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

Both. It's very hard to obtain legal rights without acceptance by society.Well, you know my stance. Marriage is about both a and b. Legal rights must be equal for gay couples if their unions are no different to straight couples unions.The "upholding the sanctity of our dictionaries" argument is retarded beyond belief. I can't believe so many of you are picking it up. We're talking about marriage in the legal sense. The common meaning of the term is completely irrelevant in this debateWhat dictionary? You're so paranoid you think everyone around you is homophobic or something? I promise you I didn't look at a dictionary when I wrote this. Scout's honor! The legal sense of marriage comes from the common sense of marriage. You don't just make laws out of thin air, you base it on society's common rituals and traditions and ways of carrying out business and conducts.Homosexuality is totally ok.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

The problem is that basing the meaning of a word on its historical usage patterns leaves no room for evolution. When the legal definition of marriage was first established, it was, as you say, based on the views of society at the time.But the views of society can change, and word meanings change along with them. And our laws should evolve to reflect these new meanings.There was a time when black people didn't legally count as persons. Not too long ago you could've made the argument that the word "man" shouldn't include black men because generally when the word "man" was used, people thought of white men.I still don't see what's so horrible about tweaking a legal definition.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

I agree with you that words evolve with time as societies evolve. So I guess the reason why the idea of marriage hasn't included gay unions is because societies haven't yet evolved to accept it. Like I said before, I personally think of marriage as 2 people coming together with the intention of loving and being with each other for ever and to have children with each other etc.... Now, if some time in the future this picture comes up in my mind when I attend a gay wedding, then I don't even need a dictionary to tell me that a marriage is not just for straight people, the same way I didn't need a dictionary to tell me what a marriage is now. Geriatrics marry young perky girls all the times, but don't ask me to accept that as a marriage. People do what they want and they're free to do it and I will not stop them, just don't ask me to accept that their idea of it is the same as my idea of it. The word "it" can apply to many things, for example my idea of fun is going to a nightclub, others think it's fun to put a cat into a bag and hit the bag with a baseball bat...
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Well, let's go with that example. You don't consider an old man marrying a young woman to be a real marriage, yet legally it is still considered as such. Society hasn't collapsed despite the fact that the legal definition of marriage doesn't square with your personal definition. Thus you have proven that having a legal definition be slightly different from society's definition is no big deal.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Yes, it's no big deal as in the world won't end or society won't collapse like you said, but that's the same as a waiter bringing me an orange juice (OJ) when I asked him for a lemonade and explain to me that it's the same and it's no big deal. I mean it's a drink and it'll quench my thirst, hell it even has a similar citrusy quality, but it's not lemondade so it shouldn't be called lemondade..A marriage is a bit more important than a drink and when it comes to marriage, I do actually want my children to grow up with the same idea of marriage as mine. This is because my goal is to watch them eventually find a suitable partner, love each other forever and bear me grandchildren, etc.. I suspect that lots of other people feel the same way, and even though things do not always turn out as perfectly as we would like, the goal should not shift. Changing the definition of the word marriage is the first step away from that goal. Sure the children will find their own ways and decide what marriage is by themselves and everything like that, and I may not have much input into the process, but if they should ever need guidence in their lives (and I'm sure that we all do sometime in our lives) they can come to me, and I'd guide them accordingly and I'd have a legal backup. In terms of the word marriage, I re-assert my view that its definition should even be more narrow than it is currently. Old men and young women should not be included..Now, people can drink OJ and call it lemonade if they want (in Vietnam they call a cheese sandwich: "hotdog"), I fully respect that, but I don't think that the definition of lemondade should change. I respect people's choices :) and they can do what they like amongst themselves.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

The difference between getting the wrong drink and allowing gays to marry is that getting the wrong drink has a direct negative impact on your life. Allowing gays to marry doesn't affect you in any negative way.Even if you think gay marriage does harm you in some way, weigh that harm against the harm of infringing upon the liberty of a large number of honest Americans. It seems clear to me that the latter is worse."my goal is to watch them eventually find a suitable partner, love each other forever and bear me grandchildren"They can still do that. Allowing gays to marry doesn't impede straight marriage in any way.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

The difference between getting the wrong drink and allowing gays to marry is that getting the wrong drink has a direct negative impact on your lifeThe "drinks" analogy was used to explain why we shouldn't go around changing the definition of words. This does not mean you can't get an OJ whenever you want. You're free to get OJs. No restrictions on getting OJs. Drink OJs until you get OJ poisoning if you like :) But don't get an OJ and call it a lemonade and then expect others to accept that. Of course you're free to call an OJ a lemonade amongst yourselves. That's how you should relate the "drinks" analogy to gay marriage..Gay marriage doesn't harm me in any way and I've never even come close to saying that anywhere, so please don't think that..Allowing gays to marry doesn't impede straight marriage in any wayIt wouldn't impede directly, however like I explained, it will alter the idea of marriage. We were talking about the idea of marriage and I simply don't want my children to be confused about that idea and what it means. That's why with the rate things are going now (all kinds of unions are included in the idea of marriage), I'd even like to restrict the definition, not expand it.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Ok then, the difference is there's no good reason for expanding the definition of orange juice to include lemonade, but there are several good reasons for expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage -- reasons like fairness, liberty, and equality.I don't see how expanding the definition of marriage is confusing at all. You can just tell your kids, "Legally it's a contract between two people, but if you ask me, it's a union between a man and a woman done for the purpose of raising children." Do you seriously think they would have trouble grasping that?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

there are several good reasons for expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage -- reasons like fairness, liberty, and equalityGay people are currently free to do anything they want, so in terms of fairness, liberty and equality, gay people are not disadvantaged at all. .You can just tell your kids, "Legally it's a contract between two people, but if you ask me, it's a union between a man and a woman done for the purpose of raising children."I'd rather not have to stray from the legal definition. Kids are always accusing parents of saying something and then do something else. This will add to that problem..I'm not advocating that we stop gay unions. How can we? It's love right? You can't stop love! Perhaps we should move on to discuss the specific rights of a married couple vs those of united gay couples, see where there might be discrepancies and why they exist, and adjust it if there's no good reasons for them.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

"Gay people are currently free to do anything they want, so in terms of fairness, liberty and equality, gay people are not disadvantaged at all."This is so obvious I can't believe I actually have to state it explicitly: A gay person would want to marry someone of their own sex, whereas a straight person would want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Therefore, in terms of ability to marry who they want, gays do not have the same rights as straight people.Yes, civil unions would be better than nothing. But history has shown the idea of "separate but equal" is infeasible.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means.That's like saying buildings make bricks. It's the other way around. Just like bricks proceed buildings, marriages proceed societies. To put it another way, marriages are what societies are made of just like bricks are what buildings are made of. So it is illogical to say that the thing made defines the thing that made it.We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love.Oh I see, you want to use the force of law to make me accept something I find unacceptable. So much for toleration. Why don't you try and use the art of persuasion to convince my that a lifestyle that causes early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing. And that it is some how the more loving thing to do to let someone destroy their life.I'm sorry that's not loving, it's hateful to let someone destroy their life. Even more so to endorse it and encourage them. It's like encouraging a man on the ledge of a building to jump.You lack moral clarity if you can look at something so destructive and call it good. Do you know what they call someone out of touch with reality? SchizophrenicTake the time to get educated about what you are endorsing. Below is a link that Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. wrote in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005And just for the record. Homosexuality is not a person, it is a behavior. My comments against homosexuality are directed at the behavior, not the people practicing it. I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and what to see them set free.And for those in the gay lifestyle. You are not a homosexual, you are a human being.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

That's like saying buildings make bricks.No, it's nothing like that. Actually, I see Avedomni over there has put it better than I can -- you're conflating description with definition.Oh I see, you want to use the force of law to make me accept something I find unacceptable.Accept it? No, I don't think you will ever accept it. Your mind is closed. But I do want to force you to tolerate it. We forced racial integration onto people who didn't want it, and that was a good thing. We should force gay marriage onto people for similar reasons.early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thingI wouldn't say it's a good thing. It just is. Are you honestly suggesting a large number of people should repress their sexuality for their entire lives? Problems such as depression and suicide are caused by a lack of tolerance, and we should work to change society's attitude. That's a separate issue though.Also, American Physicians and Surgeons is a political organization. I'm sure you know that as well as I do. If you want to have an honest debate, cite neutral third parties. I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and what to see them set free.Can't be done. Homosexuality is not a choice.http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

To put it another way, marriages are what societies are made of just like bricks are what buildings are made of.You could still have society without marriage. And even if that weren't true, expanding the legal definition of marriage to allow for gays would not be a radical change. More akin to changing the texture of the bricks.doesn't sound like toleration or freedom. It sounds more like tyranny.Was enforcing racial integration tyranny? No. There are times when tolerance is justified and times when it is not.You assume that racial integration and gay marriage are morally equivalent.No, I don't. But I think there are important similarities. Both skin color and sexual orientation are things that are part of ones identity. They cannot be changed. Neither makes a person inferior. Discrimination on the basis of either is logically unsound.Please tell me how judging the color of ones skin is equivalent to judging the behavior of someone.Again they are not the same, just similar. But saying homosexuality is a behavior is being intentionally misleading. It's like saying shouting is "just a behavior" and therefore people should repress their anger at all times. It's completely impractical and utterly disconnected from reality.You wouldn't say it's a good thing?I was referring to homosexuality, not gay marriage. Being gay is neither good nor bad, it's neutral. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is good, because it shows acceptance of behavior for which we should be showing acceptance.Yes, just like thieves and murderers should repress their desires for their entire lives.Oh, wow, that's a pretty hardcore view. How is homosexuality anywhere near as bad as theft or murder? All I see is two people having sex. No harm done.Some behaviors are detrimental to civilization and should be restrained for the greater good.Agreed. But gay sex is not one of them.Just ask the Roman Empire what happens when you let homosexuality be freely expressed.Hahaha. You're a funny guy.Telling people the are born gay and can't change kills hope for someones who's conscience is troubled.Well, they are born gay and they can't change, so that's just telling them the truth. Why should their conscience be troubled? That would only make sense if they bought into all that Christian nonsense....waving the magic wand of neutrality...You wouldn't take seriously a pamphlet from Neo-Nazis about how Jews are inferior people would you? Do you not understand the importance of neutrality?Homosexuality is a behavior, we don't choose our behaviors therefore you can't be free from bad behaviors. Homosexuality is not a behavior, it's a sexual orientation. Gay sex is the behavior. We can and should repress bad behaviors, but gay sex is not a behavior bad enough to warrant repression.you...deny the moral component in play and therefore deny the existence of a moral agent (a soul)Morality does not come from anything supernatural. True morals are founded on logic, not on faith.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

1(male)+2(female)=3(mairrage) than 1(male)+1(male)=2(female) than1(male)+1(male)+1(male)=3(mairrage) than2(female)+2(female)=3(mairrage)+1(male)So, through your logic, I have detemined that a male whom is married is actually two women.Please refine your logic. The above is nonsencical.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Yes, Marriage is more like Person (1) + Person (1) = Married Couple (2). Basic math. After all, we people are all the same.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

That's not true. We are not all the same. Liberals are way different than conservatives. One day we will find the liberal gene and eradicate it ;)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Yeah then nothing will ever change! All the hell and flaws of todays world will carry on to tommorow and nothing will get done out of the fear of change. Yes, let's commit to another genocide to solidify the isolation of our frightful ignorance. With all due respect, for I know you must be kidding.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Oh, things will change..., just not in the liberal direction ;)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Yeah, were all the same. That's why we have different names to show the similarities, like male and female, child and adult, old and young. Wow you are so right; there are no differences.What do you call someone who is out of touch with reality?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

That's funny I like that, however you are correct and thanks for making my point and one unintentionally.Different combinations don't produce the same results, they produce different ones. Which is my point; they are different.And yes all analogies break down at some point.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

The simple fact that heterosexuality is different than homosexuality does not sway me far. The only determinant to mairrage is love. Two people who are not in love do not marry, as would be expected. Two who are, then may. Reason will always surpass wordplay (if only politicians thought this way)Also, if you consider men and women to be equal, which I do, your equasion supports my view.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

If love is the criteria for marriage what do you do with all the arranged marriages that occurred throughout history, are they not marriages by your definition. This notion of romantic love proceeding marriage is a fairly recent development. It used to be that love developed and grew within the context of a lifelong commitment. We have just reversed the order. And we wonder why over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Before we remove a fence we ought to ask why it was there in the first place.About equality; it depends on what you mean by equality.About differences: it ought to persuade you if you recognize a difference. Because that's the whole point of the debate. Some people want to say there is no difference when there clearly is one.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

You, sir, have created a causal fallacy! Congratulations!"It used to be that love devloped and grew within the context of a lifelong commitment. We have just reversed the order. And we wonder why over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Before we remove a fence we ought to ask why it was there in the first place."I don't even know how it's possible to make the knowingly make the claim that marriages by love create divorces. It also implies that only those marriages that weren't arranged would lead to divorce. Is that what you're trying to argue? Are you making the argument that marriages should be arranged in order to mutually benefit matriarchs and patriarchs? The only reason why marriages that were arranged tended to stay together was because the women weren't allowed to protest legally. They were second class citizens. Additionally, people were much more religious in times past and the Bible warned against divorce. How could one hope to go against the Bible?"If love is the criteria for marriage what do you do with all the arranged marriages that occurred throughout history, are they not marriages by your definition."Well, if morality is the criteria for goodness, what do you do with the crusades that were blessed by the pope (who's infallible, so be careful about contradicting him ;) )?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

really what you are saying here is manipulated crap. 1+1=2 so simple unless you are saying that men are a superior being to women....go on you...thing tell me otherwise.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

Using your logic, I have also determined that three men can get married because two men are equivalent to one woman.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

OK, it seems my analogy was a little unclear. I probably should have used letters instead of numbers because it seems that some people read into those numbers the values associated with them, which was not my point. It would be better put like this a+b is not the same as a+c. What I was trying to say is that different combinations produce different results, they don't produce the same results. The easiest way to say it would be that two men joined together don't produce the same thing as a man and a woman joined together, they're different. So my main point is this. Let's say we all vote and make gay marriage legal. Does our vote change the objective reality that their is a difference in the type of relationship. Does the homosexual relationship become a heterosexual relationship and vice versa simply because we voted and said they're equivalent?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

there is no such thing as Heterosexual relation ship and homosexual relationship, its all a relationship. Your logic makes no sense. Love = Love, 2 people = 2 people.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

What? there is too a heterosexual relation ship and homosexual relationship. I've seen it with my own eyes. Your logic makes no sense.Love = Love is not the same for all players.I love my daughters and I love my wife. It's not the same kind of love. Gay love making and heterosexual love making is different. One leads to procreation. ;)
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: No

Oh yeah man, I'm feeling the love, everything is one and I'm one with everything, there are no distinctions, reality is just an illusion right?What do you call someone who is out of touch with reality?
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

wait... the logic does not make since? are you saying that 2 does not equal 2 "Your logic makes no sense. Love = Love, 2 people = 2 people."
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: yes

You give the arbitrary definition of man + woman = marriage and say that this is the only possible definition. You could have been more specific and said specific man + specific woman + marriage, and then the argument would have been different specific man + different specific woman cannot equal marrige. Or you could have said same race man + same race woman = marriage and then the argument could have been made that different race man + different race woman cannot equal marrige.The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.
Debate: Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?
Side: I could care less

The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.You have exposed yourself to a damaging counter argument.Such as: If marriage is between two humans then two eight year old boys can be married. Or, whatsoever perversion that can be deduced thereby. (You failed to be specific, and thereby provided very little in the way of the limit of the extension of your definition. But what you submitted is equally as illogical as the definition you countered.)