azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

You were wrong about the fallacy, why can't you be wrong about gays?How are these two connected? I was wrong about the fallacy, simply because you had provided no argument, only asked a question - check your initial post. If there was no argument, there was no fallacy. So, what was your argument?I was answering the implied argument as I understood it, but to continue debating I have to know whether or not I understood correctly.Which is not inherently a problem.This is inherently a problem, because some addictions and psychological conditions have been proved to be caused by the environment and upbringing, and not be inborn. However, these conditions being caused by environment and upbringing, does not mean there was a point in time when the individual "chose to be that way". There, I've spelled it out for you - will you still pretend not to understand me?It is fun to just call stuff myths for no reasons, yay!The reason is in my sentence which you yourself had quoted: there is no psychological model, just the word "personality. Don't tell me your knowledge of English is worse than mine.And, your point is what? Maybe they are inborn.Not every addiction or trait is inborn, that's a well known fact.But, their instincts tell them to have gay sex, they aren't being told to have gay sex. Your advice is to not talk about it at all and be like everybody else.By mentioning instincts, you imply biology, when I speak about psychology. Psychology is the default area, in which to seek answers to behavioral conditions, unless we are talking about hormones which cause normal sexual attraction.Behaviors of gays is not caused by hormones and that's a fact. Therefore, the normal way is to first seek a psychological model of their behavioral patterns.Also, you seem to be unable to comprehend what I write. I wrote: my advice is to resist society, and become anarchists if needed. How is that "being like everybody else".The picture is:SOCIETY PRESSURE -> PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS -> GAYNESSI say society pressure, which comes in the form of gender stereotyping, is to be resisted.Yeah, because you killed all of the people you deemed immoral.Cartman, can you read? I said before the revolution, not during the communists.Or do you have a problem with history?There was NO slavery in Imperial Russia, ever - that was the higher moral ground.In Imperial Russia, there were less than 1600 executions of criminals, during the years 1825 - 1907, i.e. in 84 years. That's a well-documented fact. Now, check out how many executions there were in USA, during any 10 year period. Don't try to play the game in which I am a Russian communist, and you're from the "free world". I am anti-communist, and was like this before the fall of the USSR.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

How are these two connected? I was wrong about the fallacy, simply because you had provided no argument, only asked a question - check your initial post. If there was no argument, there was no fallacy. So, what was your argument?I was answering the implied argument as I understood it, but to continue debating I have to know whether or not I understood correctly.Maybe I don't actually feel like debating you. I have demonstrated you have a track record of being wrong and rushing to judgement.This is inherently a problem, because some addictions and psychological conditions have been proved to be caused by the environment and upbringing, and not be inborn. However, these conditions being caused by environment and upbringing, does not mean there was a point in time when the individual "chose to be that way". There, I've spelled it out for you - will you still pretend not to understand me?I am sorry I didn't bring this up before, but your statement that being able to prove that homosexuality is inborn doesn't get extended to all addictions. You have to actually try drugs before you have an addiction to them. Your generalization doesn't fit. You actually commit the slippery slope fallacy. People don't wake up and all of a sudden want to smoke crack, but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole.Not every addiction or trait is inborn, that's a well known fact.A lot of traits are inborn, you don't know either way, so you can't claim that one trait is not inborn because a bunch of others aren't.Also, you seem to be unable to comprehend what I write. I wrote: my advice is to resist society, and become anarchists if needed. How is that "being like everybody else".Society says to be with someone of the opposite sex. You want gay people to have gay sex?The picture is:SOCIETY PRESSURE -> PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS -> GAYNESSI say society pressure, which comes in the form of gender stereotyping, is to be countered.So act feminine and be with other guys? What is it that you want them to do, be gay?Cartman, can you read? I said before the revolution, not during the communists.Maybe I just want to make fun of Russians.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

Maybe I don't actually feel like debating you. I have demonstrated you have a track record of being wrong and rushing to judgment.You have demonstrated nothing. There was no fallacy in your non-argument.But there is a fallacy in the implied argument, which I proved to be ridiculous: that argument "proves" that any addiction is inborn.I am sorry I didn't bring this up before, but your statement that being able to prove that homosexuality is inborn doesn't get extended to all addictions. You have to actually try drugs before you have an addiction to them. Your generalization doesn't fit.No, you're actually committing a "change of terms" fallacy.The implied patterns which I am debating, is the same:1. Inborn aptitude to drugs-addiction -> trying drugs -> becoming drug addict2. Inborn aptitude to gayness -> gay sex -> gay sex addictionSo, if the DYCTB argument proves that aptitude to gayness is inborn, it also proves that aptitude to drugs is inborn.I am now only debating the DYCTB argument, not anything else.This: but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole is wrong too, it has been proved that gayness is caused by social conditioning at least sometimes.A lot of traits are inborn, you don't know either way, so you can't claim that one trait is not inborn because a bunch of others aren't. Yes, so I can't claim it...so what? I didn't claim it. I said something else, that because at least some traits are not inborn, the DYCTB argument is fallacious.Society says to be with someone of the opposite sex. You want gay people to have gay sex?Gender stereotyping is about many other things apart from sex.The weight of this stereotyping can be abusive for the psyche.What I am implying that psychological manipulations based on the gender stereotypes, should be identified and resisted. Whenever someone says "A real man must..." and you don't agree, those who say it should be told to go fuck themselves.Becoming gay is not resistance, it's surrender.So act feminine and be with other guys? What is it that you want them to do, be gay?Act masculine, but do not yield to psychological manipulations, regardless from men or women.Maybe I just want to make fun of Russians.Well you've just made fun of yourself, by writing that stupid shit. It was really hilarious.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

You have demonstrated nothing. There was no fallacy in your non-argument.But there is a fallacy in the implied argument, which I proved to be ridiculous: that argument "proves" that any addiction is inborn.Like I said, slippery slope. Not all addictions work like being gay.No, you're actually committing a "change of terms" fallacy.The implied patterns which I am debating, is the same:1. Inborn aptitude to drugs-addiction -> trying drugs -> becoming drug addict2. Inborn aptitude to gayness -> gay sex -> gay sex addictionSo, if the DYCTB argument proves an aptitude to gayness, it also proves an aptitude to drugs.I am now only debating the DYCTB argument, not anything else.If you try drugs you become addicted to drugs. Without trying gay sex you still want gay sex. They are completely different and one cannot draw the same conclusion. Drugs alter brain chemistry directly. You don't get your brain chemistry changed until after you choose to do drugs, so it doesn't fit DYCTB because you did choose to be a drug addict.This: but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole is wrong too, it has been proved that gayness is caused by social conditioning at least sometimes.At least sometimes means that other times not, so my statement is 100% accurate. I was not saying that all gay people do.Act masculine, but do not yield to psychological manipulations, regardless from men or women.Now you want them to pretend to be masculine just because a real man must be masculine. I thought they were supposed to tell you to go fuck yourself and act feminine.Well you've just made fun of yourself, by writing that stupid shit. It was really hilarious.I try to lighten the mood with mass murder.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

Like I said, slippery slope. Not all addictions work like being gay.That's not a slippery slope. I was proving DYCTB to be wrong. You can't counter me, without introducing another premise: that gayness has some other qualities, which sets it apart from addictions, and because of which my counter-arguments do not work. What are these special qualities? You cannot mention the supposed inborness of gayness, since you "proved" it with DYCTB, and using it here will create a logical circle. You cannot base your arguments on something which you yet have to prove.If you try drugs you become addicted to drugs. Without trying gay sex you still want gay sex.You may want to try drugs without having tried them.You may want to try gay sex without having tried it.In fact, some research indicates that alcoholism is sometimes partially genetic.People with this trait may be more eager to start drinking, and become addicted faster.You don't get your brain chemistry changed until after you choose to do drugs, so it doesn't fit DYCTB because you did choose to be a drug addict.So, slowly we are getting to your second premise: "Gayness is caused by different brain chemistry".Do you know how many studies have proved this? Answer: 0Try as you will, you won't find any scientific articles with such claims.At least sometimes means that other times not, so my statement is 100% accurate. I was not saying that all gay people do.Your statements are sometimes 100% ambiguous. What did you mean by "inherently" in but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's pole Now you want them to pretend to be masculine just because a real man must be masculine. I thought they were supposed to tell you to go fuck yourself and act feminine.I meant act masculine not in the social sense, which has many stupid concepts of masculinity. Be masculine in a direct sense, i.e. kick ass when you're threatened. But don't allow women to get you into a fight with many opponents, out of their stupidity. Don't listen to the stupid things your mother says.Society has many stupid and contradicting concepts of what a man has to be, and therefore can go fuck itself and its concepts.For example, in Russia you hear all the time that "A real man has to serve in the army". This "army" is a sadistic sect, and most of it has nothing to do with military training (unlike the US army, which is all about military training). So the army can go fuck itself.I try to lighten the mood with mass murder.Which didn't exist in Russia before the revolution.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

That's not a slippery slope. I was proving DYCTB to be wrong. You can't counter me, without introducing another premise: that gayness has some other qualities, which sets it apart from addictions, and because of which my counter-arguments do not work. What are these special qualities? You cannot mention the supposed inborness of gayness, since you "proved" it with DYCTB, and using it here will create a logical circle. You cannot base your arguments on something which you yet have to prove.I don't know which fallacy it is. Presenting a fallacy to prove the premise is wrong means that you didn't prove anything. You are claiming I am inserting another premise, but you started it. I was talking about sexual orientation, but you brought up addiction. You created a contradiction by fallaciously linking addiction and sexual orientation. You actually have to have used drugs before being addicted to them, there is a huge difference.You may want to try drugs without having tried them.You may want to try gay sex without having tried it.In fact, some research indicates that alcoholism is sometimes partially genetic.People with this trait may be more eager to start drinking, and become addicted faster.If you haven't used drugs, you aren't a drug user, if you want to try gay sex, you are gay. See the difference. The alcoholism gene doesn't help you because that would be inborn.So, slowly we are getting to your second premise: "Gayness is caused by different brain chemistry".Do you know how many studies have proved this? Answer: 0Try as you will, you won't find any scientific articles with such claims.Perfect, this supports me. Addiction is definitely brain chemistry, the drugs change your brain. Gayness is not a brain chemistry change, see they are different.Your statements are sometimes 100% ambiguous. What did you mean by "inherently" in but people inherently do wake up and want to smoke a dude's poleIs it even possible to have a statement that is 100% ambiguous? Hehe. I was saying some people want to have gay sex without having tried it.I meant act masculine not in the social sense, which has many stupid concepts of masculinity. Be masculine in a direct sense, i.e. kick ass when you're threatened. But don't allow women to get you into a fight with many opponents, out of their stupidity. Don't listen to the stupid things your mother says.Society has many stupid and contradicting concepts of what a man has to be, and therefore can go fuck itself and its concepts.For example, in Russia you hear all the time that "A real man has to serve in the army". This "army" is a sadistic sect, and most of it has nothing to do with military training (unlike the US army, which is all about military training). So the army can go fuck itself.You have introduced a weird gray area that is very arbitrary. In what way is gay sex giving up? Which social norms can be broken without giving up?Which didn't exist in Russia before the revolution.Ok, noted.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

You created a contradiction by fallaciously linking addiction and sexual orientation.It is not fallacious, both have to do with a habit / habits which are difficult to overcome and resist. There is no definite boundary between these two. It is in fact possible to start living an asexual life, and live normally. It is not vital for survival. But you will not survive if you quit drinking water.In any case, the point of my argument is: there are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen. They are acquired, but there is no conscious choice involved. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious.if you want to try gay sex, you are gay.I think this is a very stupid and dangerous dogma. Quite a few teenagers might want to try gay sex, simply because they would go for any kind of sex - due to their raging hormones. So, when grownups teach them they are "gay" just because they have these uncontrolled urges - I think these grownups are committing a crime.You have introduced a weird gray area that is very arbitrary. In what way is gay sex giving up? Which social norms can be broken without giving up?You had suggested it's "tough being straight" for me. While that's not true for me,it's quite possibly true for others. The path of least resistance can lead someone to becoming gay.But it's actually "tough being straight" for these guys, because society imposes too many contradicting demands on "real men". Instead of making childish decisions, these guys should make it tough for society to impose anything on them, i.e. take the fight back. Being masculine is one thing, but abiding by all of society's norms is another.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

It is not fallacious, both have to do with a habit / habits which are difficult to overcome and resist. There is no definite boundary between these two. It is in fact possible to start living an asexual life, and live normally. It is not vital for survival. But you will not survive if you quit drinking water.In any case, the point of my argument is: there are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen. They are acquired, but there is no conscious choice involved. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious.But, you choose your addictions, you don't choose your sexual preference. You have to have chosen which drug causes your addiction. You can be attracted to the same sex without trying it.I think this is a very stupid and dangerous dogma. Quite a few teenagers might want to try gay sex, simply because they would go for any kind of sex - due to their raging hormones. So, when grownups teach them they are "gay" just because they have these uncontrolled urges - I think these grownups are committing a crime.What? Your Russian law says it would be illegal to not tell them they are gay. How is telling someone it is normal to be attracted the same sex all of a sudden not gay propaganda. You don't make any sense.You had suggested it's "tough being straight" for me. While that's not true for me,it's quite possibly true for others. The path of least resistance can lead someone to becoming gay.But it's actually "tough being straight" for these guys, because society imposes too many contradicting demands on "real men". Instead of making childish decisions, these guys should make it tough for society to impose anything on them, i.e. take the fight back. Being masculine is one thing, but abiding by all of society's norms is another.You didn't understand my question or answer it, congratulations.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

But, you choose your addictions, you don't choose your sexual preferenceYou address some minor flaws in my presentation of my arguments, but not the main thesis.Here it is, again:There are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. (1).You have to have chosen which drug causes your addiction. Speaking about addictions was not a error on my side, but proving this will take a lot of writing and eventually get us off topic. In short, it true you have to have chosen the drug, but it's possible that you have a genetically caused aptitude to drugs, which makes it hard for you not to try one.Your Russian law says it would be illegal to not tell them they are gayWhere did you get that from? In reality, the opposite is true:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Why isWesternmediaconstantlylyingaboutthenewRussianlawsYou didn't understand my question or answer it, congratulations.Yes, thank you. Your congratulations mean you understood nothing from my answer.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

You address some minor flaws in my presentation of my arguments, but not the main thesis.Here it is, again:There are many habits and aptitudes which are not inborn, but at the same time are not chosen. So, the line of reasoning in which we say "Did you choose to...." -> "No" ->"Then this is inborn", is fallacious. (1).The "minor" flaws in your argument are what you are using to prove your main thesis.Speaking about addictions was not a error on my side, but proving this will take a lot of writing and eventually get us off topic. In short, it true you have to have chosen the drug, but it's possible that you have a genetically caused aptitude to drugs, which makes it hard for you not to try one.You said it was impossible for a genetic component to drug addiction. Make up your mind.Where did you get that from? In reality, the opposite is true:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/  Why isWesternmediaconstantlylyingaboutthenewRussianlawsI don't know anything about your stupid laws other than what I have heard from you. Here is where you are wrong:"Propaganda of non - traditional sexual relationships among minors, expressed in the dissimation of information aimed at forming non - traditional sexual attitudes among minors, attractiveness of non - traditional sexual relationships, distorted image of social equality of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, or the imposition of information about non - traditional sexual relations, which can attract interest to such relations, if these actions do not make up a criminal offence, -shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of 4000 to 5000 rubles for citizens; in the amount of 40 000 to 50 000 rubles for oficials; and in the amount of 800 000 to 1000 000 rubles for organizations, which can in the latter case be replaced by suspension of activity for up to 90 days."Telling someone it is normal for them to have gay tendencies is going against that part of the law. You are promoting gay propaganda.Yes, thank you. Your congratulations mean you understood nothing from my answer.No, it means you dodged my question because you realized your position is incredibly stupid and contradicts yourself. But, you can lie to yourself if that makes you feel better.