azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Really? Are all Christians living according to Christ's teachings? I think not. I can point to a lot of examples to show this.The arguably most recent case is where the American and Greek clergymen fought at Bethlehem Church. They can't even love their immediate neighbours, so I don't see how that is acting according to Christian virtues.To further prove my point, I go back in time to last year. On 22 July 2011 in Norway, Anders Breivik shot and killed 69 people as a step towards his illusory utopia that is free of Muslims. Would you condone such a disgraceful act?Another case in point - Adolf Hitler. Numerous passages point towards him invoking the Christian God to justify his rise to power. Let me point out a few references for your convenience.1. In John Toland's Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, Toland wrote what Hitler believed during his "final solution":"Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he (Hitler) carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god - so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.'2. In Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf, he writes,"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."3. Finally, I would also point to the belt buckles of the Nazi enforcers and soldiers, which bore the phrase "Gott mit uns" on them. "Gott mit uns" is German for "God with us". Therefore, in light of the crimes of the Nazis, how can you then say that they were acting according to Christian beliefs?Moreover, you have said that, "most nonbelievers just live there life and do what ever they want doing constantly sin in there life."Now, this is a very serious allegation against all non-believers which I will not take lightly. Are you seriously saying that all non-believers do not do any good at all? If so, please point that out to me.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

If god created the universe and homosexuals are part of the universe, where did homosexuals come from?Is, A) God not all-powerful?orB) Did God create homosexuals just so he could punish them?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

God didn't create homosexuals. It was the person who decided that they didn't like females and so they decideded they liked there gender males better than females. So they males started liking males.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

So are you saying that God is not all-powerful then? Because if he didn't create homosexuals, then it must follow that according to the options given, you believe him to be no omnipotent?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

You contradict yourself in this argument when comparing it to one of your previous ones, but I'll leave that point out and make another point. It was the person who decided that they didn't like females and so they decideded they liked there gender males better than femalesSo what you are saying is that we just got up one day and decided to fuck people of the same gender? No, that isn't true at all. Homosexuality is something you are born with, you don't just decide to be a homo one day and a hetero the next.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Homosexuality is not good for society because most of the people in this world are made by male and female having sex and the baby being born.No. Everyone in this world is made by a male and female having sex. Do you even study biology? You know, the proper scholarly works of professionals and not the warped "evidence" from the Bible?If a male and a male have the same body parts they can't have sex because its the same body parts and you won't have a baby.First, this has been said before, homosexuals can have sex. Second, so what if you can't have a baby? This debate is not advocating for the spread of homosexuality. It is merely trying to boost acceptance for homosexuals. What is wrong with that? Are you so hypocritical that you can even accept others for who they are? If so, then I don't think you should be surprised that few people give you respect as a debater.You will also not inherit the kingdom of God if you are a homosexual here is a verse from the Bible that states that homosexual are not entered in heaven.I don't think anyone wants to inherit a delusional fantasy.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

lmao. Perhaps Catholics were right circa 1500's or so, the common rabble truly should not be allowed to read the Bible because they are too dumb to understand it apparently."Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"It's also impossible since men have penises and women do not. Problem solved. Fuck, just not the same way you would a woman. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own headsAgain, the whole penis vs. vagina loophole. I know how much you Christians love killing people but looks like your Bible doesn't want you to murder any gays."Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"... so "homosexual" offenders are actually no worse than say "drunkards"? That's a pretty liberal stance. I can almost accept that... didn't Jesus get a bunch of people drunk at a wedding? What a fag ._.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own headsSo are you saying we should go around and kill every homosexual around the world?If a person is born homosexual, they can't help it if they're more attracted to the same sex. You can't blame them. So why would it be right to murder an innocent person for something he/she cannot control?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

That is exactly what god wants. It's all in accordance with his 6th commandment: Thou shalt not kill.But gays don't count obviously...
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

You know what I find amazing? How can Christians kid themselves by saying that there are no contradictions in the Bible in spite of all the evidence that atheists or non-Christians have given. Just look at what Dan Barker, a former minister, has to say about the Bible!
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)Where are the mass protests against eating shrimp!!!
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

And also homosexuality creates aids..........................
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Um, no. Homosexuals did not create aids, and anyone can spread it or contract it.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Um, no. Homosexuals did not create aids"The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s. A number of gay men in New York and California suddenly began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that seemed stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did not yet have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men were suffering from a common syndrome." http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm The article doesnt say 100% that gay people created it, but is pretty evident that it came from them.anyone can spread it or contract it.Well its more likely for gay people to get it, because anal makes it more likely for aids to be transmitted and that's the main way they do it.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

Yep it does because if men and men have or even try to have sex then they will get HIV/AIDS
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

To expand on what Saurbaby has said, AIDs can be transmitted through any bodily fluid, like blood or saliva. It can even be spread when a man and a woman copulate. Are you then going to say that a male and female having sex should be prohibited because such sex spreads AIDs?
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

"AIDs can be transmitted through "any" bodily fluid, like blood or saliva."AIDs cannot be transmitted through any bodily fluid, AID's is transmitted via any bodily fluid containing blood or blood, semen, vaginal fluid, and breastmilk.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

The terms "transmitted through" and "transmitted via" are the exact same thing. Check your dictionary.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Sorry, I forgot to include quotation marks in the first sentence, the point is that the majority of our bodily fluids cannot actually carry aids, including salvia.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Ah... Okay. Thanks for clarifying then! My point was that AIDs is not exclusive to homosexuals only. Clearly I was wrong on some details. So thanks for the clarification.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

You are so wrong on this point. I am not gay but I know many gay men, they have had sex with many male partners and none of them have AIDS. Know why? - because AIDS is a biological disease (not a metaphysical one), a virus that is transmitted by fluid exchange. AIDS didnt start with gay men, the stories about this are not factual - i.e. not based in reality. Contrary to common belief, AIDS has been around for many generations in certain parts of Africa - some tribes of people have even evolved a resistence to its transmission (they can still get it, just not as often). AIDS was spread to humans from simians species. AIDS was probably brought to the rest of the world by someone having heterosexual sex with one of the few people that had it (back then). Bing bang boom - it gets spread through sex with other partners, one of which was bi-sexual male and it crossed into the homosexual population. The reason why there was so much of an issue about homosexual AIDS transmission was because of the prejudice about homosexuals and the fact that in some homosexual groups the men were more promiscuous and didnt use condoms thus resulting in more rapid and pervasive transmission in those sub-groups of the overall gay population. Today there are much lower incidences of AIDS in gay men because the awareness of AIDS and the need for the prevention of AIDS is greater. Many of the transmissions of AIDS to people today is because people dont know that they have it and/or because of the ignorance of religion causing people to believe that 'AIDS can be cured by sleeping with a virgin, or that condoms cause AIDS, or that AIDS is the solution to homosexuality - all of which are false.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

Personally I'm quite indifferent. I believe homosexuality is unnatural and is wrong in that sense (and not because the bible says so, the bible can go burn in a hole), but it is definitely not wrong for any two people to love each other. Put it this way; do what you will because I don't mind, just don't go around preaching homosexuality around me ;)EDIT: This may be the first time I've supported srom...the world is gonna explode :/
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

... I'm sorry. Which Universe is this where you've heard people preaching homosexuality?A group of people wishing to be accepted for who they are is a completely different set of circumstances than a group of people demanding you become who they are.It is as if you said "I don't believe in god, I should be allowed to not believe in god."Than someone said to you "That's unnatural. I don't care just don't ever talk about it."I believe homosexuality is unnatural and is wrong in that senseWhat do you mean by unnantural? There are all kinds of wild animals who display homosexual traits, in just about the same percentages as found in humans. That would lead most to believe it is natural for a percent of a species to be homosexual I'd think.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

By 'unnatural' I mean men were not intended to mate with men, and the same with women and other women. Yes it is true that other animals display acts of homosexuality it doesn't make it any more natural. You will often find that these homosexual animals still mate with other female animals, making their homosexuality more of a fetish than something predetermined by genetics.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

And this is the first time we've disagreed on something. lolBut I understand your point about it being unnatural, due to the fact they can't have children and their parts don't match and all that jazz.But we've evolved to a point that we don't NEED everyone to reproduce and actually it's best that everyone doesn't. Also love is love, I don't think anything else matters in that case, and people can't help who they're attracted to :)
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

wow the bible even says its wrong! guys he's on to something we should base are morals completely on the bible which was made centuries ago. thats backwards man. how is it wrong? are they hurting anyone? ignorant. also who says the bible is right? they said we should put gays to death!
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

Your "biggest defense" ("The Bible even says its wrong") DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. I don't care what the bible says, i am not religious. Therefor your "ace in the hole" is nothing. Why can't the religious people in the goverment and you guys understand this?? And about the making babies thing. The world is hidiously over populated. We do not need more babies! Maybe this is God saying "Stop having babies! The world I made you has exceeded its limit!"
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

How is the inability to have children bad? We have no need for more children than are already being born. We are overpopulated. Homosexuality could actually be seen as a good thing insofar as it would reduce population. Population arguments have no weight in the anti-homosexuality argument.Also, the bible has no weight in the argument because the question is not about the opinion based on a 3000 year old book of morality. The bible has no weight because most people that appeal to the bible as a source for morality already hold your opinion. Use a more objective source for valuing in this forum. you can hold your religious beliefs but in terms of motivating a reason-based argument, religion has no weight, especially for people who think that religion is one of the worst moral systems (like me). Your opinion on how moral or not moral the bible is is not important. what is important is to motivate the opinion - thus you must go outside the bible. Most of the people on this site, like I do, probably know all about what the bible says, bringing it up is ineffectual, really only works on believers and small children. Try talking about the objective effects that homosexuality has on our society, and be objective about this, really search for unclouded effects (i.e. dont quote religious leaders and the like) use statistics and motivate, through argumentation, why those statistics validate your opinion.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

1. Every single person who argues for the goodness of homosexuality was created by heterosexual parents.2. In general, homosexuals tend to act savage and unmoral. This can be seen by examining the gay parades in San Francisco and elsewhere.3. Psychological studies show that children need a male parent and a female parent; not two male parents or two female parents.4. It is unnatural. This is seen by two things: a) homosexuals can't have sexual relations b) there are no other animals who have homosexual tendencies5. If everybody turned homosexual, the human race would be wiped out.6. The question states "Is homosexuality GOOD for society?" (my emphasis). This doesn't just mean "should it be accepted" or "should people be free to practice homosexuality" or even "is homosexuality not bad". The fact that it says "good for society" puts the burden of evidence and proof on the affirmative side; they're struggling to argue that homosexuality should be ACCEPTED.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

1. Every single person who argues for the goodness of homosexuality was created by heterosexual parents.So?2. In general, homosexuals tend to act savage and unmoral. This can be seen by examining the gay parades in San Francisco and elsewhere.This is a hasty generalisation.3. Psychological studies show that children need a male parent and a female parent; not two male parents or two female parents.Where is the evidence then? Where are the psychological studies? Produce the evidence.a) homosexuals can't have sexual relationsFalseb) there are no other animals who have homosexual tendenciesFalse again. But then again, you have no proof.5. If everybody turned homosexual, the human race would be wiped out.And so? The debate is on whether homosexuality is good for society or not. It is not asking if homosexuality should be encouraged, which is a totally different debate. Neither is it asking if homosexuality is good for the human race. Get your facts right.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

The purpose of a species is to reproduce and pass on their genes. How can we survive with an ever increasing number of homosexuals. They add to an already too high population and will not have children to contribute to the next generation.Also, homosexually has become a fad. Now it is hip to be gay. Notice how there are much more homosexuals than in previous generations. The society(pop music and terrible movies for example) has transformed normal animals into homosexual monsters, because if you need a word for them, it's monsters.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

It's not good for society at all. It disturbs what has been our natural life cycle for thousands of years.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

You bring an Appeal to nature fallacy that appears often in this discussions. Homosexuality is observed in animals, to start with, you can't argue that what is natural is good because it's natural nor you can even argue that homosexuality is not natural. It's not up to the bible or to the morals religion imposes into society to judge what is natural and what is not.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

It disturbs what has been our natural life cycle for thousands of years.Homosexuality has existed for thousands of years. It is a perfectly natural phenomenon.
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: Yes, it is good

wrong. it hasnt disturbed the natural life cycle since it doesnt influence the natural life cycle at all - homosexuality is non-participatory in heterosexual activity (by definition). According to religious and other historical documents, as well as observation and scientific research, homosexuality has been around since at least the dawn of animal life, and probably for as long as sexuality has characterized life (when sexual reproduction emerged). Most animals dont distinguish between gender when they get horny, they attempt to mate with any and everything (think of dogs, or cows, or chimps, etc...) they are only sucessful when it is with a female of the species but the character of most species entails at least some degree of homosexuality. Homosexuality is normal and natural and doesnt disrupt anything in "the natural order" or "natural life cycle".
Debate: Is homosexuality good for society?
Side: No, it is not good

If we planted another Adam and Eve in another planet like Earth, to start the human race, and Adam suddenly decided to go homo, and stopped or never had sex with Eve, there would be no babies, hence no human race, the human race would end in that planet with gay Adam and sexually frustrated Eve!
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: Against

Morally? no. Fundamentally? perhaps.Personally, I prefer women, but I have no qualms against people who prefer the same gender. Considering many life forms require the sex cells from the opposite gender in order to procreate, one might have a logical argument against homosexuality in a fundamental sense. A moral argument I think would be harder to form, we are slaves to our consciousness which is developed in various ways in which we have little control over. And if a person likes someone of the same gender, they should not be ridiculed for having those natural inclinations; you gotta feel happy in your own skin.
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: Against

Who is to say that the basis of homosexuality or even love in general is procreation? This measly fact should not have any effect on how we view gay people.
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: Against

You ask who is to say, then say it’s a fact?I agree that it doesn’t matter how we look at it, it shouldn’t have an effect on how we view a person, gay or straight. Just to clarify however, I wasn’t advocating discrimination based on how we view the above debate question. My response was simply to point out that there are different ways to describe what is ‘right or wrong.’ The two that I brought up were regarding ethics and fundamental physiology. I wouldn’t condone any suspension of a person’s preference to what gender they desire, personal liberty is very important to me, but I must insist that homosexuality can be viewed as fundamentally ‘wrong’ in a way considering human beings are not asexual organisms.
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: Against

Are you saying it is like going to McDonald's? You know it's unhealthy to get that big mac, but you won't hate on anyone who chooses to get it themselves.(i am not agreeing or diagreeing with you, just trying to clarify your point)
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: Against

I believe it is wrong because it goes against nature, but it should be prefectly legal because it doesn't interfere with the rights of others.
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: For

it goes against natureThis is a lie. Homosexuality has been observed in countless species and is proven to be natural.
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: Against

Just because homosexuality may be "seen" does not mean that its "natural".Furthermore, If it exists in one species does this imply it must exist in all?What about A-Sexual species? Obviously you see the problem.
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: For

Just because homosexuality may be "seen" does not mean that its "natural".That is exactly what it means.Obviously you see the problem.No, I don't.
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: Against

We see animals doing stuff like eating their own cudd, killing their mate, and cannabalism (in terms of eating their own species). What we see go on in other species does not mean that it would be natural in ours.
Debate: Is homosexuality wrong?
Side: Against

Saying that something goes against nature cannot be refuted by showing that it is natural.Nature is referring to the way things fundamentally are or should be. Sex is between a male and female; the parts fit.Yes, homosexuality has been observed in animals, and yes it is natural in that sense. But that doesn't change what sex is or should be.Also, defining what is right or wrong based on what animals do seems like a bad idea to me.