forget that it was the females who helped jumpstart the economy after the Second World War. Another example, before Galileo, people used to think, under the influence of the Catholic Church, that the Sun revolved around the Earth. After Copernicus and Galileo conceptuatlised and verbalised the Copernican theory of heliocentricity, we now know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. So you see, change sometimes result in better outcomes such as economic development and scientific progress.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Without a moral code that everyone agrees with, society can't function.This society you imagine, that has a moral code everyone agrees with, does not exist. We are discussing a minority, you see the irony?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Firstly, I disagree with you that homosexuality is a lifestyle. That implies choice. It is not a lifestyle, but a preference. You can't choose what you like!Also, the homosexuality is mentioned little in The Bible. If you read some of the passages carefully, you can see they were added later (probably around the 16th century). By the way, the Bible also says that eating shrimp is an abomination!I would say that it IS good for society. Just think of it. Gay men are the link to the feminine world that us straight men need! They can often make good non-threatening friends to the opposite sex too.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

A down vote within the hour but no valid argument against homosexuality.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Exactly..What is the definition of "Good" for society mean? Is it good for the earth for us to blow up 1,000 nuclear bombs? HELL YES!!!! If we were to kill all humans, in about 20,000 years, the earth would be so much better off without us around. Stupid question.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Wtf? On the other side, precisely how many fake accounts has Srom set up for himself?Anyway,1. There are too many people. Homosexual couples allowed to live their life as they like means less pretending to be straight and having kids they may or may not want just to keep up with the Joneses, plus more stable couples available to adopt the thousands and thousands of kids wasting away in orphanages.2. The general hypocrisy of claiming to be "the land of the free" and all that whilst the religious looney tunes are allowed their blatant government supported discrimination cannot possibly be good for the shared psyche of our society. 3. From a free market perspective, there is an entire homosexual industry being surpressed just as much as individuals sexuality. Set it free and see new industries pop up for a literally richer society.4. It wouldn't matter if it weren't good for society, letting people live their life is the right thing to do... it is good for society, but that's not the main point. Doing the right thing is the main point.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

"Is homosexuality good for society?" and "Are homosexuals benefitting society?" are two COMPLETELY different questions.Are they good for society? I don't see why not. From a societal perspective, are they not the same as other people? What differentiates them? Because they don't have kids? -They can have kids, simply not with each other. Are they benefitting society? Of course. They are no less productive than their straight, bisexual counterparts.Does their sexual preference even have an effect on a community as a whole?To an extent. They promote equality and add diversity to the community.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Who is down-voting all the 'Yes; arguments without leaving any type of response.I guess the pyg is right...stupid people.I think I will up-vote all the comments of out spite :)
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Y'know animals display homosexual behavior? Animals like Giraffes, Elephants, Dogs, Salmon, Chicken etc...
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

This isn't evidence for it being good for society, just for it being natural. Many behaviors, such as theft or murder are observed in animals but aren't good for society.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

1) For a population with a tendency towards overpopulation, homosexuality provides a natural check which helps to keep our numbers at a more reasonable argument.2) Because they don't have any of their own children, homosexuals can fill the void left by deceased parents. Take for example homosexuals who adopt kids: they are effectively providing parenting to kids who wouldn't have it otherwise. A healthy homosexual population provides a safeguard to a certain amount of parent mortality.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

It is not good nor bad, it just is. Just because it is good or bad for the society wont change it (some people are born gay, just like some people are born straight, i have witnessed this).One of the many reasons i put this under yes is because love is love, how can love be bad for society?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

the thing is God says don't judge anyone so that's like if u don't like homosexuals you can't judge and say they r bad.if you think in general let's say there was no homosexuality, our society would have been very strict and boring but with homosexuality people do whatever they like so if they want to get bambed by another man fuck dem do whatever they want and i don't see gay people as bad they r harmless and this coming from 100 % straight guy coz God tells us to not judge others.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Wow, somewhere in your horrible spelling and nearly indecipherable grammar I think you used god for a positive argument. That's a rare thing, congratulations.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

listen mate why don't u come to visit me in my gym i might not spell like u but i am sure i can lift more weights than u so keep ur skinny light weight ass shut.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

and then u wrote god instead of writing with a capital letter God so i suggests that u look in the mirror first and judge ur own rubbish grammar spelling.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

yes, or it is nutral. it is not negative though. I know plenty of gay people and the only negative element to them or their lives is the intollerance they have to deal with because some people hate them for their ascribed sexual preference. Being gay is totally normal, its a part of gestational variation in fetal development due to the changes in chemical gradients in both the mother and the child. Homosexuality is good/nutral. intollerance of homosexuality is unnatural (ignores trends in nature) and is bad for society.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

It's not bad, anyway. I'm actually neutral about it. Nature made it so that some people are attracted to people of their own gender, there isn't really anything we have to say about that. We are overpopulated, so the argument that they cannot reproduce is basically unimportant. It is a bad thing that not a lot was known about STDs and condoms were only used as anticonception. Nowadays, heterosexuals are just as likely to not use a condom and spread disease as homosexuals are.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Gays play an integral part in the betterment of the world. Plenty of Gays give to charity and they are active in Broadway and just have a positive influence in the world.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

I respect that you have taken the time to go into such a deep analysis of moral subjectivity and objectivity, but whilst you use deep philosophical terms, you seem to have zero understanding of these terms.And because what we believe personally is not a concensus of the whole then there are no objective values of good and bad and thus what is good or bad for society becomes impossible to answer with any rational objective basis.From this above statement that I have quoted, you seem to assume that "objectivity" refers to "agreement by society" (in summary). This assumption is wrong which undermines your entire argument. When philosophers speak of "objectivity" or "objective beliefs", they are referring to beliefs that are "mind-independent" (i.e. beliefs that are true independent of the human mind). To put it in lay terms, when a philosopher says that a belief is "objective", he/she is saying that such a belief is true (1) regardless of whether anyone believes in it or not and (2) it is inherently true but not derived from any human mind and/or thought. Thus, according to the philosophical definition, I don't think that your argument has any force whatsoever.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

Except the problem here is that you were drawing this from my first point which is "No there are not objective moral values and duties". So my rationale was from the human level and not from the philosophical level. In this sense I was stating that if you do not believe in objective moral values then the only way for you to be able to soundly stand in your beliefs are through a concensus where everybody agrees with you, in this sense it is a culmination of subjective beliefs that form a common belief which could either be then converted into some form of failed objectivity.So I believe that my arguament has ultimate force. Because a point is not perfectly illustrate does not make an entire arguament wrong, this is wishful thinking to a good arguament and it does not work that way. So I compell you to try to dispute my entire post instead of assuming that an improper illustration of a point is grounds for dismissing an entire arguament.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Wow. You're an either an incredibly dense or stupid person. Have you not read what I have said? By definition, you entire understanding of moral objectivity is utterly flawed! And I am saying this from a philosopher's point of view, since moral objectivity is purely a philosophical concept.in this sense it is a culmination of subjective beliefs that form a common belief which could either be then converted into some form of failed objectivity.Which is why such a statement is incoherent and only a self-deluded person would be likely to even being to fathom.Because a point is not perfectly illustrate does not make an entire arguament wrongActually it can.By the way, can you please learn how to spell properly? It's spelt "argument", not "arguament". When you click the "support" or "dispute" button, the top of the empty box states, "Write your argument." So unless you're extremely myopic or blind, I don't see how you can spell a simple word like that wrongly.Back to my main point. When debaters and philosophers talk about what constitutes an "argument", they mean a piece of writing that consists of a set of premises and a conclusion. In order for an argument to be valid, it must fulfill the truth conditions. These conditions are that (1) the premises are logical to believe and (2) the premises logically link and lead to the conclusion. By this definition of what a "valid argument" is, the best analogy I can help you to understand with is a pyramid made out of playing cards. If the base isn't strong, the pyramid falls. If the cars aren't positioned and linked properly, the pyramid falls. I have shown that you have not even fulfilled the first condition because your definition of objectivity is already wrong! So if the basis/assumption of your entire three arguments are false, how can you ever hope any of your arguments to be valid? Now, if you want to maintain your view, that would be, to quote you, "wishful thinking". Please learn how to debate. So I compell you to try to dispute my entire post instead of assuming that an improper illustration of a point is grounds for dismissing an entire arguament.By the way, it's spelt "compel" not "compell".
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

Homosexuality is not good for society because most of the people in this world are made by male and female having sex and the baby being born. Homosexuals can not have kids. If a male and a male have the same body parts they can't have sex because its the same body parts and you won't have a baby.Also Homosexuality is wrong. The Bible even says its wrong. Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestableLeviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own headsYou will also not inherit the kingdom of God if you are a homosexual here is a verse from the Bible that states that homosexual are not entered in heaven.1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

"Homosexuals can not have kids."Yes they can, there are many options. Surrogates, adoption, sperm donors, etc."If a male and a male have the same body parts they can't have sex because its the same body parts and you won't have a baby.""Having a sex" and "having a baby" are hardly the same thing. Homosexuals still have sex, it just cannot result in pregnancy. So in a way, abstinence isn't the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancy; the Pope should be advocating homosexuality as a way to stop people from having abortions!"Also Homosexuality is wrong. The Bible even says its wrong."Yes, the Bible says it is wrong. You say "even" as though you have another source justifying why homosexuality is wrong. What would that other source be? What makes the Bible right on this issue? Where is the independent verification that says "We may trust the Bible's authority in this subject"?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Homosexuality is not good for society because most of the people in this world are made by male and female having sex and the baby being born.Because that's what we need, more people than we already have. I think 6.8 billion is plenty.Also Homosexuality is wrong. The Bible even says its wrong.The bible doesn't just say that homosexuality is wrong, the Bible says that you should KILL homosexuals.“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death" Leviticus 20:13Srom, how many gays have you murdered in the name of God? Do you think it's right to murder gay people? I eagerly await your response.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

Srom how many gays have you murdered in the name of God?I don't murder gay people. I respect them but I don't really like it when they choose to be that way. Plus the verse that I quoted from Levitcus is for the Jews not for the modern day Christians. Do you think its right to murder gay people?Right now I don't think we shouldn't kill gay people because we live in a society where killing is not an ok thing so I don't I would kill any gay people
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

I don't murder gay people. I respect them but I don't really like it when they choose to be that way. Plus the verse that I quoted from Levitcus is for the Jews not for the modern day Christians. So it was okay for Jews to murder gays but not Christians?Right now I don't think we shouldn't kill gay people because we live in a society where killing is not an ok thingSo you believe morals are culturally relative? Did God change his mind, or did people do that?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

I don't murder gay people.Well, even if you did, you aren't likely to admit it online or offline right? Just saying.I respect them but I don't really like it when they choose to be that way.But even if you don't like their lifestyle, is it right to label homosexuality as bad for society? I personally will never choose to lead a homosexual lifestyle, but I have enough respect for them as people and know that they do contribute to society. Some of the smartest people are homosexuals. For example, the great stage and film actor Sir Ian McKellen (who acted as Magneto/Eric Lehnsherr in X-Men), Stephen Fry (actor, broadcaster, comedian, Cambridge scholar and intellectual, essayist, journalist and one who fights for the rights of the poor African people) and Lady Gaga (arguably one of the most influential women in the world). These people contribute very positively to society in spite of the fact that some societies frown upon homosexuality.I don't think we shouldn't kill gay people because we live in a society where killing is not an ok thing so I don't I would kill any gay peopleBut if you're only not killing anyone because someone tells you that it is wrong, then you have no sense of morals at all. I don't mean that in a degrading way. But morals are derived from reasoned logic and philosophical thought. If you're only accepting something because someone tells you that it is right, then, forgive me, you don't seem to be thinking for yourself.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Gays do not choose to be gay. I am bisexual and I did not choose to be this way.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Leviticus 20:13Let us exercise a bit of class and use the King James version.'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.'
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Homosexuals can have kids, just not with each other. They are perfectly capable of raising children from adoption, surrogacy or previous relationships. Even if everyone in the world was heterosexual, some of them would choose to be childless and that's nothing you should concern yourself with.You might be surprised to learn there are plenty of people who couldn't care less what the Bible says about homosexuality. A book that advises you to oppress an innocent demographic shouldn't be an authority in matters of government or civil rights.As for AIDs, you're in desperate need of some basic sex ed if you think the act of homosexual sex magically creates the virus. This magnitude of misunderstanding is seriously dangerous.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

Well I posted the Bible verses because its wrong and also homosexuals will not go to heaven because its an abomanation and its wrong and detestable. We are here to populate the world with male and female not homosexuals.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Well I posted the Bible verses because its wrongYou're confusing cause and effect here.also homosexuals will not go to heaven because its an abomanation and its wrong and detestable.First, you have not provided any justification for why homosexuality is wrong. Second, you haven't proven that heaven exists and Occam's razor easily disproves the necessity for invoking a heaven to explain why homosexuality is good or otherwise.We are here to populate the world with male and female not homosexuals.How dare you dictate what others should do with their lives?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Let's summarize what's happened so far.--You: Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so.Me: But lots of people don't care what the Bible says. They have no reason to think homosexuality is wrong.You: But the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. --Do you see how that is not an effective tactic with which to support your view?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

The bible will say what is right or wrong to whoever believes in what the bible says. It's basis for the religion, not the society. If a man does not care about the bible, he is entitled to do whatever he want with his life, it does not affect nor matter absolutely anything if any religion says what he is doing is wrong. It's not his religion. No dogma can be forced on anyone.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

Yes you are right about one thing most nonbelievers just live there life and do what ever they want doing constantly sin in there life. Well Christians are on this earth to live for Jesus Christ. They preach the Good news about Jesus Christ and also they tell other people in foreign countries and some of the people convert to Jesus Christ. God's main objective is to save people's souls and get people to heaven instead of hell.