azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

According to the word of God Incest is unlawful. Leviticus18:6-30. God Finds these things detestable. That means so do I. It is damaging to the human sole. It is sinful. It needs to be cut off from the people. It needs to be recognized as sinful, because it is. Incest comes with disease, mutations, and more. Most importantly its offensive to God, and it destroys family relationships.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

The Bible has forbidden many things, including homosexuality and incest. But would you find all of them sinful, only because the Bible said it was?For example, from the book that you quoted, it is also commanded, among many other things:- That you may not eat animal fat. (Leviticus 19:3)- That you may not wear clothing made from two different types of fabric. (Leviticus 19:19)- That men may not shave their beards. (Leviticus 19:27)- That handicapped people may not approach the Lord's sanctuary. (Leviticus 21:16-23)I don't see modern Christians denouncing such actions on the basis that the Bible forbade them, and yet many Christians denounce incest on the basis that the Bible forbids it?
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

LOL You guys are Hilarious. Whats next? Bestiality?Soon you guys will be saying people were born with desires to sleep with their brothers and sisters, And That penetrating horses is "natural".
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

I wouldn't be surprised if some people are born with incestuous desires.And I see no correlation between incest and bestiality.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

I am not trying to draw a correlation between the two, Im simply saying that someone, if involved in something seen as deviant or as disgusting ( that probably is), with a little science can make laws to approve any destructive habit.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Laws can and have been made to approve all sorts of horrible things, like slavery and torture. And laws have been made to ban things that we now consider acceptable, like following a different religion. It's up to people to decide for themselves which things are disgusting and need banning, and which things should be allowed. That's what's happening in this debate: people are arguing for one or the other.Just saying "People who accept x (which I dislike) will probably accept y (which I also dislike)" doesn't really make a case for banning x. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might think x is acceptable, and these reasons may be inapplicable to y.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

As i said b4, right now im not arguing. Simply show how the world is going downhill.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Showing how the world is going downhill is arguing that the world is going downhill. There are plenty of people who don't think that accepting homosexuality or incest means the world is going downhill.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Homosexuality is okay because both partners are consentingSo if two suicidal people both want to kill each other, and they both consent to killing each other, is that all right?Nothing gives religions the right to take away anyones rights, who ever said we should abide by everything they say?Religions are not taking away anyone's rights by not marrying them. If gay people want to spend their lives together, they can. But the church shouldn't be expected to condone that, which is what they would be doing by marring them. Why should I have to live my life alone where heterosexuals can go out and marry 6 guys at onceDoes that not devalue marriage?Of course it does. And the church does not condone infidelity or bigamy anymore than homosexuality.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

So if two suicidal people both want to kill each other, and they both consent to killing each other, is that all right?Yes.Religions are not taking away anyone's rights by not marrying them. If gay people want to spend their lives together, they can. But the church shouldn't be expected to condone that, which is what they would be doing by marring them.Then why in most states is it illegal for homosexuals to get married in a courthouse?
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Yes.So you either seem to think that there's nothing wrong with suicide, or you're sticking to your mutual consent argument to the point that it makes it OK for suicidal people to kill each other. Either way, that mentality doesn't seem to have a very high regard for human life, so I believe that topic has reached an impasse.Then why in most states is it illegal for homosexuals to get married in a courthouse? Because the word "marriage" holds a certain religious connotation. If it were to be called a civil union, I don't think people would take issue with it very much. they can have all the benefits of marriage if they want. But including homosexuality into a sacred union such as marriage would taint the very meaning of what it means to be married.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

It will never be okay for two people to kill each other but that is not what we are talking about, we've strayed away from the point of arguement.In no way is marriage sacred anymore with divorce, bigamy and drunken, reckless marriages. Same sex marriage needs to be introduced, its our right to get married
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

It will never be okay for two people to kill each other but that is not what we are talking about, we've strayed away from the point of arguement.I was only trying to illustrate the point that mutual consent doesn't always make an action right.In no way is marriage sacred anymore with divorce, bigamy and drunken, reckless marriages.As I said before, divorce bigamy and drunken reckless marriage is just as big of a problem, and within religious institutions, it gets just as much heat, if not more so than gay marriage.Same sex marriage needs to be introduced, its our right to get marriedYou should have the right to send your life with whomever you want, and, for the most part, the state should allow you the privileges of married couples, but it is not your right to commandeer a sacred union because you want to be recognized as "married" when that simply wouldn't be so.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

"I was only trying to illustrate the point that mutual consent doesn't always make an action right."yes it does though, its not that I would want people to commit suicide, but I have no say on anyone elses decisions. if two people want to kill each other what right do I have to say they can't? they are allowed to make thier own choices, it does not mean I have no care for human life, it just means I have a care for freedom, don't you care about freedom? "You should have the right to send your life with whomever you want, and, for the most part, the state should allow you the privileges of married couples, but it is not your right to commandeer a sacred union because you want to be recognized as "married" when that simply wouldn't be so."well, well, well look who's being a big crybaby, oh they are being labeled as married, whatever shall we do. just in case you were to stupid to understand that was sarcasm. I don't really think marriage is necessarily a religous thing. religion is where it comes from, but its a societal thing now, we have recognized marriage as the true unitement of loving people in a way. plus does it really sound romantic to be in a "civil union" NO, marriage can be something religous to you, but its not to everybody... sorry too bad.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

So you either seem to think that there's nothing wrong with suicide, or you're sticking to your mutual consent argument to the point that it makes it OK for suicidal people to kill each other. Either way, that mentality doesn't seem to have a very high regard for human life, so I believe that topic has reached an impasse.This position holds in high regard the right of every person to decide the worth of their own life, and to do whatever they want with it without infringing on the rights of others.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

This position holds in high regard the right of every person to decide the worth of their own life, and to do whatever they want with it without infringing on the rights of others.Of course they have the right, but what we're arguing is whether or not it is right.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Most people probably do not think suicide is 'right', exactly, but some (like Bohemian) recognize it is not their business to legislate a restriction of it. It is the same with gay rights, which, unless I am mistaken, you do not support. You can think whatever you want about it, but as it is not a factor that meaningfully influences your life or the lives of heterosexuals in general, it is not your place to legislate a restriction on it.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

So you either seem to think that there's nothing wrong with suicide.Correct. you're sticking to your mutual consent argument to the point that it makes it OK for suicidal people to kill each other.Also correct.Because the word "marriage" holds a certain religious connotation.Something is illegal because of connotations? What an absurd argument. This is simply a more tact way of stating "My religion says it's wrong therefore you shouldn't be able to do it".If it were to be called a civil union, I don't think people would take issue with it very much. they can have all the benefits of marriage if they want. The problem with this is that it relies on the "separate but equal" concept under the guise of 'civil unions'. The problem is that civil unions won't have the same benefits and the same protection under law as that traditional marriages, because those who support 'civil unions' believe them to be inherently inferior. The same way black schools during the civil rights movement were treated as inherently inferior to white schools. Equality can never be achieved in this way.The only way we can guarantee equal protection under the law is to make no distinction between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage.But including homosexuality into a sacred union such as marriage would taint the very meaning of what it means to be married.By meaning of marriage you mean the legal and inter-personal union of two consenting adults, who profess their love towards each other?Interesting how you use the word "taint" in reference to the perceived affect same-sex marriage would have. Which shows me you do think same-sex couples are inherently inferior to heterosexual couples.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Something is illegal because of connotations? What an absurd argument. This is simply a more tact way of stating "My religion says it's wrong therefore you shouldn't be able to do it".Marriage was created by religion. In fact, if it weren't for certain privileges married couples get, there would be no point in anyone getting married ever. And since it is based on religion, it should have the ability to determine who can use what it created. The problem with this is that it relies on the "separate but equal" concept under the guise of 'civil unions'. The problem is that civil unions won't have the same benefits and the same protection under law as that traditional marriages, because those who support 'civil unions' believe them to be inherently inferior. The same way black schools during the civil rights movement were treated as inherently inferior to white schools. Equality can never be achieved in this way.Not necessarily. In some cities, the Negros had exactly equal, and on a few occasions, better accommodations than the whites. Obviously this wasn't the case most of the time, but it did happen. It could also be made to work for civil unions.By meaning of marriage you mean the legal and inter-personal union of two consenting adults, who profess their love towards each other?Of course not. Marriage was never intended to be this. A marriage is the legal, religious, inter-personal union of one man and one woman who profess their love towards each other.Interesting how you use the word "taint" in reference to the perceived affect same-sex marriage would have. Which shows me you do think same-sex couples are inherently inferior to heterosexual couples.Of course I do. But that is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore not a viable topic of debate.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Marriage was created by religion. In fact, if it weren't for certain privileges married couples get, there would be no point in anyone getting married ever. And since it is based on religion, it should have the ability to determine who can use what it created.So why is the state getting to decide whether two people can get married or not?Not necessarily. In some cities, the Negros had exactly equal, and on a few occasions, better accommodations than the whites. Obviously this wasn't the case most of the time, but it did happen. It could also be made to work for civil unions.To what extent this occurred, if at all, I cannot say. I find it doubtful to say the least. But even if I were to take this at face value, that a few rare black schools were better equipped than most white schools does nothing to rectify the deep-rooted inequality and prejudice that existed."Separate But Equal" does not work, nor has it ever worked, for the same reason civil unions will not work.Of course not. Marriage was never intended to be this. A marriage is the legal, religious, inter-personal union of one man and one woman who profess their love towards each other.I might point out that marriage was never intended to be that either. This idea of a nuclear family is a relatively recent invention. Throughout most of history, Polygamy was the most common form of marriage. The idea that love should have anything to do with marriage is also a recent invention. Marriages originally were intended only to create social stability. The number of wives a man could support was a measure of his power and social status in a society. In many places marriages were arranged outright.Of course I do. But that is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore not a viable topic of debate. Nearly everything you have said is a matter of opinion. Them being opinions doesn't mean they are beyond criticism or fallibility, as many people would like to assert. I still may find fault in such opinions.And I will...
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

So why is the state getting to decide whether two people can get married or not?It shouldn't. The church should decide, not the state, as marriage is mostly a religious union."Separate But Equal" does not work, nor has it ever worked, for the same reason civil unions will not work.So hypothetical, if civil unions were identical to marriages in every form except it's name, would that be satisfactory?I might point out that marriage was never intended to be that either. This idea of a nuclear family is a relatively recent invention. Throughout most of history, Polygamy was the most common form of marriage. The idea that love should have anything to do with marriage is also a recent invention. Marriages originally were intended only to create social stability. The number of wives a man could support was a measure of his power and social status in a society. In many places marriages were arranged outright.This is not true of Christianity, which is the religion that marriage in America was originally based upon. The nuclear family goes back thousands of years, and clear into Judaism (which also advocates for heterosexual relationships). Polygamy was never considered virtuous by either of them, and neither was homosexuality.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

So hypothetical, if civil unions were identical to marriages in every form except it's name, would that be satisfactory?Have you not learned from history? As long as they are legally treated differently they cannot be equal.This is not true of Christianity, which is the religion that marriage in America was originally based upon. The nuclear family goes back thousands of years, and clear into Judaism (which also advocates for heterosexual relationships). Polygamy was never considered virtuous by either of them, and neither was homosexuality.It is true of marriage throughout most of history. So you cannot assert marriage was intended to fulfill ideals which where created long after marriage was already being practiced. In fact until very recently inter-racial marriage was scorned.Perhaps you think your religion gets to dictate the terms of every marriage. This very notion is contrary to our liberty.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Have you not learned from history? As long as they are legally treated differently they cannot be equal.You have not answered my question. It's hypothetical, assuming them to be equal.It is true of marriage throughout most of history. So you cannot assert marriage was intended to fulfill ideals which where created long after marriage was already being practiced.Marriage had no definite parameters until it was made doctrine in religious organizations. There was polygamy, frequent devoice and remarrying, fornication with animals and people of the same sex, and oftentimes it had little or nothing to do with love. This kind of chaos can't be defined under one term, nor should it ever be allowed to. In fact until very recently inter-racial marriage was scorned.And there was a reason for that, just as there are reasons to scorn gay marriage. If we allow the gays to "marry" what's next? Will people want to marry an animal? Or an inanimate object? The bottom line is that when the definition of marriage is broadened, it's uniqueness and sacredness is diminished, and that is the main reason why gay "marriage" is so stubbornly fought against. Perhaps you think your religion gets to dictate the terms of every marriage. This very notion is contrary to our liberty.It is not contrary to anyone's liberty. No one needs a religion to approve of their living with someone else. The government can accommodate them with a civil union. But if someone wants a religion to approve of their relationship (making it marriage) the religion most certainly should have the ability to say what is acceptable and what isn't.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

And there was a reason for that, just as there are reasons to scorn gay marriage. If we allow the gays to "marry" what's next? Will people want to marry an animal? Or an inanimate object? The bottom line is that when the definition of marriage is broadened, it's uniqueness and sacredness is diminished, and that is the main reason why gay "marriage" is so stubbornly fought against. Are you saying that allowing marriages between a white person and a black person has diminished the "uniqueness and sacredness" of marriages between two white people?Also, I really thought the slippery slope argument had been put to bed. Are inanimate objects and animals considered adult citizens, capable of granting informed consent to relationships? No? Oh, well then I guess that's where the difference is.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Are you saying that allowing marriages between a white person and a black person has diminished the "uniqueness and sacredness" of marriages between two white people?No. What I meant was that there are cultural and societal factors to consider in regard to people of different races. They can cause complications in marriages. Also, I really thought the slippery slope argument had been put to bed. Are inanimate objects and animals considered adult citizens, capable of granting informed consent to relationships? No? Oh, well then I guess that's where the difference is.For a long time the definition was one man and one woman, and no one saw that changing either.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

No. What I meant was that there are cultural and societal factors to consider in regard to people of different races. They can cause complications in marriages. I do not see the relevance of this statement. It is no one else's concern if two people decide to enter a marriage that some would consider 'complicated'. For a long time the definition was one man and one woman, and no one saw that changing either.If you are saying that allowing two consenting adults who are in love to commit to each other means that we by definition must allow people to marry ponies, and that society is incapable of editing the definition of marriage without allowing the institution to collapse into a free-for-all, then...that's kind of ridiculous. Society has changed the definition of marriage in the past, somehow we're not seeing a lot of government-sanctioned bestiality or pedophilia, and we will change it again the future to include homosexuals.Hypothetically, though, how do you think it would detrimentally impact your life in a concrete way if your neighbor was legally wed to his coffee table? Tell me what would be different in your own marriage, besides the apparently disturbing thought that more people than ever are allowed to have what you have.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

It is no one else's concern if two people decide to enter a marriage that some would consider 'complicated'.If you care about the person it is. Society has changed the definition of marriage in the past, somehow we're not seeing a lot of government-sanctioned bestiality or pedophilia, and we will change it again the future to include homosexuals.Not a great deal. And especially not in American culture. It's been almost exactly the same for many centuries. Hypothetically, though, how do you think it would detrimentally impact your life in a concrete way if your neighbor was legally wed to his coffee table? Tell me what would be different in your own marriage, besides the apparently disturbing thought that more people than ever are allowed to have what you have.Because it would make it meaningless. If my neighbor could marry his coffee table, it would make no sense for me or anyone else to be married because it can apply to anything or anyone. That is the disturbing thought.