azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Then I pity you. Emotions are not illogical to those that have them, because they're the result of chemical reactions in the brain. Rights are natural. Your Hobbesian approach to rights quickly leads to chaos and warfare. Laws exist to promote peace and order. Human rights exist to promote peace and order, because as soon as natural human rights are denied people by your standards become "illogically unhappy" and then chaos ensues.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Then I pity you.Emotional sentiment is overrated.Emotions are not illogical to those that have themThey matter to those who have them, but they often blind their judgment.Rights are natural.Rights are a human construct, and thus are unnatural.Your HobbesianHobbes? Was he the writer of Leviathon?quickly leads to chaos and warfare. Was the chaos and warfare of the middle ages caused by a lack of human rights? Or rather by overbearing monarchs?Laws exist to promote peace and order.How does homosexuality promote peace and order? Greece, Rome - all the homosexual 'hotspots' throughout history have fallen.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Rights are a human construct, and thus are unnatural.Rousseau disagrees. Hobbes and Rousseau had this debate roughly 400 years ago. Rousseau's view prevailed. Rights flow from the natural right that everyone has a right to dictate their own destiny. Hence, they're not a human construct.Hobbes? Was he the writer of Leviathon?Yes.Was the chaos and warfare of the middle ages caused by a lack of human rights? Or rather by overbearing monarchs?Both. Overbearing monarchs infringed on human rights.How does homosexuality promote peace and order? Greece, Rome - all the homosexual 'hotspots' throughout history have fallen.Greece and Rome did not fall due to homosexuality. The rights of homosexuals to get married promotes peace and order, because it will please them thereby preventing civil unrest. Granting them this right does not infringe on the rights of others and is not a threat to public safety.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Rousseau disagrees. Hobbes and Rousseau had this debate roughly 400 years ago. Rousseau's view prevailed. Rights flow from the natural right that everyone has a right to dictate their own destiny. Hence, they're not a human construct.I, then, must agree with Hobbes.Yes.I bought Leviathon awhile ago. Now I wish to read it. Tell me, in what writing came the debate betwixt Rousseau and Hobbes?Both. Overbearing monarchs infringed on human rights.Greece and Rome did not fall due to homosexuality. The rights of homosexuals to get married promotes peace and order, because it will please them thereby preventing civil unrest. Granting them this right does not infringe on the rights of others and is not a threat to public safety.Homosexuality leads to diseases, as do other sexual perversions.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Homosexuality leads to diseases, as do other sexual perversions.As does "straight" sex or any other type of sexual you deem to be normal. Condoms prevent the spread of disease. STDs are just as prevalent amongst heterosexuals. You believe laws should be grounded in logic? OK...it's not logical to arbitrarily deny rights that you confer upon others.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

This leads back to my original argument: It is not logical to engage in intercourse for any purpose other than procreation.However, seeing how nobody can comprehend this form of logic (I call it 'Vulcanian logic'), I shall have to think of another argument.Here's an argument:Religion is (I know that you'll disagree!) a religious rite.Another argument:Marriage is betwixt a man and a woman, can a homosexual marriage truly be a marriage?Condoms prevent the spread of disease.Only 27% of teenage females who engage in coitus do so with their partner wearing a condom.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

From a functonal perspective, sex is designed for procreation to ensure the survival of a species. However, in contemporary society, sex is also a form of pleasure. A human being's mind is very complex capable of everything from philosophical thought to emotional depth beyond that of mere animals. Pleasure/happiness helps keep us sane. The same way fear helps keep people alive. Regardless whether your Vulcanian logic find emotions to be "illogical," the point is they exist. Their presence is not accidental. The logic is we should pass laws that make society happy while not infringing on the rights of others. Not create laws that would make sense in a world that doesn't exist: an emotionless species with a population problem. However, the issue isn't about legalizing gay sex. The issue is gay marriage. Marriage on the other hand is a legal contract between two people asking society to recognize them as a family unit conferred with certain rights (health administrative proxies, administration of estates, etc...) How consenting adults choose to have sex should have nothing to do with denying them rights. Furthermore, a law prohibiting gay marriage isn't grounded in logic rather religious dogma. Archaic laws grounded in religious dogma should not be dictating rights in a secular society.Only 27% of teenage females who engage in coitus do so with their partner wearing a condom.My ultimate point here is that claiming Homosexuality results in the spread of disease is irrelevant to the argument because so does heterosexuality when done without protection.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Homosexual behaviour occurs in nature, thus by definition it is natural. It is not hard to see how it would be logical and beneficial for our ancestors to have a few adults in a family group abstain from having children and instead devote time and resources to their relatives' children. Homosexuality would supply childless adults without requiring those adults to ignore their sex drives and need for romantic companionship, which is an unlikely expectation. Today, the female relatives of gay men have more children, and (barring adoption, which evolution did not take into account) with no children of his own, the gay man has more time and resources to devote to them.Do you think everything illogical should be made illegal? Does this include any and all marriages that cannot or are not intended to result in children? Does that include sex with the use of contraceptives, among anyone, married or not? What is logical in a human's life, besides day to day survival and the production of offspring?
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

At this point it seems you are being obstinate and wilfully obtuse.Prove that homosexuality is natural.Define natural. Regardless, Human beings are not and should not be governed by what is deemed natural.It shows future generations what the world looks (or rather, looked) like, primarily before the advent of the camera.It is impossible for that to be the reason for paintings before the camera, as the artists would not have known what a camera is or that it would ever be created.Hedonism is not logical.Why not? Pleasure is entirely logical. Conversely, a life without pleasure is completely illogical. Sex is pleasurable, and a life without that fails to conform to the primary compulsion of life - procreation. Regardless, humans are not logical creatures. We have emotions, none of which serve any logical purpose. Our society makes sex a taboo, which is illogical considering our natural urge to mate. How are 'human rights' pleasurable?This is implied by the displeasure of having none.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Humans are one of the only species to engage in sex for pleasure, as well as reproduction. And on top of this, we can reproduce without sex, which many couples resort to because they can't bear children. Therefore, marriage is not only for people intending to have children.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

There is one logical reason to engage in intercourse. Procreation. Homosexuality cannot result in impregnation and thus there is no logical reason to engage in homosexual behavior.Good. You elucidated your premise for your argument. Now for the bad news: your premise is arbitrary and of no more objective value to the universe than selecting pleasure, greed, or love.You should skip the logical pretence and simply state that you think procreation is important, because you have no logic backing you.Oh, and bonus: gay people will be able to procreate in a few decades, using technology that converts skin cells into gametes.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Maybe not, but there is an emotional reason to engage in homosexual behavior
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

As I said, emotions are overrated.Homosexuality breeds disease and moral corruption.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

How you rate emotion does not stop their effect.Homosexuality does not breed any disease or moral corruption, explain how they do.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Perhaps my knowledge is out of date (decade or two, perhaps), but as I recall AIDS has it's origins in homosexuality.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

I have already explained to you that is it unsafe sex practices, not homosexuality itself, that causes this, and I used factual evidence from Africa to back it up. Why are you still using this argument?
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Aids is thought to have its origin in primates via SIV. The first known case of Aids was only established in 1981-82, not sure which.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

and does sex not breed corruption in all forms, sex can breed jealousy and lust, which can lead to anger. and if emotion is overrated why are you here? if you think these thing illogical, then is it not illogical for you to be here trying to prove a flawed point? could you not be doing something more constructive? the logical path is not always the right one
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Procreation is not the reason most people have sex most of the time, very rarely is it so. What is the logical reason when heterosexual couples use condoms? Emotion and Logic are not distinct. Logic builds off of Emotion, our reasoning is basically preemptively applied Emotional evaluation. For example, as a young child we touch the red coils of a electric stove; we associate that experience with the emotional response and though our reasoning when we see something glowing we think that its likely hot by inductive generalization. With out emotion we would have nothing stopping us from touching the next red glowing thing we see and our hands would be very burnt. Emotionally, we don't like pain. One of my oldest friends is gay; if he one day wants the legal rights granted by marriage; he should be able to have them even if the other consenting adult in the contract is male. Personally I wouldn't mind marriage being abolished, perhaps replaced with a contract that legally incorporates someone into your family, without the religious and sexual undertones of marriage. Marriage IS NOT a religious thing, its a legal thing; ifs its religious then government needs to stop recognizing marriage and view it as a private religious practice.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

What is the logical reason when heterosexual couples use condoms? It is illogical to use condoms.With out emotion we would have nothing stopping us from touching the next red glowing thing we see and our hands would be very burnt. Emotionally, we don't like pain.Is it not logical to avoid physical injury?Marriage IS NOT a religious thingProve it. Does marriage have a religious origin?ifs its religious then government needs to stop recognizing marriage and view it as a private religious practice.Marriage has become to common an aspect of society to 'forget about' it.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Hello, Terminator. The issue isn't about sex. It's about whether certain people should be allowed to marry. I've been reading some of your posts and it doesn't seem to be the case that you actually have a reason as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.Prove it.It's simple. You can get married without the religious ritual. But you can't get married without a state license. The ritual has historically acted as a rite of passage, but not the actual thing that makes you "married".Does marriage have a religious origin?No. Marriage has always been a state institution, always requiring the recognition of the state regardless of what ritual religious or secular is attached to it.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Does marriage have a religious origin?No. Marriage has always been a state institution, always requiring the recognition of the state regardless of what ritual religious or secular is attached to it.I don't have an information to back me up here, but I find this statement highly dubious. For one thing, in much of recent history (up until the last century or so) church and state have been identical in many countries. Certainly now marriage must require the recognition of the state, but you would really have to show me some info to prove it's always been that way. Anytime you use the word "always" you had better have some damned good data to back you up.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

I don't have an information to back me up here, but I find this statement highly dubious.Do you know what they say about the male intuition? Neither do I. Nor do I know who "they" constitutes. But people have been getting married since before there were states - as the definition and requirements have changed over time - and before there were religions. Marriage as we describe it now is a civil contract and not a religious one. I'm right, somehow, either way.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

1. I want sex2. sex makes babies3. i do not want to make babies4. using condoms stop babies from being made ---------------5. use a condom. its logical. I can make one concerning homosexuality to. Emotion gives us the premise: "avoid injury" It gives us the ability to reason the following: 1. Something causes injury(given by observation)2. avoid injury(given by emotional evaluation, pain tells us when we are injured; usually)--------------------3. Avoid that something.with out emotion, we would only have: something causes injury, a statement, and no reasoning would be possible concerning if we should avoid it. We do not have sex to procreate, we have sex because emotion tells us its desirable. Refer to mahollinder's post to see how Marriage is not a religious thing, no reason to reinvent the wheel. Marriage has become too common an aspect of society to "forget about" it, government could just stop recognizing it as a legal contract. Society would still have it, but with out what makes it legally worth while. Its only value would be the religious and social value it holds, which isn't much religiously and the social value is a sham for a lot of people as well(50% divorce rate).
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

its logical.No, it's is not.Your desire for sex is simply instinctual need to procreate.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

No, it's is not.Logic is just a way of systematizing or formalizing thought. You're somewhat abusing the term when you keep asserting that something isn't logical because it disagrees with your concept of what is right and/or appropriate.Your desire for sex is simply instinctual need to procreate.Not entirely true. In primates and monkeys, and some cetacea, sex is also used for mere pleasure, increasing the closeness of bonds and attaining resources or favors (I mean prostitution).
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

You're somewhat abusing the term when you keep asserting that something isn't logical because it disagrees with your concept of what is right and/or appropriate.I base my logic on Roddenberry's logic - or, rather Vulcanian logic.in primates and some cetacea, sex is also used for mere pleasure, increasing the closeness of bonds and attaining resources or favors (I mean prostitution).I read awhile back about a type of crab that engages in coitus for after a male defends a female.P.S. I've always disliked the term 'sex'. Why is it that I am the only one who says 'coitus' in everyday conversation?
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

My desire for sex, whether its an instinctual need to procreate or not, primarily manifests itself emotionally. Its a statement, not a logical argument. I can put them in standard form if you'll like. I just gave you a logical argument on why you should use condoms. I can do it for homosexuality. 1. A person should do what they enjoy, so long as it doesn't conflict with other people's justified rights.2. A person would enjoy having sex with an available adult member of the same sex.---------------3. A person should have gay sex.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Is this an emotional response or a logical response? Laws ought to be based on logic, and there is no logical reason to engage in homosexual behavior.Laws aren't based on logic. They are based on political compromise and/or majority opinion.Further, moral values are not logically derived. There is no objective frame of reference to set as an axiom to base objective, logical morality upon. Therefore your statement about homosexual behaviour being illogical is erroneous.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Laws aren't based on logic.Hence the use of the word 'ought'.They are based on political compromise and/or majority opinion.A majority of emotional people.Further, moral values are not logically derived.I did not use a moral argument.Therefore your statement about homosexual behaviour being illogical is erroneous.I did not use a moral argument. I used an argument based on the purpose of intercourse.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

I did not use a moral argument.Of course you did. You created a moral conclusion "sex ought to only be for procreation, and marriage should only foster this" and built logic around it.I did not use a moral argument. I used an argument based on the purpose of intercourse.The purpose of sex is only one of many subjective criteria with which you can build an argument. Addition criteria are pleasure, social bonding, equality, etc. People choose from these and then make a position to defend.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Of course you did. You created a moral conclusion "sex ought to only be for procreation, and marriage should only foster this" and built logic around it.I came to this conclusion via logic.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

I came to this conclusion via logic.No you didn't. Logic doesn't have an intrinsic opinion on what sex ought to be.You used premises which are your moral values and used logic to justify them.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Logic doesn't have an intrinsic opinion on what sex ought to be.It was neither an opinion nor a supposition. It is not what sex 'ought' to be, but rather what it is.Sex is an activity performed for the purpose of procreating the species.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

It was neither an opinion nor a supposition. It is not what sex 'ought' to be, but rather what it is.Sex is an activity performed for the purpose of procreating the species.Sex is an activity performed for pleasure.Sex is an activity performed for social bonding.Sex is an activity used to manipulate and display power over another.Sex is an activity used for procreation.Sex is an activity that releases tensions.This is a non-comprehensive list of what sex is.Marriage is a social contract.Marriage is a means of supporting a family.Marriage is a means of establishing or supporting a dynasty.Marriage is the acquisition of property (the female).Marriage is the dividing of resources and income.Marriage is hoped to be a lifelong commitment.Amongst other things.Your choice of which of these premises to select, and base a "logical" conclusion upon is subjective. Your conclusion is erroneous anyway because marriage isn't only about procreation, and in fact only happenstance to procreation in a number of cases since procreation will occur out of wedlock.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

However, for laws to be based on logic, there has to be an immense consideration of the emotional views, in order not just for the law to be passed, but also to be accepted and upheld by society.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Emotions are illogical. Emotional logic is an oxymoron.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: No

Thus, society is emotional. Perhaps it is the duty of the lawmakers to sift through all this emotionality and provide some logic?
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

Mhm, and I can logically argue that there is no logical reason for heterosexuals to engage in heterosexual activity if I choose.There is nothing "logical" about marriage period.And to hold one group of people to some kind of logical standard and not the other,frankly is quite illogical
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

law is not only logical ; It more about about protecting our fundemental human rights.it is based on equality and freedom. I don't see how it fair that some people can get married while others can't. that isn't fair.logic has nothing to do with equality and justice.Math is logic. It isn't fair
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

How do you know homosexuality is wrong? God said so in the Bible.How do you know God exists?It says so in the Bible.How do you know the Bible isn't just a bunch of nonsense written by primitive man that no reasonable person should pay any attention to?God said so....in the Bible.Honestly, if it weren't for all the death and despair caused by religious people, your stupidity would be nothing more than amusing.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

yes it should be. Nobody has the right to judge anybody elses decision of who they want to be with. thats between them that's their business. who are gay people hurting? how are they hurting anyone?
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

People should be allowed to spend their life with whoever they want, and whoever they desire. They could be attracted to the same gender, but they have the right to spend their life with whoever they want.
Debate: Should gay marriages be allowable?
Side: yes

There is nothing wrong with two consenting adults having more rights to each other and legally incorporating each other into their families. Denying them this right is only done out of bigotry and fear. Some don't like it because they think the divorce rate will go higher. How is that bad? Its main effect might be on children, which usually isn't that bad. Many of my friends do not have nuclear families, and they are perfectly healthy functioning members of society. Marriage should be like contracts between employers and employees: well defined and voluntary. Some don't like it because of their (interpretation of their) religion. In short these people do not believe in the separation of church and state, and are nothing less then fear ridden, insecure little tyrants. I can go into the details of their psychology and position, but its not flattering at all. Laws should be backed by secular and logical reasoning with the goal of increasing the well being of society. Marriage improves "the lot in life" of many people, for some it doesn't but they find it worth the try. Allowing gay marriage means that more people will find marriage an improvement to their lives. Marriage, unless combined with other causes, doesn't cause any considerable physical, financial, etc harm to others. Its a benefit to society with out Loss to society. There is no reasonable reason to not allow it.