azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

A few questions:Does repressing one's sexuality cause harm?If marriage is beneficial, then is denying it harmful?If a gay or mixed-race (or other) couple lives in a town with sufficient bigotry that they are completely denied services, are they harmed?If the catholic church choses to close its orphanage rather than place an orphan with a loving gay couple - who is the one doing the harm?If a person is a bigot, is calling them a bigot harm?If homosexual women have a lower rate of HIV than heterosexual women then is being a heterosexual woman inherently harmful?
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

No but hating people who love the same sex, denying services to them, or trying to 'change' them because you don't approve, is harmful to society.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?Yes. But not by homosexual behavior. The child is hurt by the actions of the parents.If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?Yes, but not by homosexual behavior. They are harmed by their intolerance.Examples of such businesses where a person should be free to refuse services could be things like wedding photographers, masseuses, tutoring, etc.If you are in a business that deals with the public then you must accept that there may be certain things you will run across that you don't agree with. It is your choice not to service homosexuals however again, it is the choice of the business, not the actions of homosexuals, that hurt the business.If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?Yes, but not by homosexuals. The children are hurt by being denied loving parents that happen to be homosexual. If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?Yes, by their own idiocy. Most schools/universities have a contract that is signed upon hiring that employee's are to conduct themselves both in and out of the office in a manner that won't bring shame upon the school. If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?Yes, by the actions of those who are in the group. Not by homosexuals as a whole.If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?How is that different from Homosexuals having to hide who they love for fear of legal, social, and financial retribution? For fear of their lives?When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?If they do those things and act like that then yes, but not by homosexuals, by their own actions. It's perfectly fine to disagree with homosexuality, however to preach hate against it, to be intolerant of it, to spread hate regarding it and to deny the same basic rights that a heterosexual couple has, hurts themselves.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

The examples you gave only demonstrate how homophobia could be construed as detrimental, not so much homosexuality itself.The part about most aids victims being gay is just not true. Even if it was, they don’t “own” the disease; they are not the beginning and end of AIDS. This disease has spread to the heterosexual communityThats strange, dont you think? What are those heterosexuals doing that would cause that? So, what do you think?I think you’re scared. Like a child is afraid of the boogeyman. Don’t worry; there are no monsters under your bed. ::pats you on the head::
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Agree

To be fair, if the numbers are presented in the right way, there is on the surface something to the whole gay-aids thing, but it's not nearly as extensive as he would indicate.Per the CDC, receptive anal intercourse with an infected partner represents the largest risk factor aside from tainted transfusions. It is more than an order of magnitude riskier than penetrative anal intercourse with an infected partner, which itself is slightly riskier than vaginal intercourse with an infected partner. Receptive anal intercourse is also more than double the risk of sharing needles with an infected partner. These are all backed by numbers, and when the risk is worded in this particular way it looks like it's a big deal.However, sometimes the actual numbers are more important than their relative values. Look at the actual rate of transmission associated with these acts- the risk of contracting HIV through receptive anal intercourse with an infected partner is still just over 1% per encounter. Penetrative anal intercourse, or either penetrative or receptive vaginal intercourse are around or below 0.1%, and needle sharing at around 0.6%. This wording is using the exact same numbers, but looks at them as absolutes rather than relative to one another; the implied severity is significantly lower.All of these values assume that barriers such as condoms are not in place as well.Even if we were to use the prior wording and embellish somewhat, it still falls flat when we try to call it a 'gay' disease because of two important factors that are left out:1) The risk of transmission between lesbian partners is almost completely negligible; the blame he places on the lesbian community is blatantly false.2) Anal intercourse is by no means limited to homosexual males.This is just another case of someone massaging numbers and manipulating language to support their own agenda.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to othersA male homosexual lifestyle is more susceptible to contracting HIV, yes, on account of anal intercourse increasing the susceptibility. This is not the same as saying that homosexuals account for most of the population of people affected by HIV.I disagree that that indicates that homosexuality is harmful. The heightened risk is apparent in those who have anal intercourse. Heterosexuals can have anal intercourse heterosexually. And homosexual males don’t have to have anal intercourse in order to be considered gay. Homosexuality is not the end all be all to AIDS. Homosexuality, in itself, is not harmful to society. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.I suppose we could find ways to reduce the risk of the disease in homosexual people that engage in anal intercourse… I suggest they be monogamous… maybe allowing them to marry can encourage that type of behavior ;) Financial Impact… … Now, tell me how that doesn't harm society.It doesn’t harm society. In fact it helps. People who are encouraged to get tested at the governments expense allows for more people to be aware of whether or not they contracted the disease. People who then get treated are less infectious to a rate of almost 96%. Both reduce the risk of spreading the disease.Financially speaking, it’s a matter of weighing the cost effectiveness. And keep in mind that that money doesn't just end up in the trash, it goes to medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies; stimulates the economy.At any rate, this still doesn’t do anything to prove that homosexuality is harmful to society. Also the examples I gave have actually happened.Doesn’t make them any less anecdotal. Nor does it offer anything to prove that homosexuality is harmful, it only illustrates how homophobia can be harmful. Heterosexuals catch aids from bisexuals all the time. Not saying thats the only way. There is IV drug use, among other things.Yea… like heterosexual; vaginal or anal, intercourse… But you can't deny that it is spread by the gay/lesbian community.I can, and I do. It’s absurd.You seem to think that homosexuality is the beginning and end of AIDS. That if everyone in the world would not be gay, AIDS would cease to be. You’re pitifully mistaken I have given facts to support my position. You have offered nothing but opinion.The facts you gave do not support your preconceived notions, I don’t need to provide any supporting evidence to point this out; you already made it clear to your audience that your reasoning doesn't coordinate with your research. I'm just pointing it out to you.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Agree

Once again, you have offered nothing but opinion. I have shown how homosexuals spread disease, including statistics from the CDC website. I have given real life examples of how people were harassed, and even arrested, just for disagreeing with homosexuals and trying to protect their children. And you say no harm was done. You're really amazing.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

You've dug through the CDC's website for a particular statement that you can spin to suit your cause. The Actual CDC Statistics on transmission do not support your claims regarding the homosexual community in general, and absolutely refute your claims insofar as they pertain to the lesbian half of homosexuals.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

A lesson on evidence:1. Lack of evidence is not evidence lack. Just because I have not personally provided you with evidence to support the contrary position doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist. But that’s besides the fact that it’s not necessarily required of me to provide any at this point anyway.2. Burden of proof. The person positing the affirmative of a claim is responsible to provide proof. As your audience, I assume you have some valid reason to support your assertion.3. Evidence must be valid and relevant. This is perhaps the most important criteria of supporting evidence. Your selection and application of the evidence you provide must stand up to scrutiny in regards to context, relevance, validity, etc. If your audience can clearly see that your reasoning and research do not correlate, it is not their responsibility at that point to provide evidence to support the opposite position, they need only point out your flawed reasoning and/or poor application of evidence to refute your argument.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

Double Post .
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

Homosexual behavior, in my opinion, is not harmful to society.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

It's good for population control because same-sex people can't reproduce.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

Think futuristic! In the future we will (should) live much longer. And if we live longer, we cannot keep reproducing....So - sex has nothing to do with conventional (Abrahamic) logic.. so sexuality will be more for pleasure. Homosexuals don’t reproduce!!! So it’s good!!
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

It's a form of population control since they can't reproduce, so that is a good thing. Outside of that, to each his/her own.
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

Wish you only fortune Give you good health Wealthy. It's really good to use on your website. I will support you forever. Hunting Simulator 2
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

With over 100 year’s experience in the fire safety industry Pendle Nu Tech are your leading family run company who look after their clients because they care! fire extinguishers Greater Manchester
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

PusatQQ is an online qq gambling sitetrusted official from the pkv games server that has long served connoisseurs of online gambling games in Indonesia. Pkv Games
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

WRS Web Solutions Inc. is an internet provider which cares about providing good quality unlimited internet plans to people from coast to coast (and beyond) for their home internet needs and for small business internetinternet providers
Debate: Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?
Side: Disagree

What has the mind whenever you hear the term "Root Canal" or "Root Canal Treatment?" Once we hear these terms, many of us associate them with pain and suffering- and in a few ways, this association has some merit, although not because of the treatment itself! Root Canal how much does root canal cost Treatment is clearly offered as a way of stopping the pain, swelling and associated suffering that is included with certain forms of toothache.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

Human nature is neither good nor bad exclusively; human nature is both good and bad completely. You can't know goodness without knowing ugliness. Nature works out because of the opening up of action oriented possibility. The answer is in the positive.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: bad

This proves human nature is evil...this pseudo-intellectual attempt to justify oneself to believe they submit ultimately to no rule.It's self-delusional thinking trying to wipe out death as if it's not on you.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

"People disagree with me, therefore evil exists".
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

you only exist if you believe you exist and then your morals are only subjective to your own perversions and everything you mean is meaningless and everything you do is wasting time and you are dust in the wind and this is all lies.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: bad

you only exist if you believe you existThere are philosophical arguments to be made in favor of that, yes.and then your morals are only subjective to your own perversionsPerversions isn't really a fitting word, but one's morals really are subjective.and everything you mean is meaningless Depends on one's outlook.and everything you do is wasting timeAlso depends on one's outlook. I don't find life to be a waste of time, regardless of my lack of theism.and you are dust in the windMore like stardust.and this is all lies.Why would it be lies?
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

I favor goodness for 'tis wise. I'll yea throw in objective morals.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

"Good" and "bad" are both subjective human constructs lacking basis in actual reality, which inherently means that subjectively we are always both and objectively never either.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: bad

Whilst I would agree with you that in good and bad "subjectively we are always both", however, when transferred into action (actual reality) they become singularly objective, either one or the other, good or bad.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

The action exists objectively but "good" and "bad" are still only subjective projections of value that we assign arbitrarily to the objective action. The action is not objectively "good" or "bad" because there is no such thing; we only think it is.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

If we consider the dictionary definition that subjective being of the mind and our thinking as opposed to the object of thought as a goal derived from thought or emotions, it therefore presumes that we derive our sense of good and bad from our moral and ethical social mores and yes whilst thought and emotions are subjective they represent the values of civilization over thousands of years so have become objective over time.Our laws are an example of this as the objective reality that represent the values we place upon good or bad according to our nature.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: bad

The subjective is anything which exists strictly as a conception of the human mind, and regardless of whether it is a widely held conception it still remains as such. You are also assuming a level of moral homogeneity over time and across cultures which simply does not exist. Furthermore, you are conflating the objective enforcement of the moral concept with the moral concept itself
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

Its interesting how though we may try to write clearly the intention of our debate there remains the opportunity for misinterpretation. C'est la vie. Enough, let's move on.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

There is nothing particularly interesting about semantic miscommunication, nor either to semantic distortion and misrepresentation. You are clearly disinterested in continuing to defend your interpretation, however, and to be honest this is a semantic road I have gone down with others numerous times now to limited effect... so I am willing to part ways without resolution on this one as well.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: bad

good and bad are quantifiable measures on the order - chaos spectrum.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

If that is true then this should be an easy question to answer: How, exactly, do you objectively quantify "good" and "bad"?
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

i believe i already stated that..enthalpy..order over chaos..creation over destruction..its really not a difficult concept.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

I understand the concept perfectly well. I am asking you to defend its validity as an objective phenomenon in the realm of ethics and morality. You appear either incapable or unwilling to do so. Either way, continued failure on your part to produce a rational or evidence beyond the mere naming of a concept constitutes concession of the point.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

well, since i have already "lost"... whatever that means, i don't have much to lose..recognize the truth in what i've said or don't.. it matters not to me..i've given you all you need to go on whilst exploring your moral and ethical "edges"..does it create? or does it destroy?is there greater enthalpy, or less?orderly or more chaos?.here: scrambled eggs..good or evil?.choose and explain why
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: bad

I observed that failure to move beyond reiterated assertions to actual analysis or evidence would constitute a concession of the point. I never indicated that there was anything serious at stake to lose, only that you were not really debating and therefor not winning the point in question.I cannot recognize the truth of an assertion because it does not constitute proof of truth. I also never said it mattered to you whether I agreed or not.I am not sure what your point was about exploring the "edges" of morality, but I assure you that not only have I presented a considerably more thorough and defined view on morality than you have but that it is not especially new within philosophy and ethics. Nor does being at the periphery of commonly accepted narratives render something invalid, despite your dismissive implication to the contrary.Neither objective creation nor destruction are moral actions themselves, no matter how much subjective morality one attempts to project onto them. The same can be said of enthalpy, order, and chaos. Also of scrambled eggs. I have already explained why this is. You, however, have not explained why or how the objective can be quantified in the objective moral terms you also have not proven exist. An informed deduction based upon your continued failure to do so is that quite simply you cannot substantiate any of your assertions on the matter. I see no reason to futilely continue trying to elicit any substantive reply from you, and have little intention of responding to your next round of assertions.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

good..that would make me happy..you talk too much anyway.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: bad

You wish good and bad had no basis in reality. In that scenario, you are automatically excused for anything and everything you have done, said, and thought wrong. You are responsible in your fantasy of non-defined reality for nothing....every moment of your time means nothing in the end of your fantasy.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

You wish good and bad had no basis in reality.No, he actually believes that.In that scenario, you are automatically excused for anything and everything you have done, said, and thought wrong. Not really. Many people who do not believe in objective morality believe in subjective morality, so he can still feel guilt.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

Good and bad has no basis in reality; it is a mathematical concept being weighted on scales, therefore, I am accused by those mathematical concepts by man. Everything I've done, said, and thought. I create my own fantasies and my definition of reality. Every moment of my time means something. Your fantasies are manifested by your actions and I may be prosecuted. As well as mine and to you prosecuted. That is opinion at its finest my advisory.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

You wish good and bad had no basis in reality.To the contrary, actually. I think that if objective morality existed it could improve circumstances markedly. However, upon review of what actual evidence exists regarding human genetics and neurology and the utter lack of evidence pointing to any objective morality I have reached the rational conclusion that morality is not objectively real. In that scenario, you are automatically excused for anything and everything you have done, said, and thought wrong. You are responsible in your fantasy of non-defined reality for nothing....every moment of your time means nothing in the end of your fantasy.I am a determinist as well as an amoralist, and because free will is rather a necessary component to culpability and thus responsibility it is an accurate reflection of my views to say that I also do not believe in responsibility. That said, I am entirely of the view that accountability remains both legitimate and necessary. Your assumptive prejudices about my personal character are not accurate, nor are they a valid form of refutation to my argument.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: bad

I'm sorry, I can't read this gibberish. I find it extremely boring watching a person trying to convince themselves that they are smarter and better than God.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

Except he hasn't done that, at all. You can't read.
Debate: Is human nature naturally good or bad
Side: good

There is no reason to try to convince myself of my superiority over something which I do not believe exists. Consequentially, I made no such effort towards that end. You would know this if you read my statements, but as you yourself confess you could not do that. I would suggest that boredom has very little to do with your inability, however, and that the real reason you cannot take criticism of your views seriously is that critical thought is antithetical to your beliefs. It is natural for people who feel threatened to dismiss others offhand with casual insults rather than meet the challenge head on, so I take no personal offense.