azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

No statement contained within any of my arguments asserts that homosexuals are biologically incapable of sexual reproduction; the terms of my arguments were carefully chosen so as to not exclude the ability of homosexuals to sexually reproduce. Yet, in order for them to sexually reproduce and propagate their genetics through a progeny they must act contrary to their nature and have unprotected sex with the opposite gender, and probably more than once.  Now, since they actually are biologically capable of becoming progenitors we must therefore conclude they are not willing to do what is necessary to become parents. They choose to do that which will never produce offspring and are suffering the consequences of their choices; moreover, if they don’t like the consequences of their choices they ought to change their minds. Conclusion: Individuals of the homosexual orientation can become progenitors. Yet, they choose to not do what must be done in order to become progenitors.  And finally, no man or woman has the right to become a parent. Parenthood is not a right; parenthood is a consequence of sexual reproduction. And no man or woman can justly claim authority over the progeny of another progenitor without the progenitor’s conference of authority over its progeny.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Well spoken, yet I cannot agree with you. In your conclusion you state that there is an aspect of choice. There are a few ways I can interpret your second sentence. (in the conclusion) Here is mine, individuals of homosexual orientation can become progenitors by choice, but must do this by an act that goes against their sexual orientation. Thus, their sexual orientation is against that of a progenitor and since progenitors are what create life and that very creation of life is a consequence of sexual reproduction, parenthood is formed. Now parenthood has many definitions and the ones that go into what I called "maintenance" is what I'm directly interested in. Yes, parenthood is, in part, the result of progenitors, but it is also very much so the raising and the nurturing aspect as well. When adoption is going to take place the progenitor/parent/s of origin are giving up their responsibility of raising and nurturing said child. In that aspect, they give up their rights to parenthood. You state that parenthood is a consequence of sexual reproduction, which I do not disagree, but another aspect of parenthood is the raising and nurturing. Having the ability to raise or nurture or both does not have reference to sexual orientation. Since this is the most important aspect to "parenthood" then any human possible of possessing a nurturing or raising nature is a possible target to be a parent. Perhaps they aren't the progenitors, but are fully capable of parenting. Thus, any human can posses the abilities to parent. Because of this a homosexual couple can posses the abilities to parent and thus have a right to be offered the option of adoption.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

From my understanding, the Topic is Gay adoption and should the opportunity of adoption be extended to those in a homosexual relationship. Whether if be a man and a man or a women and a women as a couple having the opportunity to raise a child. Also, the topic makes mention of human interaction with the child, during the raising and nurturing, from a male and a female. Can the same be done with two of the same sex? I would argue that you cannot compare apples to oranges. That is why I was interested in the specific points of nurture and the ability to raise. Which you so eloquently wrote out and felt the need to go into an extreme situation. While I do understand what you are stating, that is why we have a legal system in place. This is to prevent what US society would not consider a suitable parent. What you fail to address is how a Gay couple would not make a suitable parental unit. Please refer to the 1st page of this book:source: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NcmXvBX--agC&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=adoption+law&ots;=bMKbElPtsd&sig=EGnN46PrECgKj75qw1uluX0GcnM#PPA1,M1 You will find that adoption is considered: the creation of a parent-child relationship by judicial order between two parties who usually are unrelated.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

In the beginning of my argument I explained why I would not choose to allow a homosexual to adopt. Primarily, the homosexual is inescapably self-centered. The conclusion is to be understood as a universal statement of all homosexuals, not particular. And hence, no explanation is required when it’s two homosexuals seeking to adopt. However, I will now take the time to compound my argument with additional facts after already having logically established my position.  You claim that my argument, ‘fail(s) to address (is) how a Gay couple would not make a suitable parental unit. My reply is yes, I did not address that question, now consider my explanation. You are requesting that I prove a negative conclusion, i.e. how a gay couple would NOT make a suitable parental unit. It is logically impossible to prove a negative conclusion. I cannot syllogistically arrive at a negative conclusion from negative propositions. The burden of proof belongs to those who claim that homosexuals are suitable parents. Consider the example of what you have accused my argument of lacking.Gays are bad, the bad should not adopt; therefore, gays should not adopt. The argument is valid, but it is petition principii, begging the question. Gays are not good, only the good should adopt; therefore, gays should not adopt. The argument is invalid and fallacious.Gays are perverts, perverts are evil; therefore, gays should not adopt. Argument is both invalid and fallacious.Gays are not evil, evil is not good; therefore, gays are not good. (Again invalid and fallacious) Or you could say: 1 is not 2, 2 is not 3; therefore 1 is not 3. . (Again invalid and fallacious)There are an unlimited number of examples that I could use to demonstrate the impossibility of syllogistically proving a negative conclusion. I suppose the examples I’ve provided shall suffice for the subject at hand.They who would argue that homosexuals are suitable parents must be burdened by the burden of proof to logically prove their point.  I truly did go to an extreme conclusion in my last argument, as you have stated. Yet, only for the purpose of reductio ad absurdum, reducing the proposition until it is obviously false. And lastly, your reference to the legal system is an appeal to authority, Argumentum Ad Verecundium. (the truth, falsity, or validity of an argument is not subject to a legal system)Bare in mind that my arguments are for the sake of knowledge and not the sake of attacking or debating; so take no offence for none is intended.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

No offense taken, I rather enjoy a good debate. I see where I've been butting my head the whole time. I've been trying to comprehend/grasp the concept, logically, of the homosexual being inescapably self-centered. Please explain. I understand the logic of your explanation on the topic of the negative conclusion. Burden of proof: I must understand your logic prior to being able to bring up this in a logical manner. Please forgive me for having you reiterate your main point but I must understand it.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Hello,Pardon the delay.Is sex a crime? No, sex is not a crime. Can a crime be committed by sex? Yes, rape is a crime against another person, which generally implies forced sex. Is the desire for sex a crime? (No) Can a crime be committed as a consequence of a desire for sex? Yes, for a rapist desires to have forced sex with another person. In these examples it can be seen that neither sex nor the desire for sex are crimes and that some crimes are sexual. All physically, healthy men and women are fully capable of committing sexual crimes. However, and thankfully, most do not commit sexual crimes. Most men and women choose to not force themselves sexually unto another person. They are therefore making a conscious decision. Furthermore, all decisions about with whom they will have sex with are choices evidencing their desire. The desires of all men and women are consequences, not causes. Then what is the cause of desire? Is it internal or external? Is it genetic? In order to answer these questions I must begin with some fundamentals of the lives of all men and women.All men and women are responsible for the choices they make; they both suffer or benefit from the consequences of their choices; they also cannot rightfully be held accountable for the choices that others have made. For example, Person (A) cannot be justly imprisoned because of the crimes of person (B). Also, if person (A) is coerced by person (B) to perform a certain act or speak a certain word, person (A) has chosen to comply and is therefore responsible. Person (A) suffers the consequences of compliance or resistance; in either situation, person (A) remains responsible for his/her choices. Regardless of the specific choices that men and women make, all choices are consequences of their desires. Ultimately, we can conclude that all men and women will choose according to their desire and must accept the consequences whether they are joyful or sorrowful. The desire of man is predicated upon at least one value system. And from that value system are all desires identifiable. Simply stated, the value systems are as follows:1) My needs are more important than the needs of another person. (Identity=selfish,unjust)2) My needs are equally as important as the needs of another person. (Identity=just,honest)3) My needs are less important than the needs of another person. (Identity=affectionate)I have completed my response. But I have only posted part no.1. We can debate this part before we move on to part 2. I have yet to logically tie the pieces together.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Not quite true. Homosexuals do not pass on their genes directly, however many studies have shown that they may make reproduction more likely for their siblings. In fact, the prevalence of homosexuality in other species makes it fairly obvious that homosexuality among a portion of the population, must be beneficial to the survival of a species as a whole. In addition, studies with humans have shown that those people with more older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.The problem with your argument is that you look at evolution from simplistic perspective. Evolution works on helping the individual survive, however in those organisms that reproduce sexually, species evolve in groups. Therefore any characteristic that allows the group to survive will be passed on. There is no definitive proof that homosexuality is one of these characteristics, but the possibility is a strong one.Here is a video that explains the idea better
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

I am very surprised that you would opt to oppose an argument of mine so soon after our last debate. Perhaps you enjoyed the debate? Let’s see where round number two shall lead the discourse. You asserted: The problem with your argument is that you look at evolution from simplistic perspective.You state that my argument has a problem; however, you then move onto affirming that my view of evolution is of a simplistic perspective. Your proposition is identical in principle to the following proposition: The problem with your car is that you are looking at the gas cap from the wrong side. Both propositions are simply irrational.Moreover, instead of identifying the problem of my argument, your argument proceeds to make claims that have not been syllogistically demonstrated. The argument presumes that the audience grants the propositions without argument; unless of course your argument is purely hypothetical. And lastly, there is an abundance of uncertainty in your argument, which in turn calls into question the wherefore of asserting such things.A. They may makeB. More likelyC. Fairly obviousD. Must beE. More likelyF. No definitive proofG. The possibility is a strong oneDo you simply want to engage in a debate? If so, name the subject-matter.But, only for the purpose of knowledge.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

But you are operating under a simplistic view of evolution for your argument. You even seemed to show your ignorance of the difference between a mechanism for evolution(natural selection) and the theory of evolution itself. We're not entirely certain if or how natural selection works on humans. Being sentient beings seems to mess with the dynamic a bit.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

It's not in our nature to fly but we build airplanes. The inability to CONCEIVE children is a consequence of homosexuality, but in no way reflects on ones ability to raise and love a child. Does not."Moreover, do they not solely seek to please themselves at the expense of the sorrow of their parents and families? "uh... NO.So Gay people being themselves are pleasing themselves by making their parent sad when they come out? What? There are more assumptions in this statement than I care to address. Not all gay people are pleased with being gay due to the society we are in, and to assume all parents hate to hear their kid is gay just completely shows us how twisted your logic is.Wouldn't your statement also be true if you brought home a someone of a different race to your racist parents? You see where your line of thought is coming from? Bigotry. The assumption that there is something existentially negative about being gay.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

What inability to conceive children????````````````````````````````````
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

It was referring to the inability to conceive with one's partner through direct sexual intercourse. Read the entire argument. This was the context he set up in his premise.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Your first argument compares two things that are not related; this is a fallacy of faulty analogy. The ability to fabricate an aircraft does not evidence an ability to raise and love a child. The argument does not deductively evidence why any person, gay or not gay, can raise and love a child. Moreover, you have asserted that homosexuals are not able to conceive children. Therefore, we can deduce from your claim that homosexuals are biologically deprived of the necessary organs for the conception of a child. Lastly, the argument is ineffective in proving any thing syllogistically. And as for the remainder of your claims and rhetorical questions they don’t deserve refutation. The entirety of the argument fails to prove one thing that has been validly deduced by the author.  Your final statement,” The assumption that there is something existentially negative about being gay.” A. It is a sentence fragment. The subject is identified but there is no predicate. B. You affirmed there is something that is existentially negative about being gay; they cannot conceive children. Your whole of your argument begins with irrationality and ends with irrationality.I expect that your future reply will also be equally irrational.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

"The ability to fabricate an aircraft does not evidence an ability to raise and love a child."Neither does the ability to conceive a child.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Hi LM! What allows you to assume that gay people don't have a parental bone in their body? Many gay people want children. That gene or set of brain cells were surely there at birth even though others were not!
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Hello K,Simplified answer: Healthy human beings who choose to not propagate their own sons and daughters are doing such for selfish reasons. For the record: I despise the state institution of adoption. Thou shalt not covet…No man or woman can provide a reasonable justification for transgressing that commandment. The fact that there exists a supposed argument that would justify the act of coveting the sons and daughters of other humans is evidence to me of a people who are dead to the words of the commandments.If you would care for a more specific explanation, I have no problem submitting additional information.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Hi LM...Yes, please do because I certainly cannot relate homosexuals who adopt to coveting anything I can think of.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Hello,This debate should be private. If you'll initiate a new debate that is private, I'll thoroughly represent the principles of my viewpoint within that format.I perceive you are asking a legitimate question concerning my understanding of adoption; I care to only discuss the matter with you. (I'll explain more in the private debate)
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

I'll set it up ASAP LM...probably tomorrow if that suits you.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

I'm ready now to layout my case against adoption. However, patience is my greatest attribute, second only to humility.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

LOL...We're on! Strike up the band! `````````````````````````````````````
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

should a couple not covet to adopt a child that has no parents?? would that be covetousness or charity?
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Well, first of all, preventing gays from adopting because of a religious law would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.Secondly, we are not talking about 'coveting' the sons and daughters of other people, because we are talking about orphans who don't have parents. Even if we weren't talking about orphans, this makes the assumption that children are the literal property of their parents.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

Heres where you screwed yourself... well first off, in your mother's basement, where you obviously reside.Secondly, when you said, "Moreover, do they not solely seek to please themselves at the expense of the sorrow of their parents and families?"I believe that you're implying that all families are sad and distraught over their child's homosexuality? This is not the case.Homosexuality can be accepted, tolerated, and celebrated. Just because you are a homosexual doesn't mean that you are in defiance of anything.You are embracing your own feelings. You are being true to yourself. I would argue that someone who does not love themselves, should not attempt to love anyone else. You have to love yourself, and you have to have a genuine love for someone else in order to successfully raise a child. The child understand that love. He or she can learn that there are many types of love, and that it can be expressed in whatever way, with whomever he or she finds suitable for them. But that child needs just an example of love.Shut up and listen, for once.Love is all you need.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Your argument begins with foolishness and ends with foolishness.If you look, read, and understand the folly between your foolish statement, and foolish command, you will realize that you provided evidence that proves the point of my argument. Do you make it a habit of contradicting yourself?
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

if a man and women are not able to have kids naturally should they be prevented from adopting
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: Yes, gays should adopt

I think that everyone should be given the chance to care for a child. And it all depends how you best give the proper guidance and love for your children. But I am not still favor of gays adopting a child. Child should be well-guided and be nurture and I believe that only a legitimate couple complete with a mom and dad could only provide this. There are studies that children with no father image at home tend to engage more into drugs and other things. This is also the same case if mom is not around. I believe this could be worsen if you are reared by parents who has the same gender.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

This is an interesting topic because most people argue based on their emotions rather than rational thought. Before individuals start accusing me of being homophobic, homosexuality should be accepted as part of life however the raising of children in a same sex household has many questions unanswered.Dr Albert Dean Byrd a well educated child and family pyschologist has researched this topic for sometime and he found that children throughout their developmental stages need a MOTHER and a FATHER. He states"Children raised in homes with both mothers and fathers navigate thedevelopmental stages more easily, are more solid and secure in their sense ofself and in their sense of gender identity, perform better in the school system,have fewer social and emotional problems and become better functioningadults."He further points out the roles the Mother and Father play in the up bringing of a child. "Mothers use touch to calm, soothe and to bring comfort to children. When mothersreach for children, they frequently bring them to their breasts to provide safety,warmth and security. Father’s touch is most often described as playful andstimulating, bringing with it a sense of excitement to the child."The combination of these roles within a dual gender household clearly shapes the upbringing of a child. The selfish notion of same sex couples wanting to adopt a child or have a child through IVF, or a carrier should be treated with caution.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Exactly! I am not really against gay marriage or gay rights. However, I am glad I finally found a post that I totally agree with. Some kids are born gay, but most are born straight. So unless the same-sex parents are raising gay children, I do believe it is a little selfish to put the kids in that environment. With that said, I didn't grow up in an orphanage, so it is tough to be entirely sure on a position without some doubt...
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

Gays folks should not adopt for a very simple reason. No American baby, adolescent, toddler, teen, or adult (young or mature) would receive the proper nourishment, values, or knowledge with same sex parents. Also, the Man upstairs made it possible to procreate between a man and a woman. Don't you think we ought not argue with the creator of all things?
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

I really can't stand downvoting and I would like to know the culprit who is responsible for downvoting my arguments. If you believe gay adoption is good or acceptable, then fine. I don't. I think being gay is not mainstream enough for a child to feel comfortable in a gay household. But fine, allow it. Then compare the children living with gay couples and the children living with straight couples. I'm positive there'd be a huge difference, psychologically speaking.P.S. I have NOTHING against the gay community. I think it is completely natural. Society deems otherwise.
Debate: Gay Adoption
Side: No, gays should not adopt

I wish they could. I think many gay couples would be much better parent than a lot of heterosexual couples; you can't really have an "accident" if you're gay. But, I have been a kid and I know that children are extremely cruel. The adopted child of a gay couple would likely be put through a living hell by his peers.