azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

If you monitor it right you can use it and not overusing it. Because you can use it ass medication for pain or cancer
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

As this is true it has different effects on different people and people can use it and still function as good or better than someone who isn't high
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

It can also soothe the side effects of many illnesses. I hate arguing with myself.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana is a gateway drug. So it is possible that if everyone can have marijuana, then everyone could move on to more hardcore drugs. Then you go from everyone on marijuana to everyone on meth, heroin, cocaine, etc.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

you can have severe depression if you use this drug. after you use it all you feel depressed cause you want that high again
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

This is true Marijuana is a depressant drug which can explain why people often get depression from using this drug
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana should not be legal because it alters peoples perception. Marijuana users experience a high that alters the way people perceive things while under the influence.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana should not be legal because of peoples brain health. One study suggest the vessels of the brain of a user can restrict blood flow even after a ling period of time after using.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

There are plenty of other things people do daily that can harm brain health.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Science has shown that Marajuana has 50-70% more carcinogens in the smoke than there are in cigarette smoke.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

However if it were legalized there would be guidelines to limit how bad it is.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Smoking marijuana daily increases the risk of having respiratory illnesses in the future
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana should not be legal because of the way it affects the users lungs. Marijuana is estimated to have high of carcinogens that are almost double the amount found in tobacco.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

2nd hand smoking is still dangerous, and you can still get high off second hand smoke around weed, if it's legal then parents could still smoke around children accidently getting them stoned
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

this is right, people can get contact high and that wouldnt be good
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana can lead to people driving while their high, which can lead to more car accidents.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

like alcohol, there would eventually be laws to limit this from happening
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

car accident's are the leading cause of death in youth in todays world.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Smoking pot could lead to having memory loss and forgetting things
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

some people smoke weed in tobacco which is not the best for you
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

tobacco and weed are in the same category and can ruin and hurt your lungs.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana should not be legal because of the risk of second smoke. Public places could expose innocent patrons to smoke.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

i believe marijuana should not be legalized because it can lead to an addiction just like anything else
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

I agree with this addiction can be anything so you can be addicted to weed just like anythign else.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Here is the end all argument.... People smoke marijuana to get high. And to get high means to alter your perception of reality. And people with an altered perception of reality should not be allowed to drive. We have enough people under the influence of alcohol on the roads without adding more impaired drivers.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

Marijuana is better than other drugs like cocaine, meth, etc. Using marijuana just makes you relaxed rather than physically impaired.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana should not be legal because it can lead to children.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

marijuana is a downer and "leading to children" isn't logical.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana should not be legal because it increases memory loss.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Weed should be illegal because as messed up as it seems, drug dealers make a living off of it. So if weed becomes legal, dealers would lose out on a lot of money and poverty rate would rise.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Weed should be illegal because it is the most abused drug in the united states
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana is a common known gateway drug. Many people who start off smoking weed are led to want to try other drugs, possibly to continue to experience the high they first felt when they smoked weed for their first time.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

If you're not careful, it could fall into the hands of a child. 9 times out of 10, when you are high you're not thinking about safety of others or even safety for yourself. If your lackadaisical and leave the marijuana around, a child could get a hold of it, and who knows what would happen.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

The same could be said for alcohol and thats still legal the only real reason marijuana isnt legal is because the government cant effectively
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

tobacco smoke is just as bad as the smoke in marijuana and it can harm your lungs.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

Smoking is not the only way recreational marijuana may be used there is other things such as edibles either way if it is as dangerous than tobacco should also be banned
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Weed can lead to many more harmful drugs and it is a proven gateway drug.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana should not be legalized because some people don't know to act when it's in their bodies and cant control themselves.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should be legal.

if anything, smoking marijuana can lead to paranoia and short-term memory loss which many people experience in their everyday lives without the use of marijuana
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

weed can lead too many horrible things and you can get addicted easily
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana should not be legal because the smoke is just as dangerous cigarette smoke and can cause harm to the lungs.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Marijuana is a proven gateway drug that leads to harmful and more addictive drugs
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

If marijuana were legalized, new users would not be restricted to only adults, just like alcohol and tobacco, the youth will be able to get their hands on marijuana just as easily as other substances that impair their thinking and post risk to their health.
Debate: PD8: Legalizing Recreational Marijuana
Side: Marijuana should NOT be legal.

Early exposure to cannabis in adolescents decreases the reactivity of brain dopamine reward centers later in adulthood, making them vulnerable to addiction of other substances.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

The Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Mental Disorder (DSM) classifies pedophilia as including the following: [A] Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger); [B] The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. [C] The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. Strictly speaking, the classification of pedophilia as a paraphilia does not require that an individual actually have been sexually involved with a prepubescent child; the baseline requirement is that thoughts/fantasies/desires exist and that they cause an individual distress. There are, then, pedophiles who do not actually harm anyone but who suffer from unwanted desires and thoughts which they cannot prevent. There are pedophiles who seek and receive help. To stigmatize and discriminate against those who have done no actual wrong is both irrational and unfair, particularly in a society where seeking such help is quite difficult (mental health services in general are notoriously inaccessible and social stigma does not help).This is not to say that many pedophiles do not cause harm either directly through personal sexual acitivity or indirectly through the viewing of child pornography; rather, it is to say that there are exceptions and that we ought to reconsider our immediate assumptions. I think it is worth noting that the knee-jerk reaction of most of society towards someone diagnosed with pedophilia re-enforces the notion that such a person is inherently bad and cannot be redeemed, which deminishes the likelihood that someone will seek help and treatment.* As a footnote: Homosexuality and pedophilia are not connected, and the inclusion/reference to homosexuality in the context of this debate is highly offensive, insensitive, and ignorant.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Thank you for standing up for gays. :)
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Paodophillia is a practically a fetish. And as the person forming this argument said, they cannot help it. No one can help what they are sexually attracted to. You can't make yourself gay. Yes, child molestation from paedophillia is bad. But any paedophile is classed as bad. Even if they are inactive. I am sure there are some paedophiles that are ashamed of it because of the view otherrs have on them. This kinda puts them in a different light. On some porns sights theres child porn, so that does display it as just a fetist. Surely looking at pictures isn't too bad if no one is harmed? Its too hyped. In many cases its shows as worse than adult rape. Surely looking at a few pictures of naked kids isnt as morally wrong as that?
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Even if child porn was not specifically and singularly made to meet a demand, if the footage is out there, then there is a victim somewhere who knows their exploitation and suffering is available to be consumed by strangers.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True to an extent

Surely for it to legally be on the internet it needs permission? I read in the news that alot of the "kids" in child porn are older, just look younder. Someone that looks like a 10 year old could be a very young looking 16 year old. I agree that if it includes a victim who has been raped, used or misinformed it is wrong. But if it was REAL child porn, wouldnt the police have arrested them and taken it off? Its not uncommon.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

If there are no children involved, it's not child porn. Although in America, 16 year olds can't legally appear in pornography, either. But if it was REAL child porn, wouldnt the police have arrested them and taken it off? Its not uncommon.You brought up child porn appearing on fetishist websites and the harmlessness of looking at pictures. You tell me.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

But it's on the internet, illegally. Because there's demand, there's a supply, from people without morales.And yes, various governments and organizations have removed child pornography from the internet, but there's still huge amounts out there. On the Deep Web especially, because of the increased anonymity, I'd call it common. There was a big thing about Lolita, a child porn company that Anonymous shut down, they were on the Deep Web. Its web servers, US based, knew what they were doing and didn't care. Even if it's against the laws, the fact that there are pedophiles means that there will be child pornography.And some are not children, some are. Even if half are, that's still a huge amount of children being forced to do horrible things against their will.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Surely looking at pictures isn't too bad if no one is harmed? Its too hyped. In many cases its shows as worse than adult rape.Well, I'm not sure what situation one would have a harmless naked picture of a child older than an infant... maybe a very naive parent who posts pictures of a toddler who hates wearing clothes? Guess kids go through that stage.Otherwise it's pretty nefarious. There is a thin line between what's harmful and what is not I suppose, but one of these things are happening;1. You have very stupid parents who are entirely too naive to be allowed to have children.2. You have abusive parents who are knowingly using their child as a sex thing, even if it is only pictures at this point, not a good start and not a situation a child should be put in.3. These children are being photographed against the parents will and unkown to them, either a kidnap situation or someone they know like a babysitter or neighbor.I do not see which of these situations is not harmful. Can you explain?
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Surely looking at pictures isn't too bad if no one is harmed? ... Surely looking at a few pictures of naked kids isnt as morally wrong as that?I am appalled by your immorality and unethical thoughts. For me to maintain such a view, I would have to first rebut your view that pedophilia is not morally wrong. The crux of your statement or rhetorical question is whether it is morally justified to exploit young children. I submit that it is not. In order to support this, I will turn to one of the greatest German philosophers, Immanuel Kant.In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant famously penned his Categorical Imperative. There are two main formulations of the Categorical Imperative. The first formulation states, "Act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The second formulation states, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." To make my case, I shall refer to both formulations of Kant's Categorical Imperative.According to the first formulation, one should only act in a way such that everyone else in the world is morally justified to act in the same way (i.e. the law of universality). If you think that pedophilia is not morally wrong, then you must maintain that anyone can and should be allowed to exploit your children for their own sexual pleasure. That means that if your children fall prey to a pedophile, you must see that such an act is allowable and justified according to your own morals. The question, however, is that will you allow your own children, if you have any, to be sexually exploited and do nothing about it and allow it to occur? If you will not, then your own view on pedophilia, logically speaking, does not hold.Next, the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative. It states that one should not use others or oneself as a means to an end. Forget whether you might or might not allow your own children to be exploited, the fact that any children is sexually exploited is inherently, morally wrong. Let's look at the term "sexually exploit". In this case, the "end" is sexual pleasure. Thus, the "means" that pedophiles used to achieve that "end" is the exploitation of children. However, Kant's second formulation states clearly that humans should not be treated as a means to an end. Therefore, pedophilia is morally wrong.If you still want to maintain your view, you have to tear down both of my above arguments and then make cases of your own for pedophilia being morally allowable. If you can't do that, then it seems to me that my view of pedophilia being morally wrong is the more plausible view.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

All, of course, assumptions that morals are... real.But let's use what you've said. Children, I guess to you, can not consent? Now, I'm curious, to you... in order to be a pedophile you MUST sexually exploit children? Or is that children can only engage in sex if they're being exploited?If I had kids and they did not allow sexual advances from a pedophile, yet I, for some reason, was okay with the idea of pedophilia, am I supposed to FORCE my children to have sex with that pedophile?What if I felt that sex with children was okay if they consented? Now, of course, I do not view things in this way, exactly. You just seem to make it so that I'd have to argue at that angle. But it's alright, because we can at least do away with certain assumptions (like, is pedophilia ONLY exploitative?)As well, what if I personally do not like the act of pedophilia but still didn't see it, exactly, as "bad" (so long as consent was involved)? Or maybe, what if I didn't view things as either right or wrong because I felt that nothing could really be argued that way without forming an assumption or basis to make that argument in the first place?Of course, I do not believe in Morality or right or wrong. I find it all to just be a subjective way for society to label things. We can be against something, sure. Hell, we can do all we can to prevent those things.... but to call a pedophile "bad" is really just jumping the gun. Hell, I have trouble at times just calling an action bad, let alone calling an entire person "bad". Someone who finds kids sexually attractive, to me, is merely deviating from the sexual norm. If society finds what they're doing as morally wrong, they should be trying to help this person, not degrade them and make them suffer for their desires.Of course, my love for philosophy sometimes gets crossed with my love for psychology, but I guess that's why I tend to have sympathy for those kinds of devils.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Children, I guess to you, can not consent?That is a misrepresentation of my view. Children cannot legally consent.in order to be a pedophile you MUST sexually exploit children? Or is that children can only engage in sex if they're being exploited?I believe both. They are not mutually exclusive.What if I felt that sex with children was okay if they consented? Then obviously you do not understand the law.Of course, I do not believe in Morality or right or wrong. I find it all to just be a subjective way for society to label things.For a person who proesses to love philosophy, you're committing a very basic fallacy here. This is called the genetic fallacy.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Can not legally consent... how is it that morality MUST be mixed in with the law?But since you wish to make it that way... what if no laws existed. A Utopia, if you will, would children be able to "consent", in the sense that they are not saying no and are actually all for the sexual act.And how am I committing a genetic fallacy? To believe that morality is subjective is very relevant, for you are saying that pedophiles are "bad" because, somehow, it's immoral.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Can not legally consent... how is it that morality MUST be mixed in with the law?You introduced that confusion first. The term "consent" is very much a legal term. If you want to use that term, you're naturally introducing a legal perspective into the debate.But since you wish to make it that way... what if no laws existed. A Utopia, if you will, would children be able to "consent", in the sense that they are not saying no and are actually all for the sexual act.Your analogy would be self-contradictory then. As explained above, "consent" is very much a legal term. Furthermore, if you want to assume such a hypothetical, you would then be introducing many red herrings into the debate.And how am I committing a genetic fallacy? To believe that morality is subjective is very relevant, for you are saying that pedophiles are "bad" because, somehow, it's immoral.Just because some form of morality is subjective, it does not mean that it is true or otherwise. Furthermore, if you were to say that you believe morality does not exist and that is just a label that society gives, that is still a warped form of moral subjectivity. That does not say anything about whether morality is "real" or not. And by the way, your ambiguous use of the word "real" in your previous post is extremely misleading.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

So you... do not wish to answer any of my questions merely because you want to hold onto the legality of the term "consent"? Well, it is not just a legal term, so going by its dictionary definition, could you end your mexican hat dance?
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Point out how I haven't answered your questions. I have answered every single one of them. And if you're unclear, ask me again. I'll be more than happy to answer them.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Well, the whole consent thing is really the main issue just because all the others follow that, but if you're going to be that way, in all honesty, this isn't that important of a topic for me.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: False

Okay. To address the consent issue, my point (if it wasn't explained clearly, then I apologise) is that the term "consent" is used in the legal context when we're talking about the law and why pedophilia is, at least, illegal. Now, that is not to say that pedophilia is bad. Children simply have no right or ability to consent.
Debate: Pedophile's aren't bad.
Side: True

Well, as I've shown, while the law may say that children can not consent, that doesn't make this true, exactly. We can not debate an issue with a law by saying "the law says this, so there". Children have the ability. The law merely doesn't recognize that ability. But as the definition of consent shows, it is permission or agreement to an action. Now, if you truly believe that children can't do this, that is a better answer than saying "the law says they can't consent". The law says a lot of things, not good for moral arguments.