azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Junk food should not be banned because children have the choice whether or not to eat healthy and get excercise and such. They bring obesity and diabetes onto themselves. Other healthy kids should not be forced to eat healthy against their will if they do not wish to. If they are obese they should get more excercise and eat healthier. No one is forcing them to eat unhealthy products as they do.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

y should junk food be band from schools well they should put healthy food in school food but people don't always need healthy food so i disagree with you guys
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

No. Rather, supply the schools with both healthy food and "junk" food. Then, leave it up to the students to make the choice of what they should eat. No point in preventing them from eating something they'll get outside of school anyway.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Yes, i agree junk food is bad for your health, BUT. People, even students do have the rights as a human to choose what they want to eat, so others like principals do not have the right to control what the students eat.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

NO, you just need to admit that you are fat and need to ask your self a question "Do I really need that Twinkie or that Ding Dong", " Do I really want to get fatter", "Do I really want to ruin it for the skinnier kids that want junk food". But really other students shouldn't be punished because somebody else is breaking the ricketier scale. Okay you guys, do you like junk food, then if you know your over weight just admit it nobody cares that your fat
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Human rights people. They choose what they want to do. You can't force them not to do something
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Kids love junk food and it makes them happy. I can't see taking away their happiness.
Debate: Junk food should be banned from public schools.
Side: Disagree

Yeah but if you let them it will probably be like saying "ok become very big and round"
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Workplace accommodations are mandated only when those accommodations do not interfere with fulfilling the basic requirements of the job in question. Processing legal marriage licenses pursuant to government law is an basic and inherent part of the job. Therefore the claimant does not have a valid case and must either fulfill their basic job requirements or face termination at the discretion of their employer. That is how it is for everyone and there is no reason to create a special exception for them.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

better to obey God than man .... http://dadmansabode.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2214#p2214  ............ Jesus: .. But from the beginning of creation .. God made them male and female .. for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother .. and the two shall become one flesh .. so they are no longer two .. but one flesh .. what therefore God has joined together .. let no man separate ---- Mark 10:6-9
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

The Bible really holds no legal authority in this case, so can you please respond to the actual topic instead of quoting scripture?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Oh I'm sure she'll be fired .... the world (at this time) lies in the lap of the wicked one .... however Her reward in Heaven is great ..... Luke 18:28-30 .. Peter said . . . behold .. we have left our own homes and followed you .. and he said to them . . . truly I say to you .. there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children .. for the sake of the kingdom of God .. who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come . . . eternal life
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Which part of the bible says to treat your fellow humans like dirt?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Well, the Bible says we were made from dirt, so I guess I guess it makes sense to treat people that way ;)
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Ok, fair enough.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

So she will be rewarded, despite being on her 4th marriage?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

We are talking about marriages that are not christian ceremonies so a Biblical description of what marriage was in the time of Christ is not useful to this.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

obviously these people can't read ..... Jesus: .. But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female ............ > But from the beginning of creation <
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

obviously these people can't read ..... JesusI would thank you kindly not to take the Lords name in vain.But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female ............ > But from the beginning of creation <So what? Did Adam and Eve go to the town hall to ask a civil servant for a marriage licence to enjoy, amongst other things, tax breaks? No. It is nothing to do with marriage.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Haha, they went to the town hall to get marriage licenses and fig leaves.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

They have gone reprobate...most of these people have been given over to reprobate minds and will die in their perversion as rebels against God and end up in Hell. Casting pearls at swine is a waste, they will only trample the pearls and attack you.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

They won't trample them. They will look fabulous in them. Oink oink
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

since you're calling me swine and are throwing "pearls" at myself and others I'd like to tell you to stop throwing that pointless shiit at me. It's not slop, its not food, its a damned rock. Damn right im going to attack you.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Hey, if the truth fits, wear it. If you don't want to be saved from Hell, then don't be. If I cast pearls to you, you'll just trample them under foot and turn on me and try to tear me to pieces...that's exactly how you have responded to me always, you are indeed a swine. That's your choice. I'm not going to be reading your stuff any more....I'm pretty much done with all of the regular responders. I've given you the gospel, you trample the blood of Christ under your feet as you spit in God's face, and you try to attack me like stinking rabid pigs.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

So you're okay with men having multiple wives and concubines then, right? 2 Samuel 2:7-8 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." Abraham had at least 3 wives, Sarah, Hagar and Keturah (Genesis 16:1, Genesis 16:3, Genesis 25:1)He also had concubines (Gen 25:6)Moses had 2 wives, Zipporah and the Ethiopian Woman. (Exodus 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1)In Exodus 21:7-10 god says if you sell your daughter to someone as their wife, and the person who buys her decides he wants another wife, he can't diminish the benefits of his first wife.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

The problem is, this country does not belong to Christianity. If Christians do not want to accept gay or inter-racial marriages, that is their RIGHT....within their own church. They have NO right to bother anyone of any other belief or to force their belief onto theirs. This is a freedom of religion country, by Constitutional decree .... which DOES override Biblical OR Islamic OR any other religious law Just like the SCOTUS has ruled that certain religious items should not be placed in public places, religious rules that do not follow the Constitution should not be forced on the non-Christian public (or even the non-radical Christian public). God, Jesus, Allah, etc. are NOT members of the lawmaking branches of this country.. thank god! (If you must)!
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

I'm not sure why you disputed me. I agree with everything you said. I think maybe you misunderstood the intention of my post or meant to dispute dadman. In my post I was trying to point out to dadman that if he is going to try to force the teachings of his Bible on the rest of the world, then he can't just pick and choose the rules he likes, and that his attempt to make is sound like Biblical marriage is just between one man and one woman isn't always the case.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

This country now belongs to homosexuals (not really, God is still on the throne and in control) and you will be bending over for them soon if you are not already doing it....coward.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

He's still on the throne!? He's been on that thing forever. Maybe he should try some Ex-lax. It shouldn't take that long to take a dump.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Yes. A man once said: "Senator, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, you did NOT place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible!"Since: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...etc." We can not "Constitutionally" live by Biblical rules, without also living by Qur'an rules or the rules of any other "god". The Constitution is America's law! There are so many different interpretations of "Gods Law" that we would all live in anarchy trying to satisfy religions, kind of like....Shia, Sunni, ISIS, Catholicism, Mormonism, Baptists, etc.,etc.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

You sound like a brainwashed parrot, and you are letting the brainwashers turn you into an animal.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

If you are going to come on my debates, contribute. Pointlessly insulting people you disagree with accomplishes nothing, for you or anyone else.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

You really have no idea how dumb you look responding to a guy after 256 days with a copy and pasted statement about sounding like a parrot, do you?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Man, this stupid bitch still won't issue marriage licenses.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

The truth is that God gave man the free will. Therefore men will be judged by their actions and not everybody will go to Heaven nor is everybody required by Gods Word to act in any certain way without any other option. So if God has given man choice and free will to choose what he does, who is man to attempt to restrict that free will which was given by the Supreme Creator in the name of God? I personally am convinced that the Almighty has permitted gays to exercise the free will he has given to them and He will judge them. But I think that it is not permissible by God to allow men to attempt to pass judgement on their fellow men; to attempt to restrict what He has permitted. I think such behavior is impermissible in the eyes of the Almighty. The Word of God exhorts us extensively not to Judge others! The right to Judge belongs to GOD and GOD alone and is reserved for him on that day. So as far as I am concerned, we have no right to discriminate or treat Gays unfairly. It is an abuse of Human rights to deny them any of the rights that their fellow Human beings enjoy. Therefore surely the constitution does not support the clerks behavior, and I do not think God supports it either as I have earlier argued. I do not think it is a Christian behavior for her to conduct her dealings with fellow human beings in the way she is currently going about it. Let her do her job without bias.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

I don't think so. The woman should be allowed to deny couples. I don't think a church should be forced to allow gay marriage licenses. It should be optional for churches. Public establishments sure, but not churches.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

She is working for the government which is a public establishment, therefore following your own reasoning she should either be forced to sign the licenses or to leave her position as a public employee.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Sorry I misread the debate description. I rushed reading the description. Forgive me for that. Yes, i she works in a public establishment she must give gay couples their marriage license.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

I thought that might have been the case, but I was not certain. Thanks for clarifying.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

How is the Kentucky county clerk not part of the public establishment? Since she is a public servant, what should happen?
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Sorry I completely misread the debate description. Forgive me for the confusion.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Because there is no Federal law and there is no state law obliging her to issue gay marriage licenses. SCOTUS does not make laws.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

The thing is, part of her job is to issue marriage licenses. Due to the recent Supreme Court decision, state laws forbidding same-sex marriage are null and void, effectively legalizing them across the country. This means that by denying same-sex couples a marriage license, she is standing on personal opinion, not legality, and failing to perform the duties of her job as a public employ. This is why multiple courts have ordered her to fulfill her duties as a state clerk (a member of the judicial branch), and why the Supreme Court refused her application of a stay.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

Due to the recent Supreme Court decision, state laws forbidding same-sex marriage are null and voidThe Kentucky State law which explicitly prohibits gay marriage may have been rendered null and void by the Supreme Court.However, Kentucky Marriage Law contains a definition of marriage:"402.005 Definition of marriage.As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.Effective: July 15, 1998History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998."Link: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464 According to procedural regulations of Kentucky marriage law, a court clerk can only register a marriage application if the participants are eligible to enter into marriage. Which is clearly not the case when two men or two women are applying.Basically, this is a semantics issue. The Supreme Court did not overrule State's definitions of marriage.If Kentucky ever changes it's definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, them yes, the local clerks will be obliged to accept such marriage applications.Otherwise, the clerks are just fulfilling their duties as described by standing regulation.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

However, Kentucky Marriage Law contains a definition of marriage:"402.005 Definition of marriage.As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.Effective: July 15, 1998History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998."Link: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464 That is legally irrelevant, however. It most likely will not be removed simply because it's legal irrelevance makes it an unnecessary hassle that doesn't really need to be dealt with. State bans on same-sex marriage, both implicit and explicit, have already been ruled unconstitutional on the state and federal level. According to procedural regulations of Kentucky marriage law, a court clerk can only register a marriage application if the participants are eligible to enter into marriage. Which is clearly not the case when two men or two women are applying.Legally speaking it most certainly is the case, which is why multiple courts have told her that she has to register their application.If Kentucky ever changes it's definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, them yes, the local clerks will be obliged to accept such marriage applications.Otherwise, the clerks are just fulfilling their duties as described by standing regulation.Again, the regulation isn't standing. The regulation has been nullified by Supreme Court precedent.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: No, because...

That is legally irrelevant, however. It most likely will not be removed simply because it's legal irrelevance makes it an unnecessary hassle that doesn't really need to be dealt with.No, the reason it won't be removed is actually quite different from just "it being an unnecessary hassle". The sex rights agenda does not want to change the laws directly via their Congress lobby.The main reason they don't want do do it in Congress, is that such a course of action would require legal definitions of relevant terms to be adopted on federal level. But any legal definition would give other, more radical sex rights groups, to raise a legit question: "why stop here?". And that would be like a bucket of cold water for those poor sensitive activists. Because, for one thing, their lackeys in the media would have no immediate politically correct answer, and the whole victim Olympics narrative tactic would be put at risk.So instead, they prefer the murky and legally dubious method, whereas standing regulations are declared "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court.But, the legal problem with this method, is that Supreme Court decisions can only set precedence for other court, and cannot themselves change any standing regulations, even those which are directly being challenged in the court hearing (like the Ohio state rules in the relevant SCOTUS decision).So, the actual status of the standing regulation remains intact, but it can be overruled by local courts in each particular case, using precedence.Legally speaking it most certainly is the case, which is why multiple courts have told her that she has to register their application.Legally speaking, these regulations were overruled by the Kentucky court in the particular case relevant to the complaint issued by the gay couples whom Kim Davis had refused to register. Though it was very stupid of her to refuse services to straight couples.Again, the regulation isn't standing. The regulation has been nullified by Supreme Court precedent.Once again, that's outside of Supreme Court credentials. The court decided that Ohio state laws were unconstitutional, and had to be overruled in the particular case of gay couples which had filed the initial complaint.Technically, the best strategy for Kim would be to comply with the local court's decision and register marriage applications of the particular gays which had filed the complaint, and then refuse do this for any other gays. Which would not be in contempt of court.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

The Kentucky court has decided that the definition is not what matters. They have decided that the Supreme Court ruling is what matters.Otherwise, the clerks are just fulfilling their duties as described by standing regulation.She doesn't base her decision off that information. Plus, she isn't granting any marriage licenses.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

She doesn't base her decision off that information. Plus, she isn't granting any marriage licenses.Then reluctantly I must admit that she is a nutter. It's a pity because there is a course here to defend and she is only helping the opposite side.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Well, no she is a nutter and there is no course to defend as I explained it to you.
Debate: "Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny gay marriage licenses"
Side: Yes, because...

Whether there is or isn't a course to defend here, is a matter of political views and not "explanation". You pointed out to some details, which prove that she was acting in a very stupid way. Her actions did not help the cause of resisting pro gay legislation. What she should have done if she was not stupid is:1. Mention compliance to standing regulations as the main reason for her not servicing gay couples. But also state that it contradicts her religious views.2. Comply with the local court's decision and register marriage applications for those particular gays that had filed the complaint.3. Refuse register marriage applications of other gays, without direct court orders.4. Never refuse to register marriage applications for straight couples.