azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Kinda believe? If you say marriage is nothing in particular, just a contract, guess what? it's nothing inparticular and it can be applied to any kind of relationship. If I want to marry my cat who are you to say that I can't? The logic to justify gay marriage can be applied to any relationship. And that should be painfully obvious.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

And that should be painfully obvious.I'm not entirely sure how it's painfully obvious. If I want to marry my cat who are you to say that I can'tThe inability of the cat to consent would render the supposed marriage a non-starter to begin with--as the ritual, in both its secular and religious formats require that both parties can and do consent.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Oh there it is again, that arbitrary standard of consent. Remember the demand for gay marriage is; " because we love each other" If I could demonstrate that my cat loves me it could be proven that on some level the cat consents because it doesn't run away when I show it love, therefore, we should get married. If love and consent equals marriage all I have to do is demonstrate that my relationships posses those two qualities and I should be able to marry the object of my affection. To oppose me you would have to invoke another standard. But to that I would ask; On what grounds do you object, your personal preference? How is what you prefer relevant to what I prefer?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Oh there it is again, that arbitrary standard of consent.It's not that arbitrary, since consent is already defined in law. And the very basic requirement of a marriage is that there are at least two consenting parties involved.If I could demonstrate that my cat loves me it could be proven that on some level the cat consents because it doesn't run away when I show it love, therefore, we should get married.Well, homosexuals can make that claim (though I'm absolutely positive that you're oversimplifying their case) because the issue of consent is both de facto and de jure. It's already assumed as a matter of ritual and law. Showing that you love each other is one thing, but not running away is not a form of legitimate consent, since consent is not a passive action, but an active one. It requires that there is a fulfilling of some verbal criteria, whether written or spoken, and it has to be initiated within the strictures of the ritual.If love and consent equals marriage all I have to do is demonstrate that my relationships posses those two qualities and I should be able to marry the object of my affection.There are a lot of "ifs" in your argument. But you're also skewing the legal definition of "consent" to make a weak point. Within the strictures of marriage, express consent is required. This means that a personhood of adequate intelligence can make a reasoned decision in response to the prompting or initiations of another and come to accord with said proposal. Your cat can't do that. Now, if you're actually willing to take the time to demonstrate that your cat is capable of such faculties, then you have a case. Until then, you're blowing hot air.To oppose me you would have to invoke another standard.No. I don't.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

It's arbitrary because all I have to do is change the law to suite my preference. Which by the way is something that is actively being done with the age of consent. And this is exactly what is being done with marriage. The law used to say one thing and now that definition is being broadened to suite more peoples personal preferences. Yes, I was using hyperbole to make a point. If we stretch the legal definition of marriage to cover a groups preference what's to stop another group from demanding that it be stretched to cover their preference? Were it ends then becomes an arbitrary standard. And if you don't set one, the thing gets so stretched that it hardly resembles what it first look liked.Just for the sake of humor:consent is not a passive action, but an active one. It requires that there is a fulfilling of some verbal criteria, whether written or spoken, and it has to be initiated within the strictures of the ritual.Me and my cat had a ritual; it actively walked up to the alter in my apartment were I was kneeling and meowed and I respond back with "I love you too" we rubbed noses and I said till death do we part. Then she meowed in response. So I guess we are married and the state needs to recognize it. :)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

It's arbitrary because all I have to do is change the law to suite my preference. Which by the way is something that is actively being done with the age of consent.Preference and the ability to consent aren't inclusive. That, for example, the age of consent might be lowered or raised has no bearing on the legal definition of consent.The law used to say one thing and now that definition is being broadened to suite more peoples personal preferencesThe law has only broadened which consenting parties can be married, the issue of express consent would still need to be addressed if your slippery slope is to be accepted.If we stretch the legal definition of marriage to cover a groups preference what's to stop another group from demanding that it be stretched to cover their preference?As long as there are two expressly consenting parties, then nothing should stop us from allowing other people to get married. An animal can't consent. And despite your efforts below to show that your cat can, it's you who's saying it's consenting, not the cat itself. You can't consent on behalf of another unless that legal entity legally acquiesces to your authority to do so.Were it ends then becomes an arbitrary standard. And if you don't set one, the thing gets so stretched that it hardly resembles what it first look liked.You're purposefully ignoring the issue of express consent to continue your argument, and it's simply becoming disingenuous at this point.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

What are you talking about? If the age of consent is raised or lowered it does to have a direct bearing on the legal definition of consent. The legal definition changes to the new age.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

What are you talking about? If the age of consent is raised or lowered it does to have a direct bearing on the legal definition of consent. The legal definition changes to the new age.You're conflating age of consent law with the definition of consent in law. With age, it's not the definition of consent that changes, it's who is permitted to give the legally defined consent that is changed.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

The point is that either one is not fixed. Laws can and have been changed, just like definitions. You are making an appeal to a standard that in the final analysis is no standard. So my real point in all this is: If there is no transcendent; then all we are left with is personal opinions and might makes right (survival of the fittest)Remember those lines from the Deceleration of Independence; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RightsThey got it right. Laws and rights are only properly grounded when they are grounded in the transcendent. And the Creator says that homosexuality is out of bounds. To go against Him would be cosmic treason and that is always fatal to nations and people; God plays for keeps.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

jstantall has a good point. Under your definition a retard wouldn't be able to marry because you can't prove that he trully consents. And I think that retards should be allowed to marry. Otherwise that's just plain mean ;)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Interestingly enough, we do test the mentally handicapped to gauge whether they can give consent in myriad issues.note: I remember an episode of Law and Order SVU that covered that very issue.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Interestingly enough, I found out that real life court is nothing like depicted on TV ;)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: painfully oblivious

"If I want to marry my cat who are you to say that I can't"Who am I? Just a sane rational and reasonable person who needs to point out that cats can't give consent and so can't enter into a contract. And that should be painfully obvious.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Homosexuality or, gender disorientation is a mental condition. Weather it be environmental, or genetic, because someone feels as if a specific kind of behavior is "natural" does not make it so. I know I am going to get some blowback from people saying it was removed from the DSM and you are right, however the facts show that this was done under extreme political pressure and not because doctors dont believe that it is in fact a condition. You would not help a schizophrenic individual by giving them two cups of tea, one for them and one for their imaginary friend, so why then would you support two men or women getting married? This is what I dont understand. Can homosexuality be treated, maybe. Can it be studied, not objectively as Homosexuals dont want to be fixed they want to be accepted which I completely understand. However, you can accept the behavior without condoning it and this is what America is saying. Yes, you are free to do what you want, but we do not recognize it as being healthy and no, we will not legitimize it by recognizing it through one of our most wildly held social traditions. I believe society as a whole has this right and its important that we do. On a separate note, I dont think the state should have anything to do with making laws with regards to marriage or recognizing them, however I stand by my original premise that at least attempting to correct the behavior is better than condoning it.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

What constitutes a pathology? And how does a mental pathology differ from an organic pathology? The DSM in some ways is not only a diagnostic instrument; it is a research tool in which clinicians systematically identify areas of concern in patients lives related to mental functioning, and this is a relationship that cannot be easily detached in theory or reality. Some of these broad categories, then, are just that -- they are useful analytical tools, but they are not necessarily 1:1::theory:reality the same thing as a real disease. We may find one day (assuming this example for the argument) that Autism is not one disease but multiple, perhaps independent, "pathogenic" sources affecting a conglomeration of people who (1) meet the classification due to mostly environmental reasons such as metal poisoning, or (2) meet the classification generally due to a biological reason with both a genetic and environmental cofactor, and perhaps (3) some amount of people who simply represent the statistical extremes of normal human variation. The above example is dry, but the implications are important to what you are saying, because you take the DSM as a supreme way of describing expert opinion on what is pathological (except for when it is corrupted by politicians), when the DSM doubles both as a clinical tool and a research tool.Also, if you don't trust the DSM IV-TR of current time (because of political powers interfering with the DSM revision process), and you also now believe that research material can be politically influenced (it's fair to say it can, though we must also be concerned with scope and magnitude), what research material are you going to have us trust that also coincidentally supports your argument about how homosexuality is pathological?Do you anticipate a reversing trend in psychological and medical journals where authors are persuaded that homosexuality is a pathology?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

ha ha you so funny why don't you read Freud or any other psychologist before you throw us more none sens.mental condition means the mind isn't capable of using reason wish is so wrong as many homosexuals have the same capacity as straight men.political pressure O_O u insane,how could the political pressure remove it from the dsm? if it did, means everyone supports homosexuality because politicians translate the opinion of the majority...wish means we wouldn't be arguing about it now.schizophrenia doesn't mean you see 2 people that is so superficial...u talked about treated,studied,cured...what you think gay people are like your lab rats ...if you are homophobic from Ur parental education deal with,gay people are here and they will stay here all you can do is wine and say none sens in the end the will be accepted when all people start to think rationally.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Thanks for making my point. Your argument is a good example of trying to define marriage. You said "Marriage is a contract" it may be true that most marriages have some form of a contract but that is just a formality and not the marriage. A contract defines the parameters of something that exist independent of the contract; it doesn't make the thing. See this is were we get into trouble, when we try to define the nature of something. Because the nature of the object is defined by itself, not the subject. For example lets say I wanted to define you and I said; ostdrauka99 is a long haired cat of about 20lbs and you would reply; no I'm not, I'm a.... See I would do better in describing you as you actually are. So it is with marriage, we need to describe it as it actually is, not what we think it is. And historically speaking marriage has almost always been seen has the joining of male and female for procreation. Which leads us to the next question."When two people want to have a contract with each other, why should everyone else care about the purpose of that contract or the sexual orientation of the contractual partners?"In the case of marriage it's because they normally produce kids. Why does that matter to the state? consider the following report; http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/ costofdivorce.pdf So yes, this type of relationship is of serious concern for government and they would be wise to do everything they can to support and encourage it. And primarily because marriages produce the next generation.You said" The human spirit should be without bonds" this pernicious little lie has been the root of all kinds of human evil, not to mention the question of this debate. People doing what ever they want without restraint is anarchy and detrimental to society, it's why we have laws. If we are going to flourish some restraint is necessary. But let me ask you, what is more creative and productive, the undisciplined mind or the disciplined mind? Before you respond let me remind you of your education that allows you to read and write, with out which you couldn't have this debate.Final thought. You said "Don't make it an issue of orientation because the end result is the same effect." Heterosexual couples typically reproduce and homosexual couples never do. How is that the same effect and how does this avoid being a contradiction since you say "A" is the same as "non-A"
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

See this is were we get into trouble, when we try to define the nature of something. Because the nature of the object is defined by itself, not the subject.This is true, but while the nature of an object may be objective, the definition of a word is very much a matter for the subject.For example lets say I wanted to define you and I said; ostdrauka99 is a long haired cat of about 20lbs and you would reply; no I'm not, I'm a.... See I would do better in describing you as you actually are. So it is with marriage, we need to describe it as it actually is, not what we think it is.You're conflating defining and describing. An object is described, while a word is defined. For an object, it is possible to ascertain by inspection whether or not a given description matches the object. For a word, however, it is necessary to establish the word's definition as an axiom—there is no manner in which is can be deduced.What you're doing here is describing a specific marriage (or collection of marriages; possibly even every marriage you've ever encountered) as "a joining of male and female for procreation" and then turning around and declaring that this must be the definition of marriage. But that is no more a valid conclusion than describing a specific animal (or collection of animals; possibly even every animal you've ever encountered) as "a large, greyish thing with a trunk" and then trying to use that as the definition of animal. In fact the most we can say is that if the description is accurate (ie, if the collection of animals are in fact large, greyish things with trunks), then the description establishes a subset of things which are animals. Similarly, given that there are marriages which can be described as "a joining of male and female for procreation", then the most we can say is that this description establishes a subset of things which are marriages. In and of itself this does not rule out the possibility of other things which are marriages.Now, one is perfectly free to subjectively restrict their definitions to the subset under consideration, as an axiom, but there is nothing intrinsic to the subset which requires this, and nothing which forces others to agree with what amounts to an entirely arbitrary decision on your part. All that you've done in choosing that particular subset is declare that anything else isn't a marriage by your definition, which reveals the debate for what it (like so many others) really is—an argument over whether your arbitrary definition is somehow less arbitrary than anyone else's definition.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

In the case of marriage it's because they normally produce kids.Marriage normally doesn't produce children. Sex does, specifically.Why does that matter to the state? consider the following reportThe report in the PDF file only argues the importance of the institution of marriage to the general welfare of the population. It says absolutely nothing about same-sex coupling or marriage. And it would seem like a good idea to promote the act to increase the influence of marriage throughout the population.Question: would you make illegal couples that are infertile?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

That's good. If sex produces kids then homosexuals should be having kids, unless something else is going on here.I'll bet you didn't read all 44 pages of the report because you missed the point. I see no reason the state needs to get involved in a homosexual relationship but I can see a lot of reasons for a heterosexual relationship. So back to my original stance on gay marriage; government should remain neutral.Your question misses the point.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

If sex produces kids then homosexuals should be having kids, unless something else is going on here.Homosexuals can and do have children. All the time. It's not like they've suddenly lost their genitalia just because they're gay.I'll bet you didn't read all 44 pages of the report because you missed the point.I read enough of it.I see no reason the state needs to get involved in a homosexual relationship but I can see a lot of reasons for a heterosexual relationship.That's a silly way of putting it. The state isn't involved in the relationship. It should be involved in ensuring that the rights and privileges granted to one group are not withheld from another. And that's in the constitution.Your question misses the point.Nice evasion.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Wow, that's news to me. I didn't know two sperms can fertilize or two eggs for that matter, amazing.About rights, gays have the same rights as the rest of. They just choose not to exercise them. Were is the discrimination in that?About involvement: If the state issues a license, gives tax incentives, sets up family courts and all the other benefits they extend; I think I would consider that involvemnt. About my evasion; glad you liked it :) I am one of those infertile couples :)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Wow, that's news to me.It's news to you that homosexuals have reproductive organs? You do know that a large portion of the current homosexual population has families, and have had children before, right?About rights, gays have the same rights as the rest ofExcept the right to marry. And civil-unions don't grant the same rights as married couples.They just choose not to exercise themLike what?Were is the discrimination in that?They are prohibited from being married, something that, by the constitution, should be granted. Please see miscegenation case law: Lovings v Virginia, which overturned Pace v Alabama.If the state issues a license, gives tax incentives, sets up family courts and all the other benefits they extend; I think I would consider that involvemnt.And thus, it is the business of the government to ultimately ensure that homosexuals can marry as well. If you think otherwise, you're merely arguing "separate but equal", which was found to be unconstitutional as a direct consequence of Brown v Board of Education.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

It's news to you that homosexuals have reproductive organsThat's not the point, you need male and female organs to reproduce, gay couples don't have that combination and therefore can't reproduce. They have to adopt from a heterosexual couple or inseminate from someone of the opposite sex,male. Since men can't carry, this procedure is only available to lesbians. And if they obtain children by these means then they logically deny the child a critical element in healthy development, a mother or father depending on the type of relationship.The goodness of a behavior can be judged by the fruit it produces. In the case of homosexuality it is clear that it produces a tremendous amount of problems and destroys the life of those impacted by it. It would be safe then to say that it is dysfunctional in nature because of the fruit it produces. It would then be poor public policy to endorse and support such dysfunctional and destructive behavior.Here is Webster's definition of dysfunctional in regards Sociology: a consequence of a social practice or behavior pattern that undermines the stability of a social system.And just because people take a vote or a judge rules that it is not dysfunctional doesn't change the reality that it is. We don't write the laws of physics, we obey them or pay the price. If we don't use something for the purpose for which it was designed there will always be negative effects. Just try using your cell phone as a hammer sometime if you don't believe me.In regards the effects of homosexuality please consider the following article from The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005