azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

This is ridiculous. How does this have no equivalence? People are being discriminated against! Today, gay people are not getting equal rights as their straight counterparts, just as black people did not get equal rights compared to their white counterparts. We had a history of hate against black people. We have a history of hate against gay people.Black people were not allowed to take part in many events. Many organizations today will exclude people for being gay.Blacks were put in jail for fighting for their rights, and may were killed in rallies and as slaves. Even blacks who were not slaves could be caught, enslaved, killed, tortured, etc. just for their race. Across the world, people are being put in jail or even executed for being gay.THE REASON FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT WAS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, NOT JUST BLACK PEOPLE. Yes, it was lead by blacks, but it wasn't exclusive. How are we emotionally manipulating you? By trying to appeal to common sense? By reminding you that great people who you respect have already fought against what you're fighting for? Your argument here has no reasoning in it... you just say that it could offend you and you think people are manipulating you... what makes you think that? How is this movement against discrimination against gays any different from discrimination "before and during the historic civil rights movement?"
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

How does this have no equivalence? People are being discriminated against! Today, gay people are not getting equal rights as their straight counterparts, just as black people did not get equal rights compared to their white counterparts.How are they not getting equal rights? That was the point of what I was saying.We had a history of hate against black people. We have a history of hate against gay people.Hate has nothing to do with equal rights. It has more to do with morality and selfishness.How are we emotionally manipulating you? By trying to appeal to common sense? By reminding you that great people who you respect have already fought against what you're fighting for?Liberals like emotional appeals instead of facts, as can be demonstrated by your response.Your argument here has no reasoning in it... you just say that it could offend you and you think people are manipulating you... what makes you think that? How is this movement against discrimination against gays any different from discrimination "before and during the historic civil rights movement?"Did you in any way read the description of the debate? Read the instructions before hammering the first nail. Read the label before buying the car.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

How are they not getting equal rights? That was the point of what I was saying.Marriage is the main thing here. Gay people still can't get married in much of the US. There are also countries where being gay is illegal, and people can even be executed for having gay sex. There are also many organizations or jobs that will not accept gay people, or people with gay parents.Hate has nothing to do with equal rights. It has more to do with morality and selfishness.The gay right movement, while it does have rights in the name, is also about acceptance. It's trying to get people to allow them to behave in society the same way everyone else does. If you believe that to be the case, open your eyes. I know that I live in a good, pretty accepting town, but there are plenty of places where gay hate and such is still very prevalent. And I know that hate is different, but if you live in a town that is very anti-gay and you happen to be gay, you may be refused service, have your property vandalized, or be subject to any number of hate crimes.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

It's not equal because marriage, while it is about two people bonding, is also about love, and yes, sex. Would a heterosexual male wish to marry a homosexual women with whom he would not have sex?
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Marriage is the main thing here. Gay people still can't get married in much of the US.Gay people can get married in the United States. Why can't they?There are also countries where being gay is illegal, and people can even be executed for having gay sex. There are also many organizations or jobs that will not accept gay people, or people with gay parents.This is a red herring. These are completely separate issues.The gay right movement, while it does have rights in the name, is also about acceptance. It's trying to get people to allow them to behave in society the same way everyone else does. If you believe that to be the case, open your eyes. I know that I live in a good, pretty accepting town, but there are plenty of places where gay hate and such is still very prevalent. And I know that hate is different, but if you live in a town that is very anti-gay and you happen to be gay, you may be refused service, have your property vandalized, or be subject to any number of hate crimes.I'm talking about the gay marriage movement shouting for equal rights; I don't care about the gay marriage movement as a whole. Don't commit red herrings. And if you meant to mean the gay marriage shout for equal rights, then I would say that the gay marriage movement is, thus, using stimulative definitions in order to emotionally appeal to people, because they cannot do it logically.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Gay people can get married in the United States. Why can't they?Gay marriage is only legal in 17 states. 4 states have actively ruled against it. It is not legal in all others. Yes, they can get married, but only if they live in certain areas, and not everyone can move... So gay people can't get married in much of the United States because it's against the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sexmarriageintheUnitedStates#Statesthatlicensesame-sexmarriage.28table.29This is a red herring. These are completely separate issues.What??? How is this a separate issue? Gay people are being denied things that straight people are getting. Gay people are being prosecuted and not permitted to live because of their sexuality? How is that a red herring? Please explain that to me. I'm talking about the gay marriage movement shouting for equal rights; I don't care about the gay marriage movement as a whole. Don't commit red herrings. And if you meant to mean the gay marriage shout for equal rights, then I would say that the gay marriage movement is, thus, using stimulative definitions in order to emotionally appeal to people, because they cannot do it logically.Here's the thing... it's really hard to make a fully logical argument about something you are emotionally attached to. That's not to say the gay marriage movement isn't making logical points, because they are. Emotion is merely involved because this is something that is near and dear to their hearts... the people they love. Say I was trying to execute your family, all of your loved ones, and take away your house. Do you really think that all of your arguments would be completely logical, with no emotion at all? This is about people trying to be with and marry the people that they love. How is that not deserving of some emotion?!Are you think the movement is doing nothing logical? Is saying "All men are created equal" not a logical statement? People are being treated differently because of their sexuality and that should stop happening because equal rights are important. Is that an emotional appeal? Most of the arguments I've seen from this movement are appeals to common sense, not appeals to emotion. Also, are you saying that no other movements ever appeal to emotion? Because I think that every other movement appeals to emotion.I feel like you are keeping gay marriage and gay rights separate in your mind, and I think that that is a very wrong assumption. People being denied marriage because of their sexuality is without a doubt an equal rights issue. People are being denied something based on who they are. How is that not an issue of equal rights? Don't commit red herrings.Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me. Maybe cuz grammar. But can you explain?
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Sorry, I had some really bad grammar in there. Oops. Should have proofed that.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Gay marriage is only legal in 17 states. 4 states have actively ruled against it. It is not legal in all others. Yes, they can get married, but only if they live in certain areas, and not everyone can move... So gay people can't get married in much of the United States because it's against the law.Gay people can get married. You have presented no information about how gays cannot marry. You should read the description, which you have yet to do it seems.What??? How is this a separate issue? Gay people are being denied things that straight people are getting. Gay people are being prosecuted and not permitted to live because of their sexuality? How is that a red herring? Please explain that to me.No they are not. Moreover, you are now switching back to a different topic. Stay on one topic at a time.Yeah, this doesn't make sense to me. Maybe cuz grammar. But can you explain?I'm just going to say the following, and until you can apply it to this discussion, there is no point in continuing: look up what a red herring is and read the description.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Gay people can get married. You have presented no information about how gays cannot marry. You should read the description, which you have yet to do it seems.Um, yes I did. You should actually read what you are bolding. There are 33 states in the United States where gays cannot get married. If you're saying that that doesn't matter because it's possible to get married in the other 17, that's just stupid. With slavery, not every state had slaves in it. So I guess slavery wasn't a problem?No they are not. Moreover, you are now switching back to a different topic. Stay on one topic at a time.Again, see my previous argument (which you chose not to respond to) explaining the connection between the gay marriage movement and the gay rights movement. I won't bore you by repeating myself. If you don't respond to it now, I'll copy paste it though. I'm just going to say the following, and until you can apply it to this discussion, there is no point in continuing: look up what a red herring is and read the description.I know what a red herring is, I'm not stupid. I just don't see how the examples I'm bringing are red herrings. You also used incorrect grammar which made it harder to get your message across. Many of my previous points still stand.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Um, yes I did. You should actually read what you are bolding. There are 33 states in the United States where gays cannot get married. If you're saying that that doesn't matter because it's possible to get married in the other 17, that's just stupid. With slavery, not every state had slaves in it. So I guess slavery wasn't a problem?Gays can marry in every state.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

...Um, no actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sexmarriageintheUnitedStates#Statesthatlicensesame-sexmarriage.28table.29
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

That says nothing about how gays cannot marry. I have yet to find any article saying that gays cannot marry. Name one gay who cannot marry.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

A gay who lives in Texas cannot get married legally. The gay marriage movement is trying to make it legal for them to get marry. So... all of these people: http://www.realjock.com/gay-men/texas/dallas  If they want to get married, they can't.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

A gay who lives in Texas cannot get married legally. The gay marriage movement is trying to make it legal for them to get marry.A gay can marry. Any gay can marry in any state. If they want to get married, they can't.Yes, they can. Have you read the description yet? Apparently not....
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

A gay can marry. Any gay can marry in any state.Same-sex marriages are illegal in certain states... But of course a gay person can marry in any state, assuming they are marrying someone of the opposite sex.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

...the gay marriage movement is trying to allow same sex marriage. Between two people of the same sex. Check up your definitions. Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Marriage You say gay marriage in the title of the debate. The gay marriage movement is not about trying to get gay people to marry straight people.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Was that argument meant for Lolzors? lol
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Oh, yeah. Awkward. Ma bad. Apologies. xDWell, GuitarGuy, maybe YOU are lolzers... in disguise...
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

...the gay marriage movement is trying to allow same sex marriage. Between two people of the same sex. Check up your definitions.Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Marriage You say gay marriage in the title of the debate. The gay marriage movement is not about trying to get gay people to marry straight people.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

This is irrelevant to it being possible for a gay to marry.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

I'm not arguing a gay being able to marry a person of the opposite sex. However, the gay marriage movement (referring to the definition of gay marriage I sent above) is fighting to allow two people of the same sex whoa re gay to marry eachother. This is not legal in every state, thus the gay marriage movement has meaning.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

I'm not arguing a gay being able to marry a person of the opposite sex. However, the gay marriage movement (referring to the definition of gay marriage I sent above) is fighting to allow two people of the same sex whoa re gay to marry eachother... This is not legal in every state, thus the gay marriage movement has meaning.Thats not what I'm arguing. Now, hopefully, you see the obvious red herring that was flying around.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Yes, you did choose not to argue this in the description. However, in the title of this debate, you refer to "gay marriage." Your description also refers to the "gay marriage movement," directing this argument at this movement. This means your title and language is incorrect with the definition of the term "gay marriage," which I sent to you. By directing this at the "gay marriage movement" and claiming that their arguments have no use, you must correctly say what their arguments are. However, you are not. Instead, you are claiming that gays are trying to be able to marry people of the opposite sex, and claiming that the gay marriage movement is trying to argue that.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Thats a clear shifting of blame. You committed a red herring. You didn't understand the argument. You attacked straw men. My point, as said, was to attack the 'equal rights' notion. You did not attack that. Gays have equal rights. They are fighting for more rights. The language and description of my debate were perfectly clear. I said gay marriage movement twice: once in the description and once in the title, and one of them was the repeating of the other. It is aimed at the movement... but that doesn't mean the movement itself does not fight for equal rights, which they do... which is strange, because gays already have equal rights. Grow up and accept you lost this debate.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

It is incorrect that gay's have equal rights. Straight people can marry people they are sexually attracted to. Gay people cannot. Also, check up on your grammar. "Red herring" is a noun. You cannot "commit a red herring." I haven't lost this debate... you are claiming that gays have equal rights because they can marry people they don't love... however, they still lack the ability to marry people they are sexually attracted to/in love with.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

It is incorrect that gay's have equal rights. Straight people can marry people they are sexually attracted to. Gay people cannot.Preference is irrelevant to rights. Rights are established and inalienable properties of man. Sexual attraction is a preference, which is subjective. Do not cross the subjective into the objective.Also, check up on your grammar. "Red herring" is a noun. You cannot "commit a red herring."This is irrelevant and another red herring. A red herring a logical fallacy. You can commit a straw man; you can commit a red herring.I haven't lost this debate... you are claiming that gays have equal rights because they can marry people they don't love... however, they still lack the ability to marry people they are sexually attracted to/in love with.Yes, you have....
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Preference is irrelevant to rights. Rights are established and inalienable properties of man. Sexual attraction is a preference, which is subjective. Do not cross the subjective into the objective.Are you claiming that sexual attraction is a choice? Because your claiming that it is subjective. Just because something changes from person to person doesn't make it irrelevant... or even subjective. There are rights given to people based on things that are out of their control. In the United States, people have rights based on being born there... Why can't people get rights based on being born gay?Also, rights can be subjective."The above account of rights has been written largely from the point of view of Anglo-American law and philosophy. It should, however, be mentioned that there is one aspect of legal rights which is to be found amongst the European Continental writers, but of which there is no trace in the Anglo-American tradition. That is the description of rights as being ‘subjective’ (droits subjectifs; subjektive Rechte)."-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/ This is irrelevant and another red herring. A red herring a logical fallacy. You can commit a straw man; you can commit a red herring.Right, i know what a red herring is... you can commit a red herring fallacy, but a red herring is not what you commit, it is the specific thing... I'm not saying that that is a part of the argument, just trying to correct grammar... And if I committed a straw man, what would I be doing?
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: Yes

Are you claiming that sexual attraction is a choice? Because your claiming that it is subjective. Just because something changes from person to person doesn't make it irrelevant... or even subjective.Subjective doesn't mean choice based. It simply means that it is subject to something, namely in this case the desires of the person.There are rights given to people based on things that are out of their control. In the United States, people have rights based on being born there... Why can't people get rights based on being born gay?Why can't people get rights for having sexual relations with dogs? What about children? What about a desire to kill people? What about a kleptomaniac syndrome? Subjectiveness is irrelevant to rights.Also, rights can be subjective.Rights are not subjective, by definition. If they are not subjective, then why in what way are they rights?"The above account of rights has been written largely from the point of view of Anglo-American law and philosophy. It should, however, be mentioned that there is one aspect of legal rights which is to be found amongst the European Continental writers, but of which there is no trace in the Anglo-American tradition. That is the description of rights as being ‘subjective’ (droits subjectifs; subjektive Rechte)."As can be seen, 'rights' in America are not subjective. Europe is not using 'rights' in the same sense that Americans use them.-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-rights/ There are many opinions on philosophy encyclopedias. Don't simply pick and choose what you want.Right, i know what a red herring is... you can commit a red herring fallacy, but a red herring is not what you commit, it is the specific thing... I'm not saying that that is a part of the argument, just trying to correct grammar...Its not even bad grammar. I commit acts. 'Acts' is a noun. Substitute 'acts' for 'red herring.'And if I committed a straw man, what would I be doing?Attacking an argument that is not being argued, in a simplified explanation.
Debate: There is no reason for the gay marriage movement....
Side: No

Subjective doesn't mean choice based. It simply means that it is subject to something, namely in this case the desires of the person.So you think people's rights should be based solely on things out of their control? And anything in their control or anything they care about is irrelevant to what they get?Why can't people get rights for having sexual relations with dogs? What about children? What about a desire to kill people? What about a kleptomaniac syndrome? Subjectiveness is irrelevant to rights.And yet you are asking people to have sex with people they are not sexually attracted to. I'm assuming your straight (just because 90% of society is, for no other reason than that), would you want to have sex with someone of your own sex?And no, subjectiveness does not create right. However, the number of people who engage in sex with people of the same gender of themselves is much higher than the number of people who have sex with animals, children, and those who kill people or are kleptomaniacs. More importantly, having sex with people of the same gender is legal. If we're letting people be with other people who they love, why should be deprive them of the right of marriage?As can be seen, 'rights' in America are not subjective. Europe is not using 'rights' in the same sense that Americans use them.Can you provide me a source that explains how rights in America are in no way subjective? Because I am doubtful of this fact.Its not even bad grammar. I commit acts. 'Acts' is a noun. Substitute 'acts' for 'red herring.'A red herring is not an act... acts are actions, and according to the dictionary: a thing done; a deed. The verb done modifies thing, making acts connected to the very. A red herring is not an action that can be completed.