azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Whether there is or isn't a course to defend here, is a matter of political views and not "explanation".Wrong.You explained, or rather provided some details, which proved that she was being very stupid.No, I provided details as to how she should be put in jail.Her actions did not help the cause of resisting pro gay legislation.You might be surprised actually. Time will tell.1. Mention compliance to standing regulations as the main reason for her not servicing gay couples. But also state that it contradicts her religious views.She doesn't give a fuck about actual regulations. 2. Comply with the local court's decision and register marriage applications for those particular gays that had filed the complaint.The court didn't make a decision for a few gays. It made them for all gays.3. Refuse register marriage applications of other gays, without direct court orders.She was given 2 direct court orders.4. Never refuse to register marriage applications for straight couples.That's the only smart thing she did. The Supreme Court ruled that gays should get marriage licenses just like straight people. If she refuses straight people she is following the Supreme Court, sort of.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Then an Equal Protections Case would be filed against her and every single court will rule against her.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Hey Regressive will mosques perform gay marriages ? Why is it you Regressives refuse to attack Mooslime ?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

No. The Kentucky clerk is not a church worker, so your argument is misplaced. The Koran is just as ridiculous as the Bible and it does get attacked.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

LMMFAO you Regressives never attack the religion of Islam
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Just because you only listen to the "attacks" against Christianity doesn't mean Islam doesn't get the same criticism.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Show me Regressive where the Left has attacked the religion of Islam. Please show your ignorance which i know you can
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Just from this website, and not even everything I could findFirst trySecond tryThird try
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

You Regressives do believe the Religion of Islam is peaceful ! Nothing new here !
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Go elsewhere, troll.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

So, you didn't go to the links? Only the Muslims defended Islam as a religion of peace.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

First, calling me "Regressive" is nonsensical. Hold off on the name calling and at least try to hold a civil conversation.Second, I have criticized Islam plenty, and my criticisms of Islam are far stronger than Christianity.Third, your straw men are not constructive in any way, shape, or form.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

I already told you that I criticize Islam.Are you not capable of paying attention?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Will the radical gay agenda take their issues to a mosque and demand they perform gay marriages ?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

No one is doing that. No one is even forcing churches to perform gay marriages. If you wish to make a point, be educated on the opponents argument.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Education and his argument don't go together.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

No one is doing what there Regressive ? Clear that up if you can
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Yeah... you aren't adding any legitimacy to your points. Nice try, though!Actually no, that wasn't even a nice attempt. Poor attempt.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

So will the SCOTUS force mosques to perform gay marriages ?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! They haven't forced churches to perform gay marriages, why would they force mosques?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Where will the gays get married there Regressive ? Please clear that up
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

I already did. Do you need to be told in multiple debates? The courts can legally marry gays which is what they are asking for.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

No. They also will not force Christian churches to perform gay marriages. Educate yourself on what the supreme court decision does.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

What did the SCOTUS say there Regressive ? Can you tell me ?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

How do you consider this debating? That is a question you can look up on google.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Why are you mad at the SCOTUS if you don't even know what they said?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Next time just read the second sentence.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

I got it you Regressives can't read but you can't understand that !
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

You seem to have this terrible opinion of regressives, but you constantly call yourself one. If you consider yourself a regressive, why do you speak so poorly of them?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

They will, eventually. And, just like for churches they will be shot down.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

They will do what Regressive ? Clear this up if that is possible
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

The gay community has tried to force churches to change for them, and eventually they will try to get mosques to do the same. The courts haven't allowed it against churches, and won't allow it against mosques. Why did you forget what you asked after an hour?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Please respond to the actual issue at hand, or move on to a different topic.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

She should absolutely not be forced to sign those forms. She should be deported or put in jail. Those are the only 2 options for people who don't like American laws.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

That would make our country a police state though.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

If you don't like the freedom of the country you are yourself trying to create a police state. If you have power to create a police state you should be put in jail before it gets out of hand. Putting people in jail for violating the law is not creating a police state.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

I know but for arresting someone for disliking the law is a police state move.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

While I don't think she should be thrown in jail, it isn't that she just "dislikes" the law, it is that she is disobeying it.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Ok than she sho uld be fired.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Disliking and not following the law gets you thrown in jail. She is not disliking the law she is breaking it. Sorry I didn't word it properly before.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Ok, but her job is to sign those licenses, if she fails to do so she should get fired. Speeding is against the law but you don't go to jail for it.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

You can go to jail for speeding if you don't stop speeding when you get caught multiple times.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

I know that, for multiple times. If the government is forcing someone do to something under penalty of the law than they are a police state. She needs to be fired instead.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

I know that, for multiple times.You think she only failed to give out 1 marriage license?If the government is forcing someone do to something under penalty of the law than they are a police state.She signed up to do it. The government didn't force her to get elected to the job.She needs to be fired instead.No, she needs to quit.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Good point.I know but they CANNOT force her to sign any licenses. If she fails to do so she needs to quit or be fired.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

I know but they CANNOT force her to sign any licenses.That depends on what you mean by force.If she fails to do so she needs to quit or be fired.She should also have to give back her pay from this time period. I don't think it is right that she gets to mess with other people and not be punished at all.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Weird to hear that from you specifically.1. You can't deport a USA citizen from USA.2. Which law did she disobey? SCOUTUS is not Congress and does not make laws.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

It isn't that she is breaking a law necessarily, it is she is guilty of misconduct as a public employee. That is why there is a petition within Kentucky to have her fired.Actually I was wrong, it is a misdemeanor: "KRS 522.020 and KRS 522.030 deal with official misconduct in the first and second degree, respectively. “A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, knowingly commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an unauthorized exercise of his official functions or refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office or violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his office,” according to KRS 522.020."
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Did you see that she is still refusing?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Yup. There's a petition to have her fired and her lawyers are freaking out.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

I don't really see what there is to freak out about. Having her be fired is the best thing that can happen to her.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Weird to hear that from you specifically.You were gone so long, someone had to lay down the crazy bullshit.1. You can't deport a USA citizen from USA.It's ok, she doesn't want to be a USA citizen.2. Which law did she disobey? SCOUTUS is not Congress and does not make laws.Contempt of court. She works for the courts. If she doesn't obey the courts she has broken the law which she swore to uphold.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Not only that, but also misdemeanor negligent misconduct.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

She is lucky it isn't a felony with all of the people getting felonies thrown at them for seemingly light crimes.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Contempt of court. She works for the courts. If she doesn't obey the courts she has broken the law which she swore to uphold.So is this provision of Kentucky state law still in force:"402.005 Definition of marriage.As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.Effective: July 15, 1998History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998."?Or was the definition (semantics) also rendered null and void by the Supreme Court?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

It has been rendered null and void twice now. She is not performing the duties that she is legally obligated to perform.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

Yup. I do not support late term abortion though. That is pretty messed up.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

What is the difference between late term and early term?
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

A simple search can take you a long way my friend.qwfqwefqwefef
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

So you would say you believe in spontaneous generation, a physically possible theory as it was made my an Ancient Greek Scientist named Aristotle somewhere around 400-200 B.C.E and was thrown out hundreds of years ago?
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

Somewhat.Also sorry for the late reply create debate is being a pain in the ass and is making everything really confusing.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

So then you agree that you are an idiot? Spontaneous Generation is an idea that has been completely demolished by many great scientists both religious and non-religious.Also, you cannot "somewhat" believe in Spontaneous Generation.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

1. It hasn't within the context that you are using it (or misusing it.2. One can "somewhat" believe in Spontaneous Generation rather easily. They do this by holding that it exists via the combination of biological materials in sexual reproduction (or asexual), but is not the way that life as a whole (or even organisms as a whole) started.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

No aspect of that demonstrates a belief in spontaneous generation any more than a belief that created sperm is life does.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

I don't either, but it is important to remember that late-term abortions only make up about 2% of abortions. Most women make up their mind before then.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

I don't either, but it is important to remember that late-term abortions only make up about 2% of abortions. Most women make up their mind before then.You said that most women "make up" their mind before then.Why didn't you just say that most women "decide" before then?Making up someone's mind is a long term process, something that involves a change of mind.You can't change your mind from a long held belief early on.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

The diction policing is unnecessary. I meant decide, but you know what I mean.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

The diction policing is unnecessary. I meant decide, but you know what I mean.Don't worry about me picking on words.It is just a new style of debating that I have applied.It's not something I normally do, but it's not a bad idea.Anyway.What reasons do you believe most women decided to have an abortion?
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

Yes, sometimes it is more inhumane to force a person to have a child than to abort the child because of bad economic status.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

Yes, sometimes it is more inhumane to force a person to have a child than to abort the child because of bad economic status.Why did you say economic status as opposed to financial?Most people abort their babies due to financial status, not economic status.Finance and funding is not the same as your personal economy.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

Either way, it's a valid reason. Additionally, you didn't dispute why people should be allowed to get abortions
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

Either way, it's a valid reason. Additionally, you didn't dispute why people should be allowed to get abortionsWhy do you believe people should be allowed the ability to have an abortion?
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

As stated prior to, a lot of time the economic/financial status of a person can be a deciding factor. Sometimes people just aren't ready to have kids yet. Sometimes it can be life threatening to have a baby. Etc.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

As stated prior to, a lot of time the economic/financial status of a person can be a deciding factor. Sometimes people just aren't ready to have kids yet. Sometimes it can be life threatening to have a baby. Etc.Women who have babies get benefits.Also, why not send those babies to homes where they can be looked after?
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

Women who have babies get benefits.Such as? I mean if the woman wants a baby then okay there isn't a problem with that, but a lot of the time it simply isn't a viable option to maintain a stable life.Also, why not send those babies to homes where they can be looked after?Because it causes a lot of distress to everyone involved.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

Such as? I mean if the woman wants a baby then okay there isn't a problem with that, but a lot of the time it simply isn't a viable option to maintain a stable life.We need to come up with an equation to debate this.Benefits in the United States are determined by a specific formula, tax(number of children + bills) + income2 / rent.Because it causes a lot of distress to everyone involved.How?
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

Benefits in the United States are determined by a specific formula, tax(number of children + bills) + income2 / rent.I'll fact-check that later, but okay. That still isn't a reason to outlaw abortions.How?If you have a baby then regardless of whether you can keep it or not you are going to have an emotional connection to it. Putting a kid up for adoption is extremely hard.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

We' re all just a load of cockroaches and rats.Rip a fetus out and then smash it with a bat.You see, I don't even care if it was me, That received a premature fatality.Abortion is just a miniscule hinderance, an inevitability of causality.It's just another death of a pest , in reality.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

The unanswerable question is when does a life begin. People debate between whether it's from conception, from birth, the moment it look human-like and many more. I, personally, can't really decide because at the end of the day its still a life that won't be able to be lived.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

Life doesn't "begin" to say so would be believing in spontaneous generation. Which was an idea we threw away 200 years ago. Life is a very complicated matter.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

You keep repeating this flawed understanding of spontaneous generation. Nobody is saying that a flea is coming out of dust. They are saying that biological building blocks through the process of sexual reproduction eventually creates life.Spontaneous generation requires biological life to come from non-biological substances "spontaneously".
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

Actually, the definition states that Spontaneous Generation is the belief that living matter comes from non-living matter. That means that life never begins.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

http://www.britannica.com/science/spontaneous-generation You are simplifying the concept to the point of absurdity (I mean that within the context of rhetoric, not as an insult).
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

People often assume they know the solutions to unwanted pregnancy without considering how the woman must feel. The fact is that carrying a baby that was produced by rape is ignominious to both the woman and the child. It is also not uncommon that children that are put up for adoption may never be adopted and be forced into living in foster homes until the age of eighteen. Living in foster homes without the valuable boon of loving parents can be detrimental to the health of the child. This can often lead to dropping out of high school, and turning to criminal activity. This is not to say that all women with unwanted children should get abortions, but the option should always be available, especially in cases where the life of the baby or mother is endangered. If this option is not available then there abortions will still occur, but in the non-medical form such as coat-hanger abortions.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: Against

The government is responsible for the feelings of women and children born into unfortunate circumstances.Don't blame it on lack of abortions.
Debate: Let's Talk About: Abortion
Side: For

You can't expect the government to solve all your problems. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy is very common in the black community, which is partially the government's fault for encouraging it. However, it's also the media, as well as the decision of blacks to not get married first. The lack of marriage leads to families that are more likely to break apart, and children that are not cared for are more likely not to complete their education, or turn to a gang as an alternative family. It's a complex problem with many factors.