azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Any religious text written thousands of years ago is going to have some bad things in it. The old testament commands us to stone disobedient children to death, although we don't see very many Jews doing this. Why? Because no one is forced to follow every single thing their religion teaches, and in fact most people don't. People have minds of their own. Sometimes they invent excuses for why they don't follow a certain part of their holy book.The reason that Jews and Christians no longer stone people to death, burn people alive, and other nefarious crimes against humanity is that Europe went through the Enlightenment, religion became less rigid, and the United States continued this with the first SECULAR democracy. In other words, after a thousand years of brutality it took CENTURIES to undo that mentality that thinks stoning people, burning witches, and beating women was alright.In the Muslim world people are still publicly stoned to death, witches are executed, homosexuals slain, corporal punishment still exists. The Muslim world never underwent an enlightenment, it is as savage today as Christianity was four hundred years ago. Yet you think that it's enough that we allow this religion within our borders and expect a few decades to undo all that backwards thinking? You're crazy. It's going to take generations before Muslims universally denounce terrorism, Jihad, brutality towards women and apostates, and so on. Yet here you are playing right into the hands of some Muslims who want to defile the memory of an all too recent attack on our soil. They could have placed their recreation centre anywhere in New York, but they placed it within walking distance of a massive MUSLIM terrorist attack, and named the building Cordoba as if they weren't being brazen enough.You are blaming all Muslims for what a few have done. This reminds me of when a friend of mine, who was born in Germany, but lived most of her life in the States, was physically attacked by the grand-daughter of a holocaust survivor. She automatically associated all Germans with Nazis, just as you automatically associate all Muslims with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.You're being really dense. What unifies Germans? A Nation, shared culture. What unifies a religion? SHARED BELIEFS and SHARED DOGMA. What is this argument about? The SHARED BELIEFS of a group of people being offensive to the memory of peopled who were killed by attackers over those SHARED BELIEFS.Al Quaeda and the Taliban did not invent their theology out of thin air. They used the Quran, which means that all Muslims who share this book as an authority are supporting these beliefs that infidels must die, that unbelievers must submit to Islam.We must not build any churches near a moment to the Jim Jones massacre victims, despite the fact that the Jim Jones church was radically different than mainstream churches.The Jim Jones theology is extremely different from biblical doctrine, he made stuff up. Further, because we are in a Christian majority region it makes it extremely difficult to stand up and resist measures by Christians that are offensive.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

The argument is that not allowing the mosque near ground zero makes those who don't want it are intolerent.That is not the case at least in Christian nations. There are plenty of mosques throughout the United states,2300 plus . Several hundred in New York alone. If you went to Mecca and Medina, you not only wouldn't see a Christian church or a Jewish synagogue, you wouldn't see a non-Muslim. They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter. Yet we're told that we have to have this mosque in this place where Muslim terrorists relying on a construction of the Koran, mass murdered thousands of Americans.The intentions of the builders of the mosque make my vote a no. The Cordoba Islamic Center is the proposed mosque. Cordoba was the name of the caliphate that conquered Spain and ruled it, often brutally, for about half a millennium. The guy behind the project is someone who has said that he would like to see Sharia law more insinuated into American law. The thought of having a mosque erected over the ruins of two of the great pillars of the Western economy and Western Civilization would be an enormous propaganda victory.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

"...at least in Christian nations"What was the point of that statement. It had no relevance to your argument, except to elevate a supposedly Christian country above an Islamic one."They're closed cities. Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter."That is the country's decision. If the country wishes to be a theocracy, then as that country is sovereign, they have the right to do so. Additionally, those are holy cities. I wouldn't call New York "holy"...Do you have any sources for your last paragraph. Cordoba was a huge cultural center in the 9th and 10th centuries. Of course, by its downfall it had been corrupted (hence the downfall), but up until then, it remained rather peaceful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph_of_CÃ³rdoba). Additionally, please provide sources on Imam Feisal Abdul rauf's view that there should be more Sharia law. After the September 11 attacks he said "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam".
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

No elevation here.................. we are asked to be tolerant while others are not.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Again: So because islamic countries are repressive, that gives us the right to be? That's just juvenile. Shouldn't we, as a country, be above such simple "they did it first so it's okay"-type arguments?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Are you fighting the repression in other countries as vigourously? Christians,Jews ect would and are shamed out of doing such things as building near that site.Is it juvenile when asked to be treated the same.Do you back not being juvenile against other religions?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Yeah, religious discrimination is pretty much always a bad thing. That's why we shouldn't stoop to it. ...Wait wait wait. Christians and Jews are shamed out of building near that site? What are you talking about?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

No elevation here.................. we are asked to be tolerant while others are not.Christian terrorism still occurs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

That response was idiotic!He stated that we are expected to be tolerant to those who are intolerant. He did not state that we all are tolerant.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

He stated that we are expected to be tolerant to those who are intolerant. He did not state that we all are tolerant.I guess you didn't read the link then, because it reports sects of Christianity which are supremely intolerant, in other words intolerant because of dogma.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Who's "we" I'm quite anti-Christian, and my family has been American since there was an America.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

The argument that we shouldn't do something because others don't seems JUVENILE at best. The "He did it first" rational, just doesn't work in the adult world nor do I find it particularly convincing.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

So because other countries do not have the same rights as us, we should deny freedom of religion to Muslim Americans in the name of fairness. That makes perfect fucking sense.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Whose's denying freedom of religion? 2300 mosques in the US.That's the fucking facts to use your language.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Denying freedom of religion here would be banning the building of a mosque anywhere near the area. Mainstream islam had nothing to to do with the attack, so why should islam as a whole be targeted?Also, my point was that the state of religious affairs in the middle east, no matter how repressive, should not have any effect on civil descisions within this country. The core of your argument is essentially "they are unfair to other religions, so it's okay to ban the mosque".
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Denying freedom of religion here would be banning the building of a mosque anywhere near the area. Mainstream islam had nothing to to do with the attack, so why should islam as a whole be targeted?Are Muslims free to worship? Yes. Are they being targeted for worshiping? No. Are they being targeted for building a mosque where people died? No, the builders are.This isn't a freedom of religion issue.The attack was done in the name of Islam, so building any structure supporting Islam in the vicinity of that area is essentially condoning this fact. Let me ask you something. Do you really think it was luck that decided that mosque's placement? What do you think entered the minds of those who elected to build a mosque there? Were they looking to cause shock? Probably. Were they trying to provoke us? Most definitely. You've been slapped in the face and you don't even realise it.Also, my point was that the state of religious affairs in the middle east, no matter how repressive, should not have any effect on civil descisions within this country. The core of your argument is essentially "they are unfair to other religions, so it's okay to ban the mosque".So if I read you correctly your argument is something like, "The oppressive state of Nazi Germany should have zero effect on civil decisions (involving Nazism) within this country."You have much hubris, I only hope that this kind of hubris doesn't lead to our nation being conquered by militants who have no respect for liberty.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

The attack was done in the name of IslamMaybe so, but do you not see the problem with blaming an entire religion of some 1.6 billion people for the actions of a small radical group within that religion? It is difficult for me to reason that prejudice is not playing some role in your response. Yes, the attack was done in the name of Islam, but not all of Islam condoned the attack. This would be the equivalent of blaming all white people for the actions of the KKK or blaming all Christians for the actions of Fred Phelps. It's sheer absurdity.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

"So if I read you correctly your argument is something like, "The oppressive state of Nazi Germany should have zero effect on civil decisions (involving Nazism) within this country." "Then you read it wrong. My argument was that opression in other countries DOES NOT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO EMULATE THEIR OPRESSION IN THE NAME OF "KEEPING THINGS EVEN".>"The attack was done in the name of Islam, so building any structure supporting Islam in the vicinity of that area is essentially condoning this fact"That's ridiculous. What you're essentially saying here is "Extremists bombed the building, so any building supporting the entire broad spectrum of Islam represents support of the bombing". You're lumping all of Islam in with the attackers.>"Were they trying to provoke us? Most definitely."Definitely? You sound remarkably positive that their only goal is to piss us off. Could it be that they're just trying to build a place of worship and perhaps move this country forward from the hate and xenophobia that we've been mired in ever since the bombing?...Nah, they're definitely just fucking with us. That's the only logical possibility.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Then you read it wrong. My argument was that opression in other countries DOES NOT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO EMULATE THEIR OPRESSION IN THE NAME OF "KEEPING THINGS EVEN".I see.That's ridiculous. What you're essentially saying here is"Extremists bombed the building, so any building supporting the entire broad spectrum of Islam represents support of the bombing".You're lumping all of Islam in with the attackers.Islam supports terrorism. Where do you think the extremists got their doctrine from? Supporting Islam is supporting a belief system that condones intolerance and violence towards infidels.http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html Try reading it.Definitely? You sound remarkably positive that their only goal is to piss us off. Could it be that they're just trying to build a place of worship and perhaps move this country forward from the hate and xenophobia that we've been mired in ever since the bombing?No. There is the whole of America to build a Mosque. If you build a mosque at ground zero, you're trying to piss people off. Also, xenophobia towards Islam is justified. Don't let the fact that it's a religion grant it automatic respect in your eyes, it is a very violent, rigid belief system....Nah, they're definitely just fucking with us. That's the only logical possibility.They've already won. Provoking a nation against it only lets them suggest to their brethren that America is intolerant and oppressive, and it alienates them into fundamentalism. If they succeed in building the mosque it will be a symbolic propaganda piece throughout the middle east, with clerics talking about how Allah has moved them forward in taking dominion over the west. No matter what we do, disallow it or allow it, it's a victory for the Islamists.People like you are so blind to the politics of it that you haven't a clue.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

"No. There is the whole of America to build a Mosque. If you build a mosque at ground zero, you're trying to piss people off. Also, xenophobia towards Islam is justified. Don't let the fact that it's a religion grant it automatic respect in your eyes, it is a very violent, rigid belief system."I realize that islam is a backwards shitstain of a belief system. Don't confuse defending their rights as support of their religion. But xenophobia is never justified. Xenophobia is what's making you assume that the only possible reason they would build a mosque is to piss people off, when there are a multitude of other possible motives. You're saying that with such certainty, when the only proof you have if your own speculation.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Don't confuse defending their rights as support of their religion.I'm not. They have the right to build mosques and they are most certainly not second class citizens.It's supporting their religion when we, for example, do not called terrorism perpetrated by Muslims Islamic terrorism for fear of offending them, or censor television and media to avoid offending them when we do not make this exception for anyone else. It's supporting them when we give them special consideration at the cost of others.Xenophobia is what's making you assume that the only possible reason they would build a mosque is to piss people off, when there are a multitude of other possible motives. You're saying that with such certainty, when the only proof you have if your own speculation.I am not xenophobic, I just have a good grasp of politics and know an attempt to provoke when I see one. Ever since those attacks there has been a bitter attitude toward Islam in the west. After the war, and after the consistent use of suicide bombings and improvised explosives, there has been an increasing resentment. Then suddenly after the Mohammad cartoons, censorship became increasingly rampant. People died in the west at the hands of Muslims over "offense" and blasphemy. The point is, the last nine years hasn't been a successful healing effort between Muslims and secular society. It has been violent, hate-filled, full of censorship and double standards, and attempts at appeasement (because when you're based in a rational, secular society you earnestly think you can compromise with people who have no issue cutting your throat over perceived insults to their imaginary friend).This is all common knowledge by the way, unless you are extremely dense or had you head in the sand for the last decade, you'd know how much resentment exists towards Islam. So when you act like the unassuming person who thinks "those Muslims just wanted a place to worship, so they built a mosque" or "those Muslims really do want to promote interfaith dialogue so they built a shrine right near the worst faith-based attack in decades, with good intentions" you're really saying "I believe those Muslims are stupid and dense and have no idea of the sentiment in the area."Further, they continued the project for the Mosque after a series of protests. Yeah, they really have good intentions.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

So the case involving the cross in the Arizona desert where some groups wanted the cross removed from federal land, that could be seen as denying freedom of religion also? Not hardly........ Christians are guilted out of such things but would you put up the same fight for them?
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

The cases aren't really comparable. I'd be fine with christians building a church on ground zero, but I'd be against muslims putting up islamic imagery on federal land.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Besides the fact that we don't need more religious structures erected in this day and age, my main argument is that it is highly insensitive to the victims of a terrorist bombing which happened there less than ten years ago, by Muslims in the name of their religion.Whether or not the mosque is Wahhabi, Sunni, or Shi'a it is inappropriate to place it right next to the site of victims of Muslim terrorism.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Besides the fact that we don't need more religious structures erected in this day and ageYour attitude simple reaffirms my belief that liberals are socialists.my main argument is that it is highly insensitiveThere is no rationality in such sentiments as fearing for 'hurt feelings'.to the victims of a terrorist bombing Prove that it was a terrorist bombing.which happened there less than ten years ago,So? Ten years, hundred years - it's all in the passed.by Muslims in the name of their religion.Prove it.Whether or not the mosque is Wahhabi, Sunni, or Shi'a it is inappropriate to place it right next to the site of victims of Muslim terrorism.If it truly was committed by Muslims, why can't it at least be of a different sect? That'd separate them from the alleged 'criminals' !
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

Your attitude simple reaffirms my belief that liberals are socialists.Non sono un liberale.There is no rationality in such sentiments as fearing for 'hurt feelings'.This isn't a rational argument, but one based on peoples' sentiments and opinions. You don't belong here, being as you lack feelings.So? Ten years, hundred years - it's all in the passed.In a hundred years it's a different issue.Prove it.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html If it truly was committed by Muslims, why can't it at least be of a different sect? That'd separate them from the alleged 'criminals' !Read the Fatwas. It isn't just one sect which supports terrorism. Islam is a religion of war.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

Damn! Not allowed to dispute myself!Your attitude simple reaffirms my belief that liberals are socialists.That was a personal belief, not endorsed by any current major political parties.There is no rationality in such sentiments as fearing for 'hurt feelings'.There is no rationality to emotions. Fact is, we all (well, most) have 'em.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11So? Ten years, hundred years - it's all in the passed.Yet incidents that occurred 100 years ago have few currently-living survivors, whereas people are still grieving for their dead after 9/11.Prove it.See my previous link.If it truly was committed by Muslims, why can't it at least be of a different sect?Because they all adhere to the same religion, regardless of which denomination. It'd be like punishing Protestants for the evils of Catholics.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

@JGalt13 First of all, The Crusades were not justified by the Christian bible. This is the difference. There are many references in the Quran about killing infidels (non-Muslims). Islam is a threat to the world and the U.S. should not support by giving it permission to build a mosque on Ground Zero.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

@JGalt13 First of all, The Crusades were not justified by the Christian bible. This is the difference.You need to read your bible. Besides the wars in the name of god condoned in the book, there's also the strong condemnation of other gods.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: yes

I don't quite understand what it is you are trying to say, please expand on your short comment.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

I don't quite understand what it is you are trying to say, please expand on your short comment.I am saying that the bible condones war in the name of god, and intolerance of other religion, so it makes sense that the Crusades could find biblical support.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

you have all got it wrong look at the facts, nature of human ( clothed ape!!!) there are far to many of them living upon the land that is unable to support them regard less of religion. the ever expanding population will stop. what goes up must come down! regardless of dates, time there will be a decline of the human, simple fact just look at his story or history! get over it! all religions helped humans to be able to survive. but that is now the problem! the red Indians had a good religion unfortunate for them there was a religion called technology! why not build a tee pee, or a bomb shelter Mr bush could use one of them to hide in lol. let nature have the land back! no more building or development! much needed common sense.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

They should build something more productive to society. They should re-build the World Trade Centers, or at least build something as beneficial as them. I don't care if it's a Mosque, a Church, a Movie Theater, a supermarket, whatever. They should build something worthwhile.
Debate: Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
Side: No

I have no problem with the mosque. But i don't believe any building of worship should be built there. There are enough churches, mosques, synagogues, temples etc. Build a museum, school or something. The performance art center and gym sound fine, why bring any religion into the complex? Leave it free of religion for all to enjoy.
Debate: Should a parent who plans on spanking their child be allowed to have foster children?
Side: Yes

I imagine that foster children will require a greater amount of discipline than the average child. Spankings may or may not help idk. All I do know is that I like people who were spanked as a child more than those who weren't. Maybe that is because only neglectful parents don't spank their children here in the South and neglect is the true cause of loathsome persons. Regardless, I am not fundamentally opposed to spankings.
Debate: Should a parent who plans on spanking their child be allowed to have foster children?
Side: Yes

It is only a parent who does NOT love their children that don't spank them. I know many families that don't spank their children and those families because of it are run by the children, they run around and act like they own wherever they go and have absuletely no respect for others. Then there are the families that do spank their children and they are very well behaved and respectful, but when needed can be fun to be around. I fully support spanking.