azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

"that didn't need to be acknowledged"don't you mean "that I didn't like" ?....
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

No, I don't mean that.Dont you mean that you don't like my opinions so that makes them invalid?
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

"Don't you mean that you don't like my opinions so that makes them invalid?"No, that's just a coincidence. (; See, I don't like invalid opinions. ((((((;
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

Didn't you hear? She hates us. (;By "us" I mean white straight Christian men of course. How dare us have it better in the past.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

When did I say I hate straight Christian men? Or does what I say even matter any more? Is it all what you want me to have said because you want to attack me?
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

Okay you never said "hate", but hen I asked you what the problem was you said it was because we had it easier in the past. Lame...
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

Well labling me as a raging hater is different than quoting me or even paraprashing.I never said that, I don't hate white achristian males, and you did have it easier. It's just facts. And again, your dislike of a fact doesn't make it untrue.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

I never said you where "raging" And I admitted that you never said "hate". And the Fact that white people had it easier in the past should not be relevant to how you judge somebody at all. You want equality don't you? Why dwell on the past, thats not what MLK wanted. And I never had anything easier because of my race. I'm only 19, I wasn't born in the 50's or 60's.In fact: I live in Texas (it's more diverse than you think) and have been called "white boy" "cracker" "bob", you name it.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, it does not

Ahem, I'm still waiting for you to apologize for that last statement. Not all Straight people are selfish or quote 'bitches'. So you are in the wrong and used a stereotype as your argument. Say sorry.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, it does not

WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME!? DID YOU CALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE SELFISH!? WELL YOU SIR ARE WRONG! JUST BECAUSE SOME STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE SELFISH IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ALL ARE! IT'S LIKE SAYING ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS BECAUSE OF ISIS. NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS AND NOT ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE BITCHES!!! I THINK YOUR JUST TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING SMALL INTO SOMETHING BIG! SO I'M SELFISH BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE MY OWN GENDER!? WELL FUCK YOU AND I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!!!(Sorry for swearing though)
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

I think a few people on the other side are confusing 'minimize' with 'change'. So the running definition of marriage would be different. Would marriage itself be any worse off? Would the experience of marriage be any less pleasant (or, in some cases, just more unpleasant) for straight couples? That it what 'minimize' implies. And my answer is no.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should give a damn whether or not a man and another man or a woman and another woman want to spend the rest of their lives together and have the state recognize such a union. Neither is it anyone else's business that they do so, nor is it worth a damn what they call it, "Marriage," or otherwise.This is a pure matter of civil rights, plain and simple. Anti-miscegenation laws were fought and defeated in the past and I believe, with time, the same force of law which allowed my black father and my white mother to marry decades ago will eventually allow my homosexual friends to legally do so. How anyone can reasonably deny them this right is beyond me.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should give a damn whether or not a man and another man or a woman and another woman want to spend the rest of their lives together and have the state recognize such a union. Neither is it anyone else's business that they do so,I agree 100%. nor is it worth a damn what they call it, "Marriage," or otherwise. I hesitate here because I think we may have a slight difference of opinion although the statement is correct. Let me explain. I assume that what you mean is that straights should not care if Gays call it a marriage. Whereas my position is that gays should not care if they call it a civil union. The reason for my stance has to do with my disagreement of your last paragraph.I do not believe that this is a civil rights issue. First, some definitions since there are a lot of teenagers on this site.Miscegenation (Latin miscere "to mix" + genus "kind") is the mixing of different racial groups, that is, marrying, cohabiting, having sexual relations and having children with a partner from outside one's racially or ethnically defined group.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights Now, a racially mixed couple who are not allowed to marry are being denied having children by the government. Their civil right are being violated because they are not allowed to participate in the civil life of the state without discrimination or repression (i.e. without going to jail).A gay couple can't have children so the government is not denying them anything except benefits. However, the government can hand out benefits as it sees fit. For example, when the government hands out farm subsidies, am I being discriminated against since I'm not a farmer and I don't get my share? Are my civil rights being violated if i don't get the same benefits? See, the whole issue here is that gays call these benefits rights. But these benefits are not rights.Some would argue that gays are unable to participate in the civil life of the state. But gays are cohabiting and having sexual relations without government interference. They are participating in the civil life of the state. They can have a "wedding" without fear of being thrown in jail. They can tell people they are married without consequence. They just can't say that they are married in order to get benefits.But what about the discrimination or repression? Well, we have hate crime laws and laws against discrimination based on sexual preference. And, no, the government is not discriminating or repressing gays by not giving them certain benefits. Just as the government is not discriminating against me by not giving me farm subsidies. Besides, civil unions give same sex partners the same benefits as married couples so the whole thing is moot.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

Alan Dershowitz and others have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts as part of privatizing marriage, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions, in part to strengthen the separation between church and state
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

Hm, the other side is wrong I can say unequivocally, which is odd given the number of responses on it.Marriage is not a group effort. What I mean is, it is not a group of people all getting married. If a white couple gets married, every white person on earth is not given a wedding gift, or given tax exemptions, or gets to ride off in a limo,only the couple directly involved.There are only 2 people involved in a marriage, and to say a gay couple getting married can somehow effect this, one would logically have to except that the marriage of any two would effect one's own marriage or anyone elses.Are you following me?Marriage isn't special because other people can't do it.It's special only to the two being married...no one else is involved. For anyone else to be involved is all of silly, immoral, and quite unconstitutional as eventually our Supreme Courts will decide.There is absolutely nothing on this earth separating the following two sets of circumstances:There are 2 water fountains, black and white.They have the same water coming out of them. But only whites are allowed to drink from one."Why can't they share?" Strip away everything else, it comes down to blacks being allowed to share the same water fountain minimizes white people's right to drink from that water fountain.There is nothing I'm very afraid under this sun or in this Universe we live in separating that situation,from a situation where a straight couple says gay marriage minimizes straight marriage.All arguements against it are wrought in social concepts,or as I saw on the other side of this debate,a complete misunderstanding of how, why, when, who, and what being gay is.I'm afraid you're all wrong over there, and you should re-evaluate your stance.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

...and that's my final answer; no it does not! ``````````````````````````````````
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

The question is whether gay marriage somehow affects straight marriages. There is a simple tests we can apply to this question: If a person in a "straight" marriage has no knowledge of a "gay" marriage in the house next door, does he or she have any sort of tangible harm to his or her own relationship? Removing the knowledge of the "gay" marriage removes personal bias. If the harm comes only when someone has knowledge of the "gay" marriage, then the "harm" is nothing more than personal prejudice.The simple answer here is no. A homosexual marriage may offend some people, but it doesn't harm their relationship in any way. For it to be harmed there has to be some mechanism for harm, and there isn't.If marriage were entirely a religious institution, then it would be controlled and sanctioned by religious authorities. While we pretend that it is religious, a "legal" marriage neither requires a religious component nor recognizes any marriage that doesn't meet legal requirements (in other words, one that is solely religious - try doing it without a marriage license or the proper paperwork). So marriage is legally not a religious institution, only culturally - which has no force of law - it is a legal one, and so law is the only proper thing to consider when discussing laws about marriage. The real issue here is that by allowing a type of marriage that is not "religiously" sanctioned, this polite cultural fiction (that marriages are religious) is thrown into the light. And that disturbs a lot of people who like to think that their marriage is sanctioned and enforced by some god or another.But that leads to another question. What about pagans or atheists (i.e., not Christians, Jews or Muslims) who are married by a Justice of the Peace? The social conservatives don't have a problem as such with a marriage that is not religious, because that doesn't highlight the self-contradiction in their argument. Their cognitive dissonance isn't pinged, and so they just ignore it.If you really think that marriages are defined, enforced and created by a god to be one man and one woman, then just try falling through on your child support or alimony payments and see whether it is God or the government that sends you nasty letters.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

Associated Press style recommends the usages marriage for gays and lesbians or in space-limited headlines gay marriage with no hyphen and no scare quotes. AP warns that the construct gay marriage can imply that marriage licenses offered to gay and lesbian couples are somehow legally different.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

It does not whatsoever minimize any other form of marriage. Marriage is a union of two people that believe they love each other. Divorce is the only way to minimize marriage, and allowing the union of same-sex couples does the exact opposite of minimizing marriage.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

Actually, by definition, marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. via dictionary.com.So in short, you must change the definition of marriage. So now, you change the pretext in which a straight couple have gotten married.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

Definitons are like words themselves. Fickle an capricious. Words such as Fags have been changed from their original meaning (a bundle of sticks) to something derragatory or just something different. Nowadays people have to accept that to different people marriage can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. All that is needed to be married should be an udnying love for the other person. That is it.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

Why do they have to accept this? Why doesnt the government just find a solution that satisfies both parties? Oh right, because that would eliminate this great topic at election time.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

It does not. Straight people who have been married several times does though. What minimizes marriage is the rate of divorce, not what sexes are married. People act like marriage is this sacred thing, what's so sacred about it? Law should not be dictated by preference. This is a civil rights arguement the same as when African-Americans and women fought for the right to vote. Back then, you had oppostion just like you do today. And they're wrong to deny anyone the right to marry whomever they please because it has nothing to do with you or me and it won't stop people from being gay. Lets grow up America.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, It Does

Actually that's not entirely true. The definition of a civil right is as follows:Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights NOTE: the government is not taking any unwarranted action against gays in order to keep them from participating in the civil and political life of the state. In other words, gays don't need protection in the form of rights and freedoms. Specifically gays are not being discriminated against nor are they being repressed. Here's the definition of political repression for your convenience:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression NOTE: gays are politically active, they can vote, they have representatives and there are gays who hold political office. In other words, they are not politically repressed.And here's the definition of discrimination for your convenience:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination NOTE: the only thing gained by a couple who has the title of "married" bestowed on them are benefits like tax credits. But the government is allowed to give away these benefits as it sees fit, to whomever it sees fit. In other words, this does not constitute discrimination.Now, please explain to me how gays are being repressed and how they are being discriminated against. I would also like to know which rights are being denied to them. Please keep in mind that rights are not benefits and that the benefits provided for under the term "marriage" are granted to gays under the term "civil union."
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

No it does not! How would it and how could it minimize a sacred institution? It is only that the playing field is now leveled to include varying factions than ever before.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: Yes, it does

+1
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

It's none of my business who other people marry. I'm more concerned with people being responsible and honest than the gender of the person they prefer to have sex with consensually.Only religious fundamentalists really oppose gay marriage - and the easy solution to that is for each religious group to decide if it will marry gay people in it's meeting place or not. The State has no business in how they run their primitive beliefs...and gay people can choose religions that support them or simply get married in a Registry office.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

No, straight marriage isn't the shining example of what relationships should be.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, it does not

It is impossible! Straight Marriages will always be here and I have never heard of any heterosexual stating that his marriage has been lessened to a degree with Gay Marriage being allowed.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, it does not

Gay Marriage is not going to berate Straight Marriage in any way.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

My take on this is that Gay marriage does not minimize Straight marriange at all. What gays wish is to be recognized in the same way their straight counterparts are...no more, no less. I would tend to believe that straight couples feel their vows are not the same as their gay counterparts but that's wrong. No matter what you call it, civil union or marriage it must be the same all around and not just the government aspects of it. Gays must be recognized in their own right at their jobs where your employer pays for insurance, at churches where they worship and by the government they live under. It's not about changing the name from marriage to civil union...why make a different name for it when marriage is the recognized term for it? It must be the same because it minimizes nothing and no one.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

NOTE: I'm not disputing you. I just want clarification on the following statement:Gays must be recognized in their own right at their jobs where your employer pays for insurance, at churches where they worship and by the government they live under.Recognized how? My employer allows for "partners." Which is the same as "married."I don't attend church so I don't know anything about that.The government has civil unions, which grants the same benefits as being married.I don't understand how else gays should be recognized.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

Employers do pay for employees insurance and most times the form says husband/wife and not partner. That is not to say that some employers do not recognize partners but it's almost always a straight relationship. Most churches do not recognize same sex patnersgips or marriages...that's a given. The government, at the state level only recognizes those unions insofar as legislation that has been passed giving it the green light. Gays must be recognized in the exact same way that straight people are recognized with no exceptions otherwise it falls apart at the seams.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, It Does Not

I haven't seen a form that doesn't have the word partner in it.Maybe the difference is in the state where you live. Where I live, there is no difference between "marriage" and "civil unions." If there is a difference in the state where you live then your elected officials are not progressive enough and trying to get gay marriage to pass there would be harder than fighting for an equitable definition for civil unions.
Debate: Does Gay Marriage minimize Straight Marriage in any way?
Side: No, it does not

Nope It does not in any way shape or form?Anyone who this differently is a parasite.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

God exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a God. So, in a sense, God does exist for both the people that believe in God, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in God.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

God exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a God. So, in a sense, God does exist for both the people that believe in God, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in God.Acting on behalf of an idea doesn't make that idea exist, not even in the least.To highlight the flaw in your reasoning, let's try:The Tooth Fairy exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a  Tooth Fairy. So, in a sense, The Tooth Fairy does exist for both the people that believe in The Tooth Fairy, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in The Tooth Fairy.
Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

The Tooth Fairy exists in the minds of some people, and the people interact with the world with this belief. They do things that they wouldn't have done, or they don't do things that they would have done, had they not believed in a Tooth Fairy. So, in a sense, The Tooth Fairy does exist for both the people that believe in The Tooth Fairy, and the people that are effected by the people's belief in The Tooth Fairy.This makes sense to me.My point is that even if God doesn't actually exist, and God is nothing more than a figment of people's imaginations, God still has power through people to do God-like things... such as not-exist but still change the universe as if he does. Even the tooth fairy does this, and Santa Clause. They might not actually exist, but the belief in them causes changes in reality that suggest they do exist. Teeth under pillows, cookies by a fireplace, letters to Santa.I think that's enough to merit the existence of something, to see the effects of it's existence. Scientists do this all the time... "There's a distortion of the path of light from this cluster of stars, as if the light is bending around some sort of super-massive object that doesn't emit light itself... I believe it's a black hole because of the effects of light around this point in space." Even if it's not "God" that is the cause for the change, and it's just belief itself... God is a type of belief because certain results come from the belief in God that don't come from believing in the tooth fairy.