azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

you have all got it wrong look at the facts, nature of the human ( clothed ape!!!) there are far to many of them living upon the land that is unable to support them regard less of religion. the ever expanding population will have to end. what goes up must come down! regardless of dates, time there will be a decline of the human, simple fact just look at his story or history! get over it! all religions helped humans to be able to survive. but that is now the problem! the red Indians had a good religion unfortunate for them there was a religion called technology! why not build a tee pee, or a bomb shelter Mr bush could use one of them to hide in lol. let nature have the land back! no more building or development! much needed common sense.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

I don't know if you are high or English isn't your first language, but please rewrite this because it currently makes no sense.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

i will sent some jam jar bottoms to make sum spec's, then it will be very easy to read! basically don't building anything on ground zero remove the name (ground zero there is no legend just a catalyst for war) no mosque or hot dog stand.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Should churches be allowed in Europe after all the atrocities committed by the Crusaders?Opposing factions' churches wouldn't have been allowed a mere nine years after the event. It's true that time heals all wounds but we are presently at war with Islamic factions who spread their ideology amongst mosques, and the terrorism they committed was not very long ago.If this was 50 years after, or even 25 years after, feelings would probably be different but we're still too involved with those radical elements of the religion.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Why should we persecute all Arabs because a group of radicals did this? This is similar to the internment camps that the US created in WWII to keep Japanese-Americans captive.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Why should we persecute all Arabs because a group of radicals did this? This is similar to the internment camps that the US created in WWII to keep Japanese-Americans captive.You're being foolish by resorting to hyperbole. This is not persecution and it cannot compare in the slightest to Japanese internment camps.This is a matter of respecting the victims of a religion which caused that very bloodshed, and thus denying the construction of a mosque (which itself is a political statement by the investors backing it) which would serve to denigrate the memory of those people.Consider it like building a cyanide gas factory in Jerusalem a few years after world war 2, or constructing a "wonders of atomic energy" museum in the middle of Nagasaki years after it was leveled.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Now you're the one resorting to hyperbole. The religion didn't cause the bloodshed - fundamentalist extremists did. They make up a very small minority compared to most muslims - your arguments would only make sense if mainstream islam called for the attacks. The actions of a rogue group do not reflect in any way upon the millions of individuals who have comited the crime of practicing a similar religion. You might as well say that christians should be banned from making churches anywhere near abortion clinics because of Eric Rudolph's bombings.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Now you're the one resorting to hyperbole. The religion didn't cause the bloodshed - fundamentalist extremists did. They make up a very small minority compared to most muslims - your arguments would only make sense if mainstream islam called for the attacks. I am not using hyperbole. I was using examples to illustrate the absurdity of constructing a mosque at the location where people died because of the religion. The trouble is that you are making too many allowances for the Muslims at the expense of those who suffered, I presume because it is a religion and that automatically gets more respect.Islam is a violent religion, so much so that it has to engage in propaganda just to get the thinnest veil of legitimacy, in the west. Coupled with political correctness in the west taken to the point that people aren't thinking any longer but just following handy rules of inoffensiveness, we have an atmosphere where people can't seem to see the obvious.The obvious fact is that this mosque wasn't incidentally chosen to be placed at that location, it was a political ploy to gain attention and show how impotent we are at dealing with the recent rise of Islam. It's a form of mockery, like setting up a Pro-Nuclear rally at Chernobyl, or like building an imperial Japanese cultural tribute at the centre of Pearl Harbor. It's intentionally distasteful to place a building that endorses the very religion of those terrorists, who admittedly did the deed in the name of their religion, at the centre of that attack. How more clear can this be? Do you need to see more Muslims celebrating 9/11 as a victory brought by Allah? Do you need to watch more videos of Muslim Imams and Clerics explaining that Islam endorses the deeds of martyrs, and how it is the duty of every true Muslim to declare war on the west, while quoting their holy book?It's not like the Quran has no mention or endorsement of violence, or that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are just making up the foundations of their Jihad from thin air. But even if this were the case, it would still be disrespectful and in supreme lack of taste to build a shrine to a religion which the bombers claim to have acted in the name of, at the site of their attack.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

The Quran doesn't mention violence any more or less than the Bible.Should Waco not be allowed to have any Christian Churches?It is the exact... same... logic...But typical Christian hypocrisy, which is why everyone who isn't Christian thinks Christians are idiots.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

The Quran doesn't mention violence any more or less than the Bible.So... because we don't flinch an eyebrow when Christians use their religion for violence and to condone hatred, it's only fair that we allow ANOTHER religion a free pass of respect and entitlement so that it can choose to encourage prejudices and hatred on our soil?Is this what you're arguing for, that it's better to support two religions of violence than support one (which we're trying to change, by the way) of violence with a double standard?Should Waco not be allowed to have any Christian Churches?It is the exact... same... logic...It was government forces that seized that complex in Mount Carmel Center. The logic is that building a tribute to those men and women (or the ATF in general) at that spot in Waco would be in bad taste, and I agree with this.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

The anti-Muslim sentiment that has been growing in America exacerbates the problem of Islam extremism. We are a country founded on ideals of religious freedom and to even discuss NOT allowing a mosque near Ground Zero shows that we have come a long way from our founding.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

We are founded on those principals, so why should we not expect those who want to build the mosque here in the United States go by the same principals. If you went to Mecca and Medina, you not only wouldn't see a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue, you wouldn't see a non-Muslim. They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. Yet we're told that we have to have this mosque in this place where Muslim terrorists relying on a construction of the Koran, mass murdered thousands of Americans.Now because of our principal we have to allow others who do not follow that principal to do as they please?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Yes. We are not Saudi Arabia or North Korea or any number of other countries who do not support freedom. We are America. We are a nation founded on freedom and if we don't offer it to everyone, then it's not really freedom, is it? Freedom for some just doesn't work. We're better than they are, so we say, so we sure as hell better act like it.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

We are not Saudi Arabia or North Korea or any number of other countries who do not support freedom. We are America. We are a nation founded on freedom and if we don't offer it to everyone, then it's not really freedom, is it? Freedom for some just doesn't work.We're better than they are, so we say, so we sure as hell better act like it.We have freedom and liberties but that's not what's important here. You see we also have social responsibilities. For example, it would be considered inappropriate to construct a porn shop across from a church or schoolyard. It's the porn shop owner's liberty to build where he pleases but common decency is a responsibility that gets in the way of that.So please don't endorse that mindset of "we're bigger than them, lets give freedom to everyone indiscriminately, without thought or prudence." How do you think the Muslim world in the middle east and south Asia will react to the mosque's construction? You can bet that there will be numerous clerics and fundamentalist men of influence who will see this and say to their followers "Look at America, how it has no backbone to stand up to us, how decadence has made it so soft that it would rather bow down to us and Allah than defend the memory of its citizens."
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Actually no, it's not the porn shop owner's liberty to build where he pleases. He must get a building permit zoned for that type of business, which he isn't going to get near a school or a church. Freedom doesn't work if you selectively give it. We're going to send a much stronger message by enacting the values we stand for than we are by ignoring them for those we disagree with.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Actually no, it's not the porn shop owner's liberty to build where he pleases. He must get a building permit zoned for that type of business, which he isn't going to get near a school or a church. Right. Why is that? We're a freedom-loving country right? Aren't we discriminating against porn owners and users by requiring permits from them, or even denying them those permits? It's their hard-earned money that goes to finance the shop, etc.Freedom doesn't work if you selectively give it.Really?Actually no, it's not the porn shop owner's liberty to build where he pleases.We're going to send a much stronger message by enacting the values we stand for than we are by ignoring them for those we disagree with.A free society cannot survive by mindlessly enabling freedom and acting as the "bigger guy" because doing so would inevitably grant freedom to those who wish to conquer that country.However this isn't relevant to the discussion of the mosque. The mosque near ground zero isn't an issue of persecuting Muslims, or being intolerant of other beliefs. It's an issue of zoning, like the porn shop, an issue of poor taste in choosing to build a Mosque where people of that faith killed three thousand people. Why aren't you offended by this, or sensitive to the memory of those who died? You've awfully sensitive to the Muslim backers. Would you show more compassion if those three-thousand people who died were a racial minority?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

The anti-Muslim sentiment that has been growing in America There is a reason for this 'anti-Muslim (or, more specifically, anti-Semitic) sentiment; that is, they killed many people and have made their desire to kill known many times over !!exacerbates the problem of Islam extremism. It truly is* a problem, and the only way to defeat this problem is to get rid of all the Muslims.We are a country founded on ideals of religious freedomWhy does the way in which America was founded matter today? It's all in the past now, liberals don't care about freedom of speech (cf. political correctness, et al), why should I care about freedom of religion?and to even discuss NOT allowing a mosque near Ground Zero shows that we have come a long way from our founding.It's been a tumultuous two-hundred-plus years, hasn't it?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

You're on very shaky ground here. "They" killed many people. The "they" here isn't Muslims, it's Muslim extremists. Terrorists, specifically. And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either. It truly is a problem, and the only way to defeat this problem is to get rid of all the Muslims. You don't honestly believe this do you? Are you advocating genocide? Or the banning of a set of religious beliefs within our borders? What exactly are you getting at, other than being incendiary? And why does America's founding matter today? Oh, I don't know, maybe because we are what we are because of our foundation? Maybe because those ideals are the best thing about us? Or maybe just because it's right. Liberals are not one big mega-group like you tend to think. We are varied with varying opinions. Still, on the whole, its liberals who argue most often for freedom of speech (I've yet to meet a conservative who thinks flag burning should be protected...) but I digress. Regardless of where you think any party or group stands with respect to the ideals America was founded upon, that does not change the inherent value of those ideals.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

First of all, if you looked, you'd notice that I'm disputing every argument.And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either. Proof?Are you advocating genocide?Why not? They are!Or the banning of a set of religious beliefs within our borders?They do!What exactly are you getting at, other than being incendiary? That multi-culturalism isn't as good as it's made out to be.Oh, I don't know, maybe because we are what we are because of our foundation?No, we are what we are now because of all the presidents and wars and policies and administrations, etc., etc., etc. that we have experienced since America's founding.Maybe because those ideals are the best thing about us?If it's so good, then why are the liberals trying to get rid of it?Or maybe just because it's right.Morality is too subjective to use as an argument. If it were stable, then maybe, but...Liberals are not one big mega-group like you tend to think.Nope. They are a series of evil mini-groups.Still, on the whole, its liberals who argue most often for freedom of speechThen why do they also argue for political correctness and for freedom from religion?I've yet to meet a conservative who thinks flag burning should be protected...Many [erroneously] claim that I'm a liberal, and I'm all for burning the flag.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

You're being ridiculous. And you didn't dispute every argument, so please keep your self-horn-tooting to a minimum. Non terrorist Muslims not fond of terrorists: http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Id=1329490&SM=1  http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Pakistan-disputes-Amnesty-report-on-Taliban-Strength-in-the-Countrys-Northwest--96065654.html I suspect those living in areas controlled by the Taliban are none too happy about it. And riddle me this. If they're so terrible, then why do you point to them as an example of how we ought to behave? "Why not advocate genocide? They started it!" "Why not ban religious freedom? They do it!" The fact that they behave that way is reason enough why we should not. We don't want to be like that. They're bad. We're good. Right? And please, stop trying to make this debate about whether liberals are trying to get rid of anything. I couldn't care less when it comes to this debate because it's got nothing to do with it. You're wrong, for the record, but I won't debate something so off-topic. Let's stick to the point. What liberals or conservatives or anyone else believes does not change my original statement. The inherent value of the ideals is unaffected. If you'd like to argue that freedom of religion or freedom of speech are bad and provide supporting evidence, be my guest. Otherwise you've got no point.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

You're being ridiculous.Tell me how.And you didn't dispute every argumentI stated that I am disputing them all; I haven't done every one quite yet...so please keep your self-horn-tooting to a minimum. What? You stupid liberals can't seem to debate without name-calling. 'Self-horn-hooting'? What's that supposed to mean? I'm some 'attention whore' because I am trying to 'spice up' the debate?Non terrorist Muslims not fond of terrorists: http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Id=1329490&SM=1  I am reporting a broken link.http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Pakistan-disputes-Amnesty-report-on-Taliban-Strength-in-the-Countrys-Northwest--96065654.html Yeah, so? How can I be sure that that's even a true report, or that that which is being reported is true?I suspect those living in areas controlled by the Taliban are none too happy about it. Are they true Muslims?They're bad. We're good. Right? You say that we should treat evil with kindness?And please, stop trying to make this debate about whether liberals are trying to get rid of anything. I'll make this into a debate about any damn thing I want. Just you trying to stop me from adhering to a perfectly valid stance shows how anti-freedom you are.The inherent value of the ideals is unaffected. My argument simply stated that, when desired, those values are ignored.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

How are you being ridiculous? By advocating genocide for all Muslims. Is "self-horn-tooting" a name? "Stupid liberals" sure seems like name calling though. Pot, meet kettle. Broken link, can't figure it out, but it was a news report on the seven year old executed by the Taliban. Here's a Fox News version of that story, since I know you can't dispute Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/11/afghan-taliban-hang-year-old-boy-punish- family/  And what part of the Amnesty report did you find so dubious? As far as treating evil with kindness, within our borders, we should treat everyone equal. Because that's what America is about. Freedom for some is not freedom. Our commitment to freedom is supposedly what makes us superior to so many other nations. Now, whether we're superior or not is not my concern. But our commitment to liberty and justice for all is. My argument simply stated that, when desired, those values are ignored. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your thinking reflects a very childlike view of the world. You have to take one stance or the other. Either the ideals we have are worthy or they're not. You've yet to give your opinion on this, but you argue repeatedly that liberty can be ignored either because Muslims ignore it or because liberals disagree with conservatives over what freedom of religion and freedom of speech are supposed to mean. What do you think?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

You're on very shaky ground here. "They" killed many people. The "they" here isn't Muslims, it's Muslim extremists. Terrorists, specifically. And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either. There is a remarkable silence of moderate Muslims towards their extreme brethren. The moderates in a sense act as a protective shield. We need to somehow win over the moderates to rationality so that the extremists are exposed.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Can you blame them? The threats to their own lives are severe for speaking out. In Afghanistan, where a peace jirga was recently held, the Taliban's underground government announced that the punishment for attending would be death. They proceeded to launch rocket attacks at the 1,600 delegates gathered. I agree that we need to win them (the moderates) over, but the way to do that isn't going to be by denying them religious liberty nor is it going to be bombing innocent civilians in an attempt to kill a few bad men.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

I agree that we need to win them (the moderates) over, but the way to do that isn't going to be by denying them religious liberty nor is it going to be bombing innocent civilians in an attempt to kill a few bad men.It's not a matter of religious liberty. Three-thousand people died because of Muslim terrorism at that site. The respect for their memory, and of their families is more important than a mosque, which would receive little protest if built elsewhere.In the west the moderates are fortunate in that they need not fear violence perpetrated against them for trying to assimilate. However, the big threat to them comes from the native culture. If you continually support policies that alienate the native culture in order to give special treatment to the minority, it will be resented. We wouldn't be having this debate if it was about, say, erecting a statue of Pat Robertson in the middle of the earthquake-devastated region of Haiti (as you are aware, he implied the earthquake was punishment from god). We would all agree that such a thing would be obscenely insensitive and inappropriate. Erecting a mosque right near where people died in the name of that religion would be a slap in the face to everyone who suffered, and would only serve to make Muslims in the area more resented for receiving special treatment through political correctness.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

What do you mean non terrorist Muslims aren't fond of Radical Muslims?! These terrorists are there heroes! Why do people not realize that the Muslim goal is to kill all non-Muslims?! "No, not all Muslims are radical, some are just MODERATE Muslims. There is nothing wrong with these people." You know why domestic terrorism is growing? Because the Muslim minority in our coun try is slowly gaining confidence and although they are still small in number, they are doing huge damage. READ THE KORAN PEOPLE! Sura 8:39 : Make war on them (non-Muslims) until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. Hmmm..... I wonder what that could mean......
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

And non-terrorist Muslims aren't particularly fond of them, either. -SpoonerismHonestly? Non-terrorist Muslims are very fond of terrorists to say the least. Granted, not all Muslims kill people, but that is probably because Muslims are a minority in the US and they would be aniihilated if they did. Also, in the Middle East the countries are almost 100% Muslim. So, there isn't much killing to do there huh? How about Africa? Lets see, according to http://markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html  120 million Christians and animists have died in the last 1400 of jihad. How much longer must this go on? Okay, so you say that "MODERATE" Muslims don't believe this is right? When is the last time any Muslim denounced terrorism? If they have, then maybe they need to read the Koran more : "Fighting is obligaory to you, much as you dislike it." -Sura 2:216Maybe these so-called "MODERATE" Muslims aren't too Muslim after all? These people seem awfully like Jews who stuff themselves with pork, if you know what I mean.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Mosque_at_Ground_Zero#arg112476
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

You couldn't even copy-and-paste your argument? Rather, you supplied a link!(idiot)
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

You couldn't even copy-and-paste your argument? Rather, you supplied a link!(idiot)The purpose of the link is a polite suggestion to the creator of the debate to use the search function, as is common practice in any forum, but thank you for your feedback.