azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Ah, such stinging remonstrance! How shall I ever recover from that magnificent lineup of straw man logical fallacies which you have laid before me? Seriously though, the insults are unnecessary and if you must make them at least be more creative.As for my purported imbecility, I have already indicated that I quite readily grasp your point and even agree with it. The use of racial language interchangeably with bigotry and prejudice is a personal pet peeve. Regardless, it is such a common misapplication of language that the intention behind the statement is still quite apparent and the rebuttal of your opponent is one you should have been able to understand: namely, that your bigoted comment was prejudiced against Muslim people. That you chose to make a pointless foray into semantics instead of actually refuting the accusation lends credence to the veracity of the same. Your quick anger and dull insults do nothing to bolster your character. And still, not a single word to refute the earlier rebuttals made to your assertions. Not one word. Your persistent avoidance is rather telling.Finally, the other debater did not call you a racist. He called your observation a racist (read prejudiced/bigoted) statement. The difference is that it was not a straw man attack, but a direct response to the statement. It is a technical distinction, and one you seem willing to overlook.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

I don't think you understand, discrimination is a good thing:“Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths amongst women and affects over 1.3 million women per year. Breast cancer doesn't discriminate by nationality or race. Do you want to be like breast cancer? Well, do you? If you don't discriminate, you're acting just like breast cancer; you might as well just kill 400,000 women annually. If you think breast cancer is a bad thing and you're against the death of a half million middle-aged women then racism is for you. Remember: racism is not like breast cancer at all. ” -David Duke
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

And I do not think you are actually willing to engage the real issue of this debate. I am done with this pointless exchange and your avoidance tactics. If you make another post, I do not intend to reply unless you are responding to the actual issues raised at the start of this thread of posts.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

All right then, let's go back to my original post, the one BenWalters called me a racist about."then as long as I believed that they would do a good job"Yes, but there is a difference between you believing they would do a good job, and them actually doing a good job. With the ways the Muslim politics work, they are completely contradictory with that of the American system. That's why most Muslim countries are dictatorships.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Thank you for bringing it back around to the actual issue, although I still think you are failing to respond to the point the other debater offered already in response to your argument. Not all predominantly Islamic countries are non-democratic, and that there are majority Muslim nations which are democratic disproves your argument that Islam is "completely contradictory" to democracy. Clearly they can and do co-exist.If you want to argue the "majority of states" stance then I think you have to confront the reality that in recent history most states have not been democratic or republic including the majority of predominantly Christian states. The Islamic religion is not inherently contradictory to democracy any more than Christianity; it merely coexists in some countries with non-democratic forms of government just as Christianity does.Furthermore, we have Islamic legal representatives who serve in their capacity arguably just as well as any other non-Muslim elected official.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

"there are majority Muslim nations which are democratic disproves your argument that Islam is "completely contradictory" to democracy."Not really, I would call these "dictatorships with some democratic tendencies". With how the Muslim religion is put together, they can only handle a "supreme authority" government body. Whereas Christianity is put together in order to maximize freedom."If you want to argue the "majority of states" stance then I think you have to confront the reality that in recent history most states have not been democratic or republic including the majority of predominantly Christian states. The Islamic religion is not inherently contradictory to democracy any more than Christianity; it merely coexists in some countries with non-democratic forms of government just as Christianity does."No, wrong again. It's the states dominated by Democrats that haven't been free. Just look at the state of Wisconsin. For the past 12 years it's had a Democrat for a governor. They had freedom taken away left and right. Now that Walker's in office, they have more freedom than ever. In fact I heard he even passed a law that allows carry conceal weapons. He gave Wisconsin another freedom, where a Democrat would just take it away. Whether you are for or against gun control, you can't deny that he gave Wisconsin a freedom."Furthermore, we have Islamic legal representatives who serve in their capacity arguably just as well as any other non-Muslim elected official."I'm not as familiar with these as I probably should be. Could you provide information?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Christianity does not have any innately democratic nature to it. For hundreds of years it was directly connected to monarchs and empires that were precisely the opposite of democratic (e.g. The Church of England), and there are non-democratic governments which still remain in operation concurrent with predominantly Christian populations. My point is this: there may be a tenuous correlation between Islam and dictatorships as you claim, however this does not equate causation or speak to an innate characteristic of Islamic faith. By and large, Christianity and Islam have more in common than they do in difference and both have had strong affiliations with non-democratic practices.When I was using the term "state" I was not referring to the states of the U.S. but to nation-states. My argument remains the same and, I believe, unaddressed.As far as elected officials who are Muslim, Rep. Keith Ellison (DFL) is the highest ranking official that I am aware of (he holds an office in the U.S. Congress). There are also other more minor officials throughout the U.S. that I have heard of more in passing. The reality is that none of them (at least that I am aware of) have been seen to push Sharia law or attempt to implement an Islamic agenda, and certainly no more so than any Christians in office.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

"Christianity does not have any innately democratic nature to it. For hundreds of years it was directly connected to monarchs and empires that were precisely the opposite of democratic (e.g. The Church of England),"So, the Pilgrims, Puritans, and the Reformers weren't Christians? I think you have a misunderstanding of history. The Church of England was not Christian. It was corrupted and cruel. The actual Christians, the ones that founded America on Christian principles of freedom, are the ones you want to reference. Therefore, I do not believe that Christianity was the cause of empires opposite of that which is democratic, it is the Wolves in Christian clothing that you need to look out for.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Good grief, can you seriously not see the double standard you are pursuing? Your argument is effectively that when Christians abuse the Bible they are not real Christians but that when Muslims abuse the Quran that’s just Muslims for you isn’t it? That would be incredibly convenient for you if it were not a complete and utter logical fallacy.The Christians of the past used the same Bible as many Americans do today and swore to the same god as they used their religion to oppress dissent, persecute others, and wage holy wars. The same fucking book and the same damn religion. If the Bible preaches peace, it also preaches violence and it is the same for the Quran and any other religious doctrine. The reality is that every religion can be and has been abused, and that at some point in history that abuse has coincided with non-democratic regimes. It is not an innate characteristic of the religion, but reflects the character of the people interpreting and applying the religion to good or ill ends. If there are wolves in Christian clothing, then there are also wolves in Islamic clothing. It is a cop-out to simplify all Muslims into a foreign and unrelatable "other" instead of recognizing that the majority of Muslims are like the majority of Christians – which is to say that they are not extremists or violent or undemocratic and that they want the same thing as most other people which is to live their lives well.As far as the founding of America goes, sure there was a Christian influence but there was also a very heavy deistic and non-theistic influence deriving from secular Enlightenment Era philosophy. Christianity does not have a monopoly on democracy, and Christians are not the only ones capable of pursuing it (nor of destroying it).
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Yes, but when the quran says to kill anyone who won't convert; you don't think that's going too far? The problem with you argument is it's false "Christians" killing other true Christians. Yes, I can see where you might be confused with thinking it's a fallacy, but the fact of the matter is I don't see very many Muslims killing other Muslims because they won't agree with their particular "state-church". And the fact that the quaran says to kill anyone who won't convert kinda sums up the whole group. "Christianity does not have a monopoly on democracy, and Christians are not the only ones capable of pursuing it (nor of destroying it)."Technically, yes. But the problem is all other religions that aren't Christian are set up around bureaucratic dictatorships. Christianity is made to give people as many freedoms as they possibly can have by setting up an absolute standard of morality. Not once is government affairs mixed in with Christianity (with the exception to obey your government). So in the founding of our country, Christianity had the strongest influence of anything else in the history of the world. That's why no other country came close to the freedom we enjoy today, because no other country was ever rooted in Christianity. After all, didn't our Founding Fathers start out every meeting with a word of prayer?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

I presume that your referring primarily to the use of the term jihad in the Quran. In many western societies this term is frequently translated as “holy war” and has strong connotations with extremist and terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. However, the more accurate translation of the word is to the noun “strive” or struggle” and many Muslims consider the narrow restriction of jihad to violent aggression to be a perversion of their faith. Instead, most practitioners consider jihad and other references to struggle to be a reference to the internal struggle within oneself towards moral perfection. Consequentially, we find that Islam is not inherently violent and that as with Christianity there are myriad interpretations of the religious scripture. Furthermore, in response to your inter-group violence argument: There is violence between extremist Islamic groups just as there has been between Christian extremists (e.g. Sufi versus Shiite). The religions as they are practiced are really not that different from one another. Moreover, you missed my primary point in bringing up the violence within Christianity and by Christianity towards others which is that very undemocratic practices have co-existed with Christianity and been justified in the name of Christianity by those who considered themselves to be Christians. This empirically demonstrates that there is not any innate quality to Christianity that makes it democratic.Your argument that Christianity frees people by establishing an absolute standard of morality is simply not true. For one, the myriad interpretations and practices of Christianity are proof that the morality is subjective due to human interpretation rather than absolute. Furthermore, literal and conservative interpretations of Christian doctrine deny equal freedoms to people based upon race (slavery), gender (rights of women), and sexual orientation (rights of homosexuals); these principles are in direct contradiction to the principles of a democratic society.You state that “not once is government affairs mixed in with Christianity (with the exception to obey your government)” which is flagrantly false. Christianity has a strong presence in U.S. government, and I would argue that it is when it does so that there is the greatest injustice against others. Our definitions of marriage and the extension of rights reflects explicit Christian intervention, as does previous legislation concerning a woman’s’ right to abortion, and so on and so forth. If you want to claim that prayer before meetings demonstrates that Christianity founded American democracy, then you are still faced with the reality that it was in the name of Christianity that slavery was perpetuated, discrimination defended, and rights refused.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

It amounts to the same thing. If the country is rooted in Christian principles as you claim (which I still contest amidst your silence on the rebuttal) and the dominant view of Christian morality within the faith is integrated into and influences our laws and legal system then there is a connection which is adequate grounds for the argument I was making. The Soviet Union was not rooted in atheism, it was rooted in communism and Marxism and that only in theory rather than practice. The secular practices of the state and its attempts to obliterate religion were driven by a political ideology rather than a theological one. Furthermore, there is more than one view and practice of atheism and of secular governance and pointing to one failed nation is inadequate proof that atheism cannot work (Christian nations have failed before as well). Also, for all that the founding generation had its Christian influences they still included the freedom of and freedom from religion, and the separation of church and state. At its roots, this country is a secular government comprised of a religious populace.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Calling me stupid then failing to understand what I'm saying ... for fucks sake.I am not saying that, semantically, insulting Muslims is racist, because yes, they are not a race. I am saying that under common usage, the meaning of the word 'racist' has changed - in a similar way as me insulting Americans will get me labelled as a racist, despite the fact that they are not a race. Racism can be used to mean discriminating against any group of people for certain arbitrary features. And finally, I did not call you racist, I said that your post speaks of racism - meaning that it's similar to racism, not that it strictly speaking is.I'm not claiming that I was correct in my terminology, but your reaction is disproportional to the slight mistake I made. I also didn't downvote you, I only downvote when I see something that makes me think that someone's especially unintelligent, while also annoys me, you've just showed me you're marginally obsessive. And if you think who gets what vote matters, that every individual on this site that can be said to be an absolute authority, then think again.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

"I am saying that under common usage, the meaning of the word 'racist' has changed"No, just your perception off it. I've never heard anyone say something so ridiculous in my life."And finally, I did not call you racist, I said that your post speaks of racism - meaning that it's similar to racism, not that it strictly speaking is."Nice back-peddle , but still completely wrong. Here let me post your original statement""Also, I'm not even going to address the racial message you're trying to give out - because someone's a Muslim, they're unable to do a good job. "You flat up called me racist in that post. There's no beating around the bush about it, you called me racist and now your trying to save as much face as you can. But the fact of the matter is, you simply saw my Confederate Flag, and thought, "Oh, Confederate! I think I'll call him racist." Well, like I said, get educated. You may actually learn something. "in a similar way as me insulting Americans will get me labeled as a racist, despite the fact that they are not a race."Again, nice back-peddle, but still wrong. I can disprove this ludicrous statement with one line:Billboard Top 100, 2004: "American Idiot"-Green DayI've never heard Green Day called racist. Just quit back-peddling and admit you were wrong. There's no shame in that. Are you really so pretentious?
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

American Idiot was'nt about Americans in general, it's about George Bush and the way America is being brainwashed by reality TV and commercials etc
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Can you prove this? I would like evidence to back this claim.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Just read interviews with Green Day from when it was released, I heard it in an interview with Billie Joe Armstrong before the album released
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What_are_you_opinions_on_the_recent_Middle_East_protests#arg287124 Here is one example of someone saying that making judgements' about people from one religion (Islam again) is racist. Didn't even have to look for it or anything. So if you maintain that I am alone in my usage of the word racist, then you're an ignorant fool. Which I don't think you are, I just think you're trying to win an argument through unconventional means, and failing.Just to make sure you don't misunderstand:I am not saying that it is, strictly speaking, correct.I am saying that it is done, and people understand what I mean.I am not saying that I wasn't wrong.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

True, but just because another person made the same mistake doesn't mean it's correct. If I said that 2+2=5, and found someone who agreed with me; would that mean 2+2 really equals five? Of course not! It's just that now two people are incorrect. And to be fair, you're going to bring a guy who misspells every word and writes his posts as a huge run-on sentence as an educated debater?The reason, though, that I nit picked the issue in the first place is because Democrats tend to play the race card whenever they can't win an argument rationally. I wish you never played the race card in the first place. Whenever people start shouting "racist", it usually shows a weak mindset. Especially when they are not even talking about an actual race.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

True, but just because another person made the same mistake doesn't mean it's correct.This is how I ended my last argument: I am not saying that I wasn't wrong.For fucks sake ...
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

"I am not saying that I wasn't wrong.For fucks sake ..."But neither are you saying that you are wrong. Look, all I want is you to at least admit that my argument wasn't racist. That's all. No beating around the bush, no "I didn't come out and directly call you racist" cover up, just a "No your argument wasn't racist." That's it. Like I said, I respect you stance, I just don't like the "racist" accusation.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Semantically, yes, I was wrong, your argument was not racist.It was, however, very discriminatory and offensive to huge numbers of people, and had little to back it up in the way of arguments. My choice of words were incorrect, but I stand by the overall tone of what I said.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I am very happy now.But as far as the argument goes, I respect your stance, just on the opposite side. Me (I?) and Jace are debating the issue right now. Were kinda at a stand still, though. I think we agree to disagree.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

Even though most of all of our presidents turn out to be Jewish. We have had some catholic like J.F.K. and they turned out to work out very well despite the assassination. Now with a Muslim the controversy would never end. 300 years of Jews and Catholics and we have turned out fine. With some bumps along the way with scandals and impeachments we have had our fair share of problems; but aslong as were not under a monarchy, dictatorship, or communist. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

"Even though most of all of our presidents turn out to be Jewish"George Washington was Jewish? Abraham Lincoln was Jewish? Very very few of our Presidents were actually Jewish. Get educated man. (NOTE: I'm on your side, though, maybe I should have hit the "Clarified" button. Too late to change that now.)
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Are we not broke? ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

Wait, was this a joke??]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

I'm pretty sure none of our presidents have been Jewish, and only one has been Catholic.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

I unfortunately support this side. Not to be seen as racist, all the controversy surrounding the Muslim world would make me unsure.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

GAAAAA! Statements like yours ("Not to be seen as racist") kinda frustrate me! Muslims aren't (I repeat) aren't a race. Muslim is the term given to the followers of Islam. It's like saying because I don't like Christians, I must be racist. Well, I'm not. Christians aren't a race any more than Muslims are a race.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

I know this is reeeeeaaaaaaaally off topic but you're right. In my school if you make any jokes about Jews ( non WWII related) people all get upset saying " you can't say that you Nazi, you're racist" however you tel the exact same joke, but use a christian, people just think 'lol'
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Not at all

I know right? I tell ya, there is more wrong with todays "politically correct" society than ever in the history of the USA. In a sense, political correctness in almost actually incorrect.
Debate: Would you be okay with a Muslim President?
Side: Sure

You do realize that there is at least an equitable amount of controversy surrounding the Christian/western world, yes? Christianity does not exactly have the best track record, past or present. It makes no more sense to assume the character of a Muslim person based upon their faith identity than it does to do so for a Christian person based upon their faith identity. If you would extend your logic to include all controversial faiths then I would say your argument might have merit, otherwise it truly is just prejudiced.