azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

Although is may be hypocritical not to tolerate the intolerant because then we are being intolerant, but to allow to extremist to extend their freedom of speech and successfully suppress the speech of others with opposing views is contradictory as well. So, intolerance should be tolerating in some situations, but the line needs to be drawn when people are getting harmed and hate speech is being blasted influencing other generations to hate. Such as Muslims preaching to their followers to kill people and justify it with their religion. But allowing someone to voice their opinion on how they hate gays is a step back from what America has worked so hard to get, although their speech in this case shouldn't be limited. A healthy alternative is they should be made aware of their illogical beliefs with a rational discussion.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

Mr. Thames, accidentally was logged into this account but this is my argument. Izzy Strickler
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

While it may seem hypocritical to claim to be on the side of the tolerance and not tolerate intolerance, the intolerance of intolerance is a very sensible idea. Intolerance that threatens or negatively affects someone's life also must be limited at least in public. If we supported intolerance that affects people's life in negative or extreme ways then we'd see a decline in tolerance. Of course where allowed not to like something but as a reasonable person living in a world we have to deal with it. Of course a certain limit of intolerance in your own private life and home is natural. If you believe something your bound to be less tolerate about another in your home but as reasonable people we have to be able to understand that people are not always gonna see the world our way. We have the freedom to voice our opinion but we can't band we can anyone's intolerance to deny someone else that freedom.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

I don't think we should tolerate everything because thats is a form of oprression. Telling they can't do something because its ridiculous or extreme is taking away their freedom. Religion is a very complicated thing to try and tolerate and people should be free to do as they please within their religion. What they practice and believe is something we can't just take from them. Taking it from them would only make matter worse and put us in even more trouble.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

I agree that everyone has a right to freedom of speech, religion ect.. however when those beliefs directly suppress or harm another individual or group, such as the radical sect of Muslims in London harassing women, then it should not be tolerated. Allowing groups like this to continue with their behavior is harmful to those around them expressing their opposing views. No one should be allowed to impose their beliefs onto another person when it is unwanted. I don't agree, however, with completely suppressing their freedom of speech or expression. They can say whatever they like, but when that speech begins to directly cause harassment and harm, then they should be subject to some form of censorship or punishment in order to protect those they mean to effect.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

We should not tolerate religions that encourage hatefulness to others. Allowing religions to spread hatefulness is only negative to our society as it discourages cooperation between people and only divides our country to where there is building social tension as the minority has less gov't control and eventually the minority becomes volatile.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

Religion is religion, and I acknowledge that. Religion should remain remotely untouched, and religious tolerance is important, but there comes a point where enough is enough. When other groups are being intolerant towards US, it is not the time to be tolerant towards them. When it's in someone's religion (or being promoted by someone's religion) to hurt the citizens of this country, or any country, and go against everything we believe in, actively and violently, it is time for our government to step in and shut it down. I still think religion should be respected and protected, but to certain extents; everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be allowed to promote and participate in basic components of their religion (etc. wearing burkas, wearing crosses, public worshiping), but if these actions cross over the line and into the area of harming anyone, without their consent, it should not be tolerated. There is no justification for the removal of basic human rights, and as a democracy we should work to protect them. Intolerance should not be fought with tolerance; it should be fought by the government with dedication and consideration for the country's people.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

In a world where we are more connected than ever, it is a priority that we protect ourselves from the vast threats that are posed against us. When people say that it's in the constitution that we must protect freedom of speech, they are not incorporating today's world. When the founding fathers drafted the constitution there was no threat in the world by radical Islams in mass terror attacks. I respect a religion that may persecute against a person that goes against their beliefs as long as it isn't physical. Once you bring in physical harm to a person, the question of should we respect it is discarded almost in a sense. The few radical extremist who practice killing other "fake" Muslims in the UK should not be accepted, because you are ending a human life just because he is practicing his own religion. Any society that promotes democracy should allow freedom of belief and practice, but should not permit these practices once it causes physical harm to other people.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

When another group infringes on another's rights is when our tolerance should end.  To be tolerant of intolerance defeats the purpose of democracy anyways.  By tolerating others to practice their believes that take away, either speech, life, property, privacy, etc., then we are loosing our democracy.  We should definitely allow freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly, but when it becomes dangerous to others and negatively threatens someone's rights then it should be intervened. It would not make sense to allow murder, for example, to take place because it is someone's religion, which is something we have the freedom to practice. If precautionary measures can be taken to protect the safety of our citizens, then let's do it!!!!  Religions are often pitted against eachoter. If one religion thinks it is its duty to abolish men of a different religion and commits violence agiainst it, then it should monitored in order to prevent any dangerous actions it seeks despite religious beliefs because in the end I think most if not all of us can agree that bombings and murders and vandalizing and more are not acceptable. Yes, people should be able to freely practice their beliefs but not to the point of threatening society!
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

There are some forms of intolerance we can't approve of, intolerance of skin color, intolerance of belief, intolerance of gender....We are all different and we should celebrate our differences. Looking down on those who are intolerant isn't exactly being intolerant ourselves, or if it is then I suppose in that instance intolerance is a good thing.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

Especially in a country that is suppose to be "free" people should be allowed to be who they are no matter their religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, or anything else. The only thing that should be limited are the actions of those people that could violate others liberties such as life. The safety of the people is the most important thing and should be held as the highest importance despite religion, race, ect. As long as the safety of others is respected people should have the ability to be "free". Just because a criminal is of a certain race, religion, gender, ect. does not mean everyone of the same category is a criminal it just means that particular person is in the wrong.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

I believe that we continue to tolerate intolerance, more people will be hurt. If it is in your religion to kill your sister if she sleeps with a man out of wedlock, we absolutely will not allow you to do such a thing. We have to keep a sort of moral standpoint when it comes to our country or even our world. I do believe, however, that this standpoint should apply to everyone and every religion, not just those whose ideas are thought of as radical.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

You have to draw the line somewhere or you're not going to get anywhere. You don't have to agree with everything but you have to accept that others are entitled to be different. You don't need to join them but you must accept them. People need to know when their behavior is out of line. If someone's intolerance is a tool of injury or control, we all have the right to say something.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

People should be able to express themselves for their beliefs and of course people should be able to express their opinion that may be against, but there are certain ways to do that. Killing somebody or harassing them is not they way to do it. Simply respect each others opinions or beliefs and let it be. Acting in violence because one does not believe the same thing you believe in is very illogical.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

There is a limit to where we as Americans can tolerate no more. We are granted rights as citizens of the United States, so we should be held accountable to follow that code. People should be allowed to practice their religion, but if that practice becomes an actual danger to those around them then they must be stopped. The role of the government is to protect the people, and that especially includes against murder, no matter the reasoning behind it. More government isn't a bad thing. Complete freedom is not possible, so we need to accept stop having that picture in our mind. It is better to be well protected than striving for a false sense of complete freedom.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

If women are physically able to pass the physical tests than they should be able to join in combat. The military takes the rights away from the strong women that can pass the tests.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

I think no matter what gender you are you should be able to fight for your country. you should be able to risk your life for what you believe in. Many woman already die in the war now from combat yet we are not offically allowed to be in combat. this should change NOW!
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

I AGREE! women should be aloud combat positions. i was just on the u.s. army website and i was reading the eligibility qualifications and when i read that women weren't aloud combat positions and i joined because i wanted to know why.?
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

RAPE! RAPE! RAPE! RAPE! RAPE! RAPE! RAPE! RAPE! RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Maybe it was my training, or maybe it was growing up as the little girl surrounded by big boy cousins, but I was never raped while I was in the military. I would honestly fight to the death. By the way, did you know that in the military according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the sentence for Rape is actually death? Just to give you a little more information on the subject. Good luck with your research.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Hey, very interested in that, huh! do you want me to rape you?open up and i'm on my way>123go!.........................................................................................................................
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

YES Heck Yees.Why shouldn't they.I mean come on.What is so different women are humans why on earth would anyone objest to more people helping,out in those positions
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

If the U.S. is gonna be an idiot and enter into combat where it doesn't belong (Iraq), then it should at least stop its sexist practice of denying combat positions for women. 'Nuff said.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

... No is winning?So much for equality right?It's my personal opinion that in this country if you're not fighting for everyone's rights, you're fighting for nothing.(This includes the gays, the blacks, the jews, the azns, the satanists, etc.) We're a country of mutts right? We came here because we wanted freedom.Jesus people, are we really going to start segregation again? Really? You want to take a step back? I'm honestly sick of twofaced people who say something's inhumane or wrong and then turn around and fucking advocate something like this on this site. Hell, in general.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

It doesn't take physical size or strength to serve a combat role today. I'd allow a 10 yr old if they were capable of piloting a Predator.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

I think a woman should be allowed to assume any position she likes, including the missionary position ;)
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

It isn't equal if it would be just men. Woman can be just as powerful maybe even more powerful.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Of course. Women have come a long way. Can women not be patriotic and have a feeling to fight the enemy? Women have every right to fight for our country.It is not in a woman's nature to pick up a weapon and start fighting. however, she has the right. And if she wants to exercise that right, well dammit let her!
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

Because it's a matter of military effectiveness. Not equality. The unfortunate fact is that just about any activist group can cry inequality and the whole liberal party will bow to their feet and do whatever they want. God forbid someone should be offended.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Effectiveness is not the issue here. If it were, the ability to meet certain physical requirements (strength, accuracy, weight etc...) would be the only thing to be considered. I think it's more of a matter of Combatants that don't want to shoot a woman. It's a moral issue.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

Yes it is an issue. Most women can train to be just as effective as men, but the problem is that it usually takes more time. And if/when a draft comes, it will slow the whole process because BMT camps cannot receive more recruits until they graduate the first ones. In a wartime situation that is drastic enough to require a draft, BMT camps need to train recruits as fast as possible.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Where are you getting this information from? I'm inclined to think you are just making this up. It takes exactly the same amount of time to train a male soldier as it does to train a female soldier, speaking as someone who has actually gone through this process. Most training installations are in fact co-ed, the training process is no longer than for the male only installations. The only major difference in IET for female soldiers is that female soldiers are on average not as physically strong as male soldiers.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

Yes it does take the same amount of time. What I meant was it doesn't if men and women need to be trained to the same standard. The reason it does is because The Army, Marines, and Air Force all have different physical fitness requirements between men and women. This should not be so. One of the biggest reasons for making standardized physical requirements is so that commanding officers can expect a particular standard of performance. If there are different groups of different abilities that are not on par with everyone else, it makes standardization all the more difficult. Small differences can lead to big problems if too many of them are allowed.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

But men and women aren't trained to meet the same physical requirements, so it doesn't take any more time to train men than women does it? Women are not expected to be as strong as male soldiers because women have a different body structure, now, whether this is unfair for the male soldiers is a different issue all together. But the fact of the matter is this, if physical strength was the only reason why females are not allowed to be infantry, why are we not just eliminating the ones who can't meet the male standard for strength...instead we are barring ALL females. So what about the few female soldiers that are in fact just as strong as the male soldiers, what is the reason for them not to serve as infantry?explain this to me.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

i think the only reason its not in a woman's nature to pick up a weapon is because of tradition. in most cultures, women are passive. They are taught to be stay at home mothers and have children. They are taught to be gentle and caring. children learn from what they see. and what they grow up with. Women should have as many rights as men. to me we are all the same. Men and women have just been taught to act different ways.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

There is no reason for a women to be prohibited from joining the army.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Why does it matter what sex one is? I will stick a 7 foot tall steroid using frea- I mean woman in the military before a blind, deaf, dumb, stupid man any day.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

Lets take half of the men in the U.S. that are in the military and half of the women in the U.S. that are in the military and put them all in a fight match, couple by couple. Which team would win? Men. Because men are more effective in a fight. That is just how it is. We are just doing what is best for your country. It has nothing to do with being sexist.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Definitely, why not? It's not like women are weaker or more frail then men - that's stereotypical and and discrimination against the other gender. In fact, in a lot of countries female life expectancy is higher than the male, so I see nothing wrong with females being allowed in combat positions. As long as they have the skills and they want to become part of the U.S. military, there's nothing wrong with it. There are male nurses, so why not?
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Yes. We are equals to men and everyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

Note that I support a woman's right to do what she wants irregardless of gender, however...Yes. We are equals to menNot physically. Women are different when it comes to body frame and muscle mass. This is where the debate stems from, women are not equal to men in purely physical tasks. Note that I say women as a group, there can be exceptions but the bulk of the group has more hardship in these endeavours.and everyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!There are more than two genders?
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

I meant by that was not physically but we do have the same rights.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

Note that I support a woman's right to do what she wants irregardless of gender, however...A woman, irregardless of gender?There are more than two genders?Some seem to think so.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: NO

There are more than two genders?Yes.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

yeah. sure if they want to be a part of it, then okay, let them try. they are after all walking hand in hand with the men today.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

I think yes! Because they are strong also. And many of them can pass the physical fitness test.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

yeah, if they cannot win them by guns, they can surely win them by theor sexy looks and beauty!While they keep them busy fucking, we can kill the enemy!
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

It is shame full on ur part to say like that, asshole!either give a good reason or just fuck off!
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

yeah, if they cannot win them by guns, they can surely win them by their sexy looks and beauty!While they keep them busy fucking, we can kill the enemy!
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

Instead of war woman should run most government throughout the world proving to man that there is intelligent ways of solving or differences without spilling each others blood. No war is worth fighting when the results is always the same where they advance is technology/weaponry to destroy human life. The movie saw is a perfect example of that.War is like recycling the same garbage over and over with no end in site. We are not as intelligent as we think, we are just imitations of intelligence the same way parrots mimic the idea of intelligence. The only patriot is a human patriot that value peace, love and happiness for the entire human and animal race. However, our history shows that we are professionals with degrees and Phd's in destruction with no end in site.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

No. There is such thing as a justified war. It's part of nature to fight for territory.. but being human we should make more dignified choices i.e. a war that should be worth fighting for. These days most wars should never have been... doesn't mean war should never be.
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: No

I still stand by my point that NO WAR is justified. Nature don't fight wars humans and animals do, territory will always be their whether we like it or not.  A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.  Aldous Huxley
Debate: Should woman be allowed in combat positions in the U.S. Military
Side: yes

tbh I think that's a really ignorant view. A country will continue to be a democracy when going to war.. as long as the majority of the population favours it - That's how a democracy works.Fighting for territory IS nature. Competition is the basis of evolution. You're confusing territory with land. Territories are marked boundaries.