azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: Yes, it is fair.

And you are done. I will speak to when you admit that Jesus is the head of the church and stop acting like a bully.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

Jesus is head of the church.Now answer me, are you willing to remove books of the bible just because you do not like them personally, because that is what you seem to be doing with the book of Leviticus.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: Yes, it is fair.

That is not what I am doing. You are taking them out of context. Unless you keep the entire Torah Law, you are a hypocrite to use them out of context. I am done with you, do not bother me again.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

I don't agree with it, all I have been saying is that is what the bible says. I am fine with gay people. But the bible is not. You keep telling me that I am taking it out of context, but you have not given me any other context to put it in. I gave you the reference. Feel free to read the entire chapter and show me where I am wrong, but you and I both know I got it right the first time.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: Yes, it is fair.

Dude, I will never agree with you. Stop trying to force your antigay beliefs on me.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

I support homosexual unions and I have not said any differently.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

How is it in any way Biblically okay for a Christian to accept homosexual marriage?
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: Yes, it is fair.

Judge not lest you be judged. I refuse to play your game. Back off.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

I'm not judging. I'm simply asking, how is it Christian to believe homosexual marriage is okay?
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: Yes, it is fair.

I refuse to play your game. Back off. .
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: Yes, it is fair.

What part of she does not want to play your game do you fail to understand?
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

This is a debate and it is a reasonable queston that she is refusing to aknowelage
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

Exactly what is meant by legalizing incest?As far as I understand, incest is not a criminal offense, in the USA and EU.It certainly isn't in Russia.If you meant legalizing incestuous marriage, then the answer is definitely no.The main reason is, this will create another legal precedent, which can be then used to endorse laws that would be even more mad.Remember, LGBT has already been able to implement the following: - the toilet law, which allows boys into girl's restrooms, and vice versa, at schools.  - forcing the boy-scouts to accept gay troop leaders - forcing small hotels to service gays against the owners' faith - outlawing psychiatrists who aid gays in quitting their lifestyle - attacks on Christian preachers, for citing the Bible in their churches
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: Yes, it is fair.

If you meant legalizing incestuous marriage, then the answer is definitely no.Yes, thought that was self explanatory.The main reason is, this will create another legal precedent, which can be then used to endorse laws that would be even more mad.That means the law is double standard then, and that discredits the law.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

I can't get what you're saying...the laws themselves are usually unambiguous, at least they should be that way. The law that would legalize incestuous marriage, would do just that. Same thing as with gay marriage.However, the consequences of adopting such laws can be quite disgusting, in countries where law is precedent - based.Legalization of gay marriage was not actually about marriage, only a small percent of gays have got married, in places where it had become legal. Its main purpose was to create a legal precedent, and then build the LGBT law-bending agenda on this precedent.They are already pushing for even more gay propaganda in schools.After all, if gays are even allowed to marry, they must be the "norm", e.t.c.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

Nope I don't like inbreds. Inbreds are subject to bullying for there appearance. However cousin incest have a much lower chance than Sister or brother incest.
Debate: So should Incest be legalized by now or not?
Side: No, it is stupid.

Incest causes the offspring to have deficiencies due to a close bloodline.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

The embedded YouTube video directly addresses those two commonly used sources as arguments against global warming. Enjoy!
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Why on earth would I read an article from the 1970s about a modern scientific problem? Yeah, scientists are wrong sometimes. This was also never, to my knowledge, a "consensus" which was acted upon like global warming is. It's not a "scam".
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

The website you recommended is so strongly in favor of the existence of GW, to the point that some of the language used is meant to ridicule those that are not convinced. Instead of focusing on the evidence that proves GW, this website is dedicated to disproving "the excuses" brought up by the "deniers". This bias and separation of the masses into "deniers" and "those who care" is extremely unhelpful and borderline dangerous.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

The evidence for global warming is in the first 8 points. It defends global warming throughout the rest of the article. You tagged your article as "Nope, never did", so could you explain which of those 8 points you disagree with?I don't understand how you found that article "borderline dangerous". That sounds awfully hyperbolic to me.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

What evidence?All I saw was an argument built on CORRELATION. Since when does correlation equal CAUSATION????
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Uh, what?3 and 5 show causation. This is backed up by correlation, not the other way around.You still never stated what of the 8 points you disagreed with.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

The 8 points have been put next to each other to prove a point. However, all they prove is a correlation, not causation. If you don't understand the difference then there is not point debating.Most of those arguments are based on selective observation, cherry picking and the enumeration of favorable circumstances. Because according to the NCDC (sited in those arguments), the natural production and absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) is mainly achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. This causal reductionism tries to use one cause to explain something, when in fact it has several causes.You said: "This is backed up by correlation". I'm pretty sure you don't understand the fallacy of that statement, so I'll try and help you.Confusing correlation and causation:"When sales of hot chocolate go up, street crime drops." Does this correlation mean that hot chocolate prevents crime? No. It means that fewer people are on the streets when the weather is cold.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but it can give you a clue. If your water tastes funny and you get sick the next day, the best guess would be that the water made you sick. But you wouldn't know for sure until you got the water tested.In the case of global warming, we have causation through the well understood greehhouse effect. The other correlative evidence only makes the case more likely. We can never definitively prove global warming because we can't test the entire planet in a laboratory. We have to do a rough cost/benefit analysis based on imperfect data.On one hand we have the cost of passing legislation that has a small chance of being unnecessary. On the other hand we have highly probable crop failure on a massive scale among other potential consequences. Do you honestly think the risk of the former outweighs the latter?Because according to the NCDC (sited in those arguments), the natural production and absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) is mainly achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean.Got a citation for this? And can you explain why it's important?
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Why does the site not tell us which season was the first measure of 280ppm taken, and which season was the second one of 370ppm taken? Would it make a difference if the first measure was taken in the summer and the second in the winter?No, it really wouldn't. If you had read the article for content, rather than for attackable points, you would have noticed this graph. The seasonal variation is evident in the sawtooth nature of the graph, and is almost completely irrelevant with regard to the evident upward trend. The same data is also presented in this graph, with the data points apparently representing the yearly average (it wouldn't really matter if they were the yearly highs or lows, though)Here you can see a more detailed example of the seasonal variation, which has a range of roughly 4 ppm over the entire year (~1%). This means that even adjusting for the most duplicitous possible represenation of the data (taking the minimum for the lower number and maximum for the higher) in such a way as to minimize the difference (shifting them both by 4 points toward each other) the numbers would only change from 280 and 370 to about 284 and 366. That's still a 29% increase. And it's far more likely that the 280 and 370 numbers represent annual averages, which means an average increase of 32%. From raw data, here, you can see that the annual maximum concentration in any given year is lower than the annual minimum three years later.As for it being a natural cycle, the Vostok Ice Core data does show a cyclic nature over the last 400,000 years. However, the amount of climb that we've seen in the last 200 years "normally" takes upwards of 50,000 years to occur, and that natural cycle appears to peak at about 300 ppm, which is well below the 390 ppm of today.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Thank you for your reply, some of that information is very informative.I'd like to see how those records prove how much CO2 is produced by humans and how much is produced by the oceans and other natural sources. Also, why concentrate just on the 1950-to present time period?500 million years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 20 times higher than today, and we weren't around. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html If the earth is capable of producing and handling 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today over millions of years, then we have enough time to lay down some rational plans with regards to our technology. Regardless of what I think about Global Warming I am not against making things cleaner. What I am against, is this rushed attitude of "the world is coming to an end" "let's tax everybody" "stop those damn Chinese".
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I'd like to see how those records prove how much CO2 is produced by humans and how much is produced by the oceans and other natural sources.So far as I can tell, it's primarily just the rapidity of the production increase; a sudden acceleration in CO2 levels which coincides with the industrial revolution. Yes, it's correlative evidence, but it's hard to get causal data on something like this.500 million years ago the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 20 times higher than today, and we weren't around.First, CO2 data from that long ago is purely estimate, based on proxy dating methods, which is why I focused on the ice-core data. Those numbers are still valid, but have a much larger error-envelope.Secondly, while it is true that the Earth can handle much larger levels of CO2, and that life can survive—even flourish—under those conditions, the concern now is, again, with the rapidity with which the levels are changing. The levels hundreds of millions of years ago changed very slowly, taking tens of millions of years to reach those levels, and tens of millions of years to drop again. This provided adequate time for life to adapt to the different environment. If the current rate of increase (approximately +1.5ppm / year) continues, it would take less than 2000 years to get back up to 3000 ppm. If, instead, the current percent rate of increase (~0.4% / year), it would take less than 250 years. The potentially frightening thing, though, is that the rate of increase itself appears to be increasing (up from ~0.5 ppm/year or 0.002% / year in 1959).
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Whether or not Global Warming is real, which I believe it is and that it and it's symptoms effect the world in many ways, I still would rather be safe than sorry.It is not hard to live environmentally, only inconvenient.The one thing that is certain is that our resources are finite and if we don't conserve them, we won't need Global Warming to kill us...
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Wouldn't you rather be smart than stupid? People think they are making a difference for the world, when in reality, they are only making a difference for the Democratic party.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Geeze Jake, does it always have to be a political thing in your world? There's nothing at all wrong with conservation...never was, never will be. So what if Al Gore brought this to our attention...it would have been just as valid had any Republican done the homework. Outside of Al Gore, I don't know what this could possibly have to do with politics.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

... so when I recycle the DNC get's a tithe or something?You're a very confused young man Jake.btw, if the democratic party were to as a whole (it actually doesn't work that way with dems, they fight amongst themselves on everything) but pretend they all got together and said we're all going to agree on this no matter what science says because we need more votes...the smart thing from a strictly vote getting perspective would be to completely ignore the situation, or deny it like a lot of Republicans (also btw, there are plenty of republicans who have pulled their head out of the sand long enough to realize it's a real issue as well, anyway) because if you break it down by issue, dems would still win the majority of the environmental vote because of like every other issue outside of the environment.Then there's the millions upon millions upon millions any polical figure stands to lose in big energy donations. Big energy is the biggest or close to the biggest political contributor in the world Jake. Nearly every "study" that says Global Warming is a farce comes from big energy, big energy pours money into the RNC coffers like it's going out of style, they do everything in their power to distract from or deny global warming.There is soooooo much more money in being a global warming denier if you're a politician.So this conspiracy you have makes no sense on any level. There is literally nothing to be gained by going along with conservation, all of the power and all of the money is with big energy. The only excuse one would have is if they thought it was true.Which science says it is.But hey, there's people who still think the earth is flat and 6000 years old, so who is it that would rather be smart than stupid?
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Nearly every "study" that says Global Warming is a farce comes from big energy, big energy pours money into the RNC coffers like it's going out of style, they do everything in their power to distract from or deny global warming.SEE?, it's those evil money making capitalists right! They want to get rich and destroy the world at the same time don't they!? It goes hand in hand with voting democrat. Don't you see?
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Way to miss the point completely. The point is, there is nothing to be gained by anyone for faking global warming. There is everything to be gained by just pretending it does not exist. So why on earth would someone just make it up?The fact is, scientists noticed from coral and other natural phenomenon, that the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. These are predictable. However, mysteriously since the industrial revolution, the earth has begun to warm, overall and over a shorter amount of time, then anytime in the history of corral reefs.Then they figured out that CO2 in the air determines the amount of greenhouse gasses that are trapped on earth.Then they found out that the amount of CO2 we have been putting out since the industrial revolution explains perfectly why we have had greater warming than ever in the entire history of corral reefs since exactly when the industrial revolution began.Now keep in mind, we're talking over millions and millions and millions of years there is no evidence of the earth warming as fast as it is now, since exactly when the industrial revolution began.You have two choices when faced with these facts.1. You can stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalalalalala"2. You can be mature enough to realize we are having a negative effect on the environment we all have to live in, and try to do something about it.It's a lot bigger than democrat or republican. Unfortunately though there are a lot more republicans in the pockets of big energy which is why, poor suckers like yourself are still being lead by the tail into believing there's no such thing.Well fine, don't believe it if it makes you happy. I still think the Cubs are gonna win the penant every year, I realize rooting for the home team is almost an instinct.But to continue that analogy, how about if instead of stomping your feet and yelling "lalalalalala" you guys get on the side of science for a change? Like, I hate Alex Rodriquez, but if he is wearing a Cubs uniform next year I'll probably change my mind.Meh, hopefully that makes sense.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

lalalalalalalalala ;)There's a lot of money to be made if you can prove global warming.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Wow Jake, care to back up your statements with some facts.I already argued told you this once, but apparently I have to repeat myself: THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. The only person who is acting stupid here is you, because you are denying the myriad scientific evidence that supports the fact that humans are causing significant climate change. Whether it's democrats or republicans who support legislation to stop global warming shouldn't matter, because none of that has any effect on the actual science of climate change.Please, when you have actual facts to support your case that global warming/climate change isn't being caused by humans then get back to me. Until then maybe you should stop politicizing scientific issues... it's detrimental to us all.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Jake is hard to deal with, and yes ignorant, but not stupid. Please, a little respect.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Your right...it's just frustrating when you show people evidence time after time and they still stubbornly stick to their misinformed convictions.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

You do the exact same thing, you just usually win the argument.(that doesnt mean you are right) Which is easy to do when you are on the side of the majority. Thank you for at least admitting that I'm not acting stupid.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

You do the exact same thingIf you would like to give me some examples that would be awesome. (For you I'd give the examples of this subject, marijuana legalization, and evolution). Also, haven't you heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right."Which is easy to do when you are on the side of the majorityDon't complain persecution, or that you are the repressed minority. On this site each argument has the same opportunity to present the facts, and make their case. It's one thing when the issues are subjective (like economics or religion), but on certain topics there is a right answer, and what I was complaining about is the fact that you tend to ignore these facts. Having the majority agree with one of us should have very little effect on our arguments. It's the content that's important. Maybe you should stop listening to Glen Beck and his "us vs. them" (whoever "they" are) mentality. (I know you've gotten pissy about comments like this before so let me clarify: this is a suggestion not a demand, or order)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

You refused to agree that smoking is severely bad for your health, I remember you saying something like: "it's not that bad for you, if you only smoke like once a month". Trying to dodge around the fact that it's unhealthy. And the almost mutual opinion that it's a stupid thing to do, why would you start!?!?: "oh my friends are smoking pot, I'm just doing it with them" [paraphrasing] And with evolution I had the humility to say that I wasn't informed enough and proceeded to back out of the debate. I guess you saw that as an easy target. On this site each argument has the same opportunity to present the facts, and make their case.Yeah but the majority of the people using this site, or at least the heavy users, are global warming believing liberals, that usually disagree with me. I'm not complaining, I was only stating that FACT so that the credit would not go to you. It's harder to make a post when you know you are about to get multiple disputes, from multiple people. Having the majority agree with one of us should have very little effect on our arguments. It's the content that's important.That is true. Maybe you should stop listening to Glen Beck and his "us vs. them" (whoever "they" are) mentality.I like Glenn Beck, with him, "they" usually refers to the people that are endangering the country. He's not a hater, he just loves his country, make fun if you want I don't care. (I know you've gotten pissy about comments like this before so let me clarify: this is a suggestion not a demand, or order)Good you have finally learned.