azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

It is hateful to say that gays go to Hell. .
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

I did not ignore your question. I properly addressed your fallacy.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

Ironic considering your question was made after you ignored his point. You ignore him, then feign offense when he responds by ignoring you.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

Who me? .
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

No, I was saying that Srom accused you of ignoring him after he ignored a point you previously made.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

Fair enough. Thank you for having my back. :)
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

You don't seem to understand what Christianity is, which is ironic. Christianity is the worship of Jesus and the belief in the Judeo-Abrahamic God. One can be sexually attracted to people of the same sex whilst holding those beliefs.And sexuality is not a lifestyle.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

I do understand what Christianity is. I believe it. It's believing in Jesus Christ as your personal savior. In order to accept Christ you must admit that you are a sinner, and repent of your wrong doings meaning turning away from that sin, and not doing it again in order for you to be forgiven.Many times in the Bible, it talks about how men and women are for each other. It does talk about how being a homosexual is a sin.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

Then provide one quote from the bible that says that being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is a sin. Note that I did not say having sexual interactions with members of the same sex, because that is a sexual act and not sexuality itself.And there are homosexuals out there who, for reasons I do not understand, claim that they are sinners for their deeds and repent. You have insinuated that not even they can be considered Christian, despite the fact that they are both homosexual AND repentant.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

Right. And that's why divorced people aren't Christian. And people who have every had sex before marriage. And everyone who gets tattoos. And everyone who even THINKS about committing adultery (Yeah, the bible says that if you even image cheating on your partner you have broken one of the 10 Commandments.) Because if you're Christian you know the Bible says you can't do these things, and God doesn't approve. Wow. Guess there aren't a whole lot of Christians around at all...
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

The bible says some really atrocious things about them. Look at Leviticus 20:13. A gay being a Christian is a bit like a Jew being a nazi. Why would someone want to be one of their oppressors anyway?
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

I actually think that most Christians are not against gays. If you want to hang out with your Christian friends and actually do stuff with a religious group it would be nice to be able to join their club.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

I am a progay Christian. We do exist. This whole debate is due to mans mistranslation of scripture.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

There are a number of translations. Who are you to say that your translation that allows gay people is correct? What makes you the expert?
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

Most of the Bible was originally recorded in Classical Greek. The idea of antigay sentiments being recorded in Greek is simply ridiculous!Edit: This is jokes. Please to be not taking so seriously.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.""If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."The Bible is vague on many things but it is extremely clear about homosexuality. People who have homosexual relationships care more about their desires than about not sinning.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

I'm not here to judge any sin & who is or is not Christian. I will explain the difference in my mind to a Christian & a non Christian.Can you understand the difference between a person admitting their sin verses denying their sin. To deny a sin that God clearly points out in the Bible, is to deny the God you claim to follow.Christians freely admit when they have sinned & do not try to condone it. There in lies the main difference with any person who says he is a Christian but refuses to believe & accept God's word. Christians accept the words in the Bible an do not try to tell God he is wrong.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

I truly believe that all these attempts at bringing Christianity down to an anything goes religion is a deliberate attempt from the Left to tear the Christian faith apart. Liberals are very happy with the Liberal churches who support Gay pastors, Gay marriage, abortion, etc.It's those evil so called Right wing fundamentalist churches that Liberals despise. Those Bible believing people actually believe what the Bible says. HOW DARE THEY FOLLOW THEIR FAITH! Their faith goes against political correctness! The Left ridicules them every chance on sitcoms, movies, news outlets, most all media. They would have you believe that all evangelists are corrupt fakes looking for money. They will never show Christians in a good light when they help millions of poor people around the world each & every day.Why do you suppose they spend so much time trying to tear down the written word in the Bible? Ask yourself why that one faith is their thorn while all other religions are not spoken against. Ask yourself why the plight of a small number of Gays is CONSTANTLY lifted up while most other ridiculed groups never get special mention. Ask yourself why that is. Could it be that the Gay issue goes against the Bible & therefore gets forced down our throats each & every day. Have you ever noticed how the very issues near & dear to a Liberal's heart goes contrary to the Bible?This is not rocket science hear. Big Government Liberals want no competition from God. They want to control you & your children's minds with political correctness. They want to control our nation & as we see with Obama getting elected twice, they are winning. They have seduced you with free subsidies on the backs of tax payers to get your vote. They don't care that we are going bankrupt. Wake up please!
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

It speaks to something rather scary within you that instead of noticing that people simply having differing opinions, it has to instead be a deliberate, conceited conspiracy against you and your beliefs."Conservatives are very happy with the Conservative Churches who are against gay pastors, same-sex marriage, against abortion, etc.It's those evil so called Left wing churches that Conservatives despise. Those bible believing people who actually believe what the Bible says. HOW DARE THEY FOLLOW THEIR FAITH! Their faith goes against my political views! The right ridicules them every chance on political commentary programs, internet forums, political newspapers, most all conservative media. They would have you believe that all liberals are corrupt fakes looking to bring down Christianity. They will never show Liberal Christians in a good light when they help millions of poor people around the world each & every day.Why do you suppose they spend so much time trying to dear down what other people believe regarding the Bible? Ask yourself why that one political ideology is their thorn while all other ideologies are not spoken against."I could keep going, but pointing out how ridiculous you are being is getting somewhat tiring. Stop with your persecution complex, dude. Some people have beliefs that differ from yours, and that really is all there is to it.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

Considering homosexuality is one of the most clear cuts wrongdoings in Christianity i find it comical the further we get in time the more grey this topic gets. Being "christian" means Christ like and while he was the most loving compassionate human to walk the earth these qualities did not conflict with his strong moral standards. Ex. Turning the money changers. People often say we cant "judge" and "god loves all" and while this is true god is also "just" and has standards.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

Can anyone be Christian?From what is proposed by Jesus, it’s a charming concept... I just wonder when people will start doing it.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

Once a gay becomes a Christian, he's no longer a gay.If you had to murder someone, you can repent and turn to Christianity.However, you cannot be a Christian if you work as an executioner, and kill people every day.The same goes for gayness. If you consider it to be your "way of life", and you're "proud of it", then of course you're not a Christian.That's one of the million ways not to be a Christian.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

However, you cannot be a Christian if you work as an executioner, and kill people every day.I have never seen anyone ever say this. I don't think Christians actually believe this.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

You are usually quite clear with definitions, but here I don't understand what you mean. Haven't you just seen me say it?
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

You were the first to actually claim that, but I don't consider you a person. ;) Sorry you are too much of a douche to make me spell it out.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

I don't consider you a personAn almost canonical confession of a douchebag.Sorry I had to spell out the whole word.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

Since we established that you are the first one to admit, and no one else agrees. Do you have a passage in the Bible that supports you?
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

Dude, now I'm really worried for the US. I was not aware your judges were high on drugs.Your swaying between (sort of) intellegent discourse, and absolute retardedness, makes me think you are a doper.I was comparing the notion of gay Christians, to Christian executioners. Both are absurd. I never said a Christian could be an executioner, and anyone who is even remotely intellegent, could see that from my post.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: No.

Your swaying between (sort of) intellegent discourse, and absolute retardedness, makes me think you are a doper.Says the guy who accuses everyone of being high on drugs in the same post he defends himself in.I was comparing the notion of gay Christians, to Christian executioners.And, you are the first person to compare gays to other sinners. I don't have a problem with you comparing gays to other sinners. I would prefer that to all the other Christians on here who only consider gays and never think of other sins. Both are absurd.No, you have it backwards. Neither is absurd. It is about desire to be a Christian.I never said a Christian could be an executioner, and anyone who is even remotely intellegent, could see that from my post.Your point was that an executioner can't be a Christian. The executioner has a job to do and may still want to be a Christian. What makes someone who is an executioner not a Christian?
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

Says the guy who accuses everyone of being high on drugs in the same post he defends himself in.Like the song goes, "So fucking what yeah?" (Metallica)And, you are the first person to compare gays to other sinnersMaybe on this site. But I'm not the first and not the last.No, you have it backwards. Neither is absurd. It is about desire to be a Christian.Being Christian is not about "desire". It's about following Christ.The executioner has a job to do and may still want to be a Christian. What makes someone who is an executioner not a Christian?Because he is breaking the commandment, and doing it not out of necessity (whereas you can repent and be forgiven), but just to earn money. A true Christian needs only what's enough to survive. An executioner is not such an easy post to acquire - you need to have been in the military or the police, e.t.c. So, there were no objective reasons for you not to have settled for a different job, which does not require violence.
Debate: Can gays be Christians?
Side: Yes.

Maybe on this site. But I'm not the first and not the last.They claim to, but keep having special rules that never apply to other sinners.Because he is breaking the commandment, and doing it not out of necessity (whereas you can repent and be forgiven), but just to earn money. A true Christian needs only what's enough to survive. An executioner is not such an easy post to acquire - you need to have been in the military or the police, e.t.c. So, there were no objective reasons for you not to have settled for a different job, which does not require violence.I think under your definition no one is a true Christian. Someone has to do the violent jobs and that includes Christians. I don't think your stance makes sense. But, at least you are consistent.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

1) The government can create jobs. A job only requires that there is a transaction through which some person x is compensated in some manner for y labor. How that compensation is substantiated is irrelevant to whether person x is in fact doing a job.2) The government can create wealth in the same way that any economic entity creates wealth. That is, through Human activity, which exists independent of public or private sectors, is wealth created.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Econ 101: Umm first NO allow me to explain. When a private-sector worker creates something of value where previously nothing existed, the resulting new dollars inevitably trickle down to others through the goods and services he or she buys. But when a public-sector job is created, it simply means existing dollars trickle from the person who earned them to someone else — usually someone a politician considers more deserving.The private sector creates wealth, the public sector spends it
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Econ 101: Umm first NO allow me to explain. Please stop trying to explain things to me.The transfer of novel technologies from the public to the private sector accounted for more than 50% of productivity growth in America over the last half century ("University Technology Transfer of Government-Funded Research Has Wide Public Benefits" (more here). And since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act this technology transfer has become even easier.Government workers and research funded by public dollars generate novel technologies. The fact that some researcher at NASA created Macro-Fiber Composite material (it's a real thing) instead of a private sector worker doesn't magically make that Composite material disappear from the face of the earth. It is a novel technology that was created through public research. And it has, as you put it, trickled down to others through the goods and services they buy. That is, by your definition, it is wealth.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

"Government can’t replace -- can’t create jobs to replace the millions that we lost in the recession, but it can create the conditions for small businesses to hire more people, through steps like tax breaks," Obama said.Since government has no assets, government spending has three sources of misrepresented stimulus.1. Taxation doesn't create new jobs or wealth because it only transfers wealth from one who creates new wealth. Sure, government employees received incomes, but it is at the expense of those who produce. Government employees don't produce anything new, they only take from the general public.2. Government borrowing is just as inadequate as taxation, yet at least in taxation, it is paid. It reduces investment in capital, labor and land. Consequently, this translates into fewer new factories, machines, and homes being built. Not only does this decrease in private investment slow economic growth, it results in additional unemployment in these industries.3. The worst source of additional government spending is creating new money either by simply printing more money or lower interest rates. Thus, this monetary event always results in inflation by eroding the value of the currency.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Government employees don't produce anything new, they only take from the general public.How so? If a person that works for NASA creates some new invention, then they are creating something, not taking away from society.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Sure, NASA is great for creating inventions because that is what it was commissioned to do, but the NASA employee did invent it on his own dime. It was on the dime of the taxpayer. The taxpayer has no say what should be pursued, and this is why they are taking away from society.That is left to some government bureaucrat who thinks he knows everything, and he is a professional.In a private business, it is working for himself on his own dime or the owner. The public has no say in the matter because it is not their money. It is the owner's money.In the private business, risk and innovation is higher driven whereas in NASA, risk and innovation are driven down due to regulations and red tape.Not only that, it takes years for NASA inventions to be waiver for retail sale to the general public.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

In the private business, risk and innovation is higher driven whereas in NASA, risk and innovation are driven down due to regulations and red tape.Private companies have to follow the same regulations. If they don't then the products can't be sold to the public.Not only that, it takes years for NASA inventions to be waiver for retail sale to the general public.So...what's your point. It takes years of testing for anything to go on the market.the NASA employee did invent it on his own dime.Neither does the guy who works for a private company.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

Private companies have to follow the same regulations. If they don't then the products can't be sold to the public.Of course, but that is not red tape. Red tape generally includes the filling out of seemingly unnecessary paperwork, obtaining of unnecessary licenses, having multiple people or committees approve a decision and various low-level rules that make conducting one's affairs slower, more difficult, or both.So...what's your point. It takes years of testing for anything to go on the market.The long period of testing is only because of government. If a product is great, but unheld by the FDA, then the public suffers.Milton 0:40-3:00With more on regulationNeither does the guy who works for a private company.That is true but if a NASA employee is ineffective, it is wasting taxpayer money, so it is virtually impossible to fire him because of the red tape with multiple channels to take to fire an government employee whereas in private company, if a employee is ineffective, he is wasting one persons personal money, so he is fired after one warning or two.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Red tape generally includes the filling out of seemingly unnecessary paperwork, obtaining of unnecessary licenses, having multiple people or committees approve a decision and various low-level rules that make conducting one's affairs slower, more difficult, or both. I like how you copied that directly from Wikipedia without citing.I'm only going to say this once because it applies to most of your post: My teacher used to work for a pharmaceutical company. She quit that job and went to teaching. We asked her why and she said that she was tired of the corporate bull$#!t. The company that she worked for was not a part of the government. This just proves that any company can have red tape. The long period of testing is only because of government. If a product is great, but unheld by the FDA, then the public suffers.The very first topic was thalidomide, a drug that killed a lot of people in Europe, but not in America because of the FDA.What about the other stuff that the FDA does? If I go to a restaurant, I don't have time to pull out huge food testers and search the kitchen for dangerous chemicals and insect, rodents, etc. The FDA saves us that time.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

I like how you copied that directly from Wikipedia without citing.It was a simple mistake. I forgot.Here is the cite Red TapeShe quit that job and went to teaching. We asked her why and she said that she was tired of the corporate bull$#!t. The company that she worked for was not a part of the government. This just proves that any company can have red tape. Really, are you going to say it only once because it sounds more like office politics, which is different.If I go to a restaurant, I don't have time to pull out huge food testers and search the kitchen for dangerous chemicals and insect, rodents, etc. The FDA saves us that time.First, the FDA has no authority over restaurants concerning meat, that is USDA, If you don't think the restaurant is safe, then don't eat there.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Really, are you going to say it only once because it sounds more like office politics, which is different.That has nothing to do with office politics.First, the FDA has no authority over restaurants concerning meat, that is USDA, If you don't think the restaurant is safe, then don't eat there.My mistake! It's not as simple as just not eating at the restaurant. I've been to a restaurant that I thought was sanitary, but a month a later the inspector wrote in the local newspaper that the restaurant had rat droppings and mold.The FDA does regulate the foods that you buy from stores. Are you going to drive around to every factory and field that produces the food to check for contaminants? No, the FDA does it for you.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

You're argument is an inane one. Protip: all new jobs are created by pre-existing capital. It doesn't matter where it comes from: whether it's taxed or loaned (a transfer of capital from one source to another) or even newly minted. If the capital can be used to hire people in positions that didn't previously exist, then new jobs have been created. If those people produce something novel (like a government created micro-machined artificial lung that outperforms existing clinically used artificial lungs) or already existing (a videogame), and it's sold or implemented in the market, wealth has been created. The government can, has, does, and will do both for as long as you and I live (probably...). To suggest otherwise is to betray a gross ignorance of reality or outright dishonesty.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: yes

Dude your insane cause you don't' have a F&&# clue what you are talking about. You have no idea on how business works or how Government absolutely needs private free markets in order to function. If there are no free markets and money being made on the private sector in the Free Market Capitalism society then government can't issue bonds and take from taxes and spend it. Here i will put it in 7th grade analogy for you because I'm guessing that's your age. Imagine a farmer and he has a crop and that crop is the private sector. That Farmer needs the crop to flourish and prosper so he can harvest it to pay for his expenses and so forth. But if there is no harvest then that farmer's ability to pay for his expenses is gone and he has no credit cause the crop is no longer there. It's a crude analogy but simple.
Debate: Can government create jobs and wealth?
Side: No

I didn't argue that governments could or do function in the absence of a private sector. So, I'll take your enlightening analogy to heart, while knowing that it's largely irrelevant to the argument I did make.