azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

If you care about the person it is.So you support making homosexual marriage illegal because you care about them? You are trying to restrict other adults from making the choice they want to make, because you care about them and it might be 'complicated'?Not a great deal. And especially not in American culture. It's been almost exactly the same for many centuries.Sorry that miscegenation laws don't fit into your definition of 'a great deal' of change, even though they were probably a pretty big deal to interracial couples who loved each other and wanted to get married. But it is change nevertheless, and the fact remains that marriage has not dissolved, and the government does not sanction sex crimes because marriage has been expanded to include more people in the past. Because it would make it meaningless. If my neighbor could marry his coffee table, it would make no sense for me or anyone else to be married because it can apply to anything or anyone. That is the disturbing thought.Go further with this instead of just restating your point. How will it make your marriage meaningless? Will you receiver fewer benefits from being married? Will you love your wife less? Will the two of you form a less cooperative partnership? Will your union become a less stable platform from which to raise children? Is your marriage not already completely devalued because a 90 year old can marry an 18 year old and she can divorce him four hours later with half his fortune? Is it not already completely devalued because someone can marry dozens of people in succession and then quickly divorce them? You don't have to be bothered by the things other people do that concern only them and their partner. You allow yourself to be, when in truth it doesn't even need to enter your mind what other people do with their marriages because it has zero concrete effect on your marriage or life, or the marriage or life of anyone else but them. Homosexuals should not be restricted from equal rights just because they give you disturbing thoughts.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

You basically admitted that homosexuality is wrong and dumb when You said "Marry coffee table"
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Nice job dodging the question .
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

You have not answered my question. It's hypothetical, assuming them to be equal.Hypotheticals are useless if they are not firmly grounded in reality.Marriage had no definite parameters until it was made doctrine in religious organizations.It's strange how some will protest when non-religious folks lump Christianity in with other religions, but yet that is precisely what you are doing. What religious organizations would you be referring to?There was polygamy, frequent devoice and remarrying, fornication with animalsWhat does 'fornicating with animals' have to do with a discussion about marriage? No one is suggesting this be considered marriage, nor does it hold any relevance to the topic at hand. There was polygamy, frequent devoice and remarrying, fornication with animals and people of the same sex, and oftentimes it had little or nothing to do with love. This kind of chaos can't be defined under one term, nor should it ever be allowed to.This kind of chaos can't be defined under one term, nor should it ever be allowed to.Is oughtAnd there was a reason for thatTell me. What was the reason for scorning inter-racial marriages. I would really like to know.just as there are reasons to scorn gay marriage. If we allow the gays to "marry" what's next?{Laughs}"the gays"?Did you really just write that? I can feel the bigotry seeping through my computer screen.WHAT'S NEXT? Who is to say anything is next? Why can't we just give people equal rights without forming some absurd slippery slope argument in which successive steps a based on nothing but thin air, to reject what would otherwise be a rational step towards defending equal rights.Will people want to marry an animal? Or an inanimate object?I'm sure some people already do, but animals and inanimate objects are not legally capable of giving consent to anything.The bottom line is that when the definition of marriage is broadened, it's uniqueness and sacredness is diminished The same argument could be used against marriage of peoples of different colors. I do not think this is valid reason to make something illegal.and that is the main reason why gay "marriage" is so stubbornly fought against. No, I rather suspect that has more to do with biblical prejudice against homosexuals.It is not contrary to anyone's liberty. No one needs a religion to approve of their living with someone else. The government can accommodate them with a civil union.Civil unions do not grant equal protection.But if someone wants a religion to approve of their relationship (making it marriage) the religion most certainly should have the ability to say what is acceptable and what isn't.We do not require religion to get married. People can get married at courthouses and by sea captains. But even then there are some religions and indeed some christian churches that will marry gay couples.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Hypotheticals are useless if they are not firmly grounded in reality.Which is still not an answer to my question.What religious organizations would you be referring to?Major religions that practice marriage and still exist today. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc...What does 'fornicating with animals' have to do with a discussion about marriage? No one is suggesting this be considered marriage, nor does it hold any relevance to the topic at hand.Exactly. But once you begin to break down the definition, why not add that as well?Tell me. What was the reason for scorning inter-racial marriages. I would really like to know.Because there are cultural and societal factors to consider in regard to inter racial couples. These can be a hindrance to a good marriage.WHAT'S NEXT? Who is to say anything is next? Why can't we just give people equal rights without forming some absurd slippery slope argument in which successive steps a based on nothing but thin air, to reject what would otherwise be a rational step towards defending equal rights.Common sense. As soon as you break the definition or make an exception, there will be a flood of other people who want their "equal rights". Marriage by the way, is not a right, it's a privilege. Like driving a car. That's why you need a marriage license.I'm sure some people already do, but animals and inanimate objects are not legally capable of giving consent to anything.Which will probably be the next topic in the battle for "equal rights".The same argument could be used against marriage of peoples of different colors. I do not think this is valid reason to make something illegal.People of different colors have been getting legally married since marriage existed. Gays haven't.Civil unions do not grant equal protection. They can be made to.We do not require religion to get married. People can get married at courthouses and by sea captains. But even then there are some religions and indeed some Christian churches that will marry gay couples.Some religions do. If they approve of gay marriage, then they can condone it. My argument is that a church shouldn't be forced to condone something it feels morally opposed to.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Which is still not an answer to my question.And rightfully so. The question is nonsensical to which no logical answer can be provided, except to point out the non-sensicality of the question. You may ask "Suppose a square had three sides" as a hypothetical question, and it would still be unworthy of any intelligible response.Supposing that something may be the case is not evidence that it is.Major religions that practice marriage and still exist today. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc...And churches were they conduct same-sex marriages, should be legally prevented from doing so?Exactly. But once you begin to break down the definition, why not add that as well?For the same reason you wouldn't include "watching television" or "rearranging furniture" as part of the definition of marriage...because none of these things have anything to do with marriage. You're just being silly.Common sense. As soon as you break the definition or make an exception, there will be a flood of other people who want their "equal rights". Marriage by the way, is not a right, it's a privilege. Like driving a car. That's why you need a marriage license.If common sense is telling you to jump to absurd slippery slope sense arguments, you might want to re-evaluate your idea of common sense.Which will probably be the next topic in the battle for "equal rights".Yes, because this is a rational argument. We shouldn't allow gays to have rights because what's next people are gonna want to marry a chair.You do realize how completely insane you sound right?People of different colors have been getting legally married since marriage existed. Gays haven't.Not in the United States they haven't. nevertheless I don't think this, even if true, would make a compelling argument for why Gays shouldn't.They can be made toAs long as the mentality that gay marriages are inferior to straight ones, exist, they will never be treated equally under the law.Some religions do. If they approve of gay marriage, then they can condone it. My argument is that a church shouldn't be forced to condone something it feels morally opposed to.And you think in places where gay marriage is legal, all churches are FORCED to?
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

"Marriage was created by religion."While this may be true, we don't know it as fact. Many different societies throughout history have had some variant of the concept of marriage. Of course they all had religion too, but vastly different and non-interacting religious beliefs still frequently produced the same concept. Marriage was known in the fertile crescent well before the first record of Judaism. It existed in Asia, the Americas and numerous African societies long before outside religions set foot on the soil. Numerous species of animal have life-pairing bonds. They cohabit together for life, exercise mating exclusivity and when one partner dies the other sometimes lets themselves waste away. Further, throughout history, many societies or tiers within society married primarily for political or economic reasons. "if it weren't for certain privileges married couples get, there would be no point in anyone getting married ever."Even excluding the tax breaks and other legal privileges, there are plenty of things to make marriage attractive: Emotional succor and avoidance of loneliness. Shared resources. Societal approval. The hope that the one you love will always be by your side, and that the children can usually be reasonably assumed to be yours."Not necessarily. In some cities, the Negros had exactly equal, and on a few occasions, better accommodations than the whites."Where?"A marriage is the legal, RELIGIOUS, inter-personal union of one man and one woman who profess their love towards each other."Atheists never marry? People have never married without any religious trappings to the ceremony whatsoever?
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

YOU WANNA KNOW WHY?ok let me break it down for you.Marriage is a religious thing.So tell me this...WHY ON EARTH SHOULD A BIBLE BELIEVING PRIEST/Pastor MARRY TWO HOMOSEXUALSwhen The bible clearly is against it?that doesn't make any sense to me.Homosexuals with no intent to repent have no place in the church and that is as simple as that.They can get "married" by anyone else but church.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Exactly right the religion is what marries people the religion does the deciding, not the political agenda of certain people. Marriage is not a right but a privilege, a privilege of straight people, the right to marry is insofar as I know not included in the bill of rights.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

If straight people can love each other then so should homosexuals We're all human beingsWe're all from the same speciesWe are equal, no matter what you say you CAN NOT discriminate against someone for something they can't changeIt's like taking the mick out of someone with learning difficulties, it's morally wrong too
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Marriage is a legal contract, the only marriage a church might condone is any they wish. Gay marriage doesn't force their hand.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Analogies are irrelevant as they presume to make contextual sense. And I think you only emphasise this.: "So if two suicidal people both want to kill each other, and they both consent to killing each other, is that all right?" - Since when did homosexuality end up with people dead everywhere?
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Since when did homosexuality end up with people dead everywhere?AIDSAnd I think you only emphasise thisI used that analogy to illustrate that just because people consent to something, it doesn't make it ethical or moral. I did not mean that homosexuality kills people, except when they get diseases from it (which does happen to homosexuals more than heterosexuals).
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Since when did homosexuality end up with people dead everywhere?AIDSAIDS is neither exclusive to homosexuality nor implicit in homosexuality. It is simply possible to transmit the disease via sexual penetration between a carrier and a non-carrier, regardless of gender.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

incest is wrong because in incest it leads to deformity in the childrenCONDOMS!!!the child does not (in almost all cases) know what he or she is doingLet me sing your song. That's ignorance. They know what they want. Who are you to decide they don't know. Stop limiting their freedoms.Nothing gives religions the right to take away anyones rights, who ever said we should abide by everything they say?Those that follow religion.Marriage is between to consenting adults who are deeply in loveMarriage is between a man and a woman.Does that not devalue marriage?Yes it does. People can be against both homosexuality and adultery etc.Homosexuals cannot love. They can only lust. They only perform sexual acts, but never reproduce.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

"Homosexuals cannot love. They can only lust. They only perform sexual acts, but never reproduce"Homosexuals can love. Just because they can't reproduce doesn't mean they can't love. They may not be able to reproduce, but who cares? its called adoption...Homosexuals are saving lives vecause they adopt
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

How would you know you can love? Homosexuals cannot love. End of story.Saving lives? LMFAO. Who the FUCK are you kidding?
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

I've been in love you dumbass mother fucker. That's how I know we can love.Just because you can't love...don't blame it on us. Yeah we do save lives. Why don't you just drop off a damn cliff. I'm sure no one would care.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

How do you know you've been in love?What you think being in love is actually fuck all. You're not in love. You're confused.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

You have no opinion in the matter of how homosexuals love because you are heterosexualPlus how do you know we can't love? Provide some explanation rather than expecting your audience to do it for you
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

So you shouldn't use the word love when it is only possible for heterosexuals. You should call it something else. Like rape.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Love or not, it isn't rape. If sex is between two consenting adults, homosexual or heterosexual, it is considered voluntary and not rape in any matter.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

I know I've been in love because i felt it. I don't think love is fuck all. I'm not confused.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

What you felt was not love. It was rape.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

How in the fuck was it rape? You are so fucking retarded, it's sad really.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Because it's fucked up. Not lesbians so you don't have to worry about being a rapist, because you don't actually have sex, but gaylords are rapists. Because no sane person would be a homosexual.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Really? No sane person? Wow. I think it's the other way around...no sane person wouldn't be homosexual or bisexual.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL Retard.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

I would love to know how it was rape. How can somethin that is one hundred percent wanted from both sides be rape? Dude, you need to learn what the hell you're talkin bout before you start arguin with people. Love is somethin shared between two people who have feel somethin. Love is not somethin you can control, it's just somethin you feel, somethin just there. Sorry, but I've digressed from the situation at hand. And one more thing. Before you start arguin with us, expand your vocabulary. Read a dictionary maybe. Sorry, but I've digressed again. Rape is a forceful, unwilling act. One person is bein forceful and controllin, and the other is completely unwillin. Every experience I've had was completely willin by both of us. Get your facts straight, and try again later.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Lol you're a gay aswell?LMFAO!!!!Rapist. Get the fuck out of here. Should be locked up for your crimes against humanity.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Rapist.Like I said before, rape is only enjoyed by half of the participants. Lol you're a gay aswell?Gay? Yes, I am very happy bein what I am. It's not a choice, it's a feelin. Should be locked up for your crimes against humanity.You think I should be locked up? You know discrimination is a punishable crime? Get the fuck out of here.I love how heterosexuals who are against gays always have to throw a curse-word in their argument.LMFAO!!!!Many people who are afraid of somethin, or of revealin who they truly are, fight against it or make fun of it. Which are you?
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Gay? Yes, I am very happy bein what I am. It's not a choice, it's a feelin.You feel gay?You think I should be locked up? You know discrimination is a punishable crime?I'm not discriminating against anyone, just so you know.Many people who are afraid of somethin, or of revealin who they truly are, fight against it or make fun of it. Which are you?Boring. Will it always come down to me being a closet gay? Isn't there anything more original you sodomites can come up with? Maybe something even remotely realistic?
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Look it up in the Dictionary gay means happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "I'm not discriminating against anyone, just so you know."It's discrimination by making fun of homosexuals, idiot.Yes it will beacause only a very religious person or a closet homosexual would try to deny us so much. :)Btw stop using sodomite you're offending yourself.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

OMG. You used the word idiot. You're making fun of me. STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME!!!!!!! WAHHH!!!Fucking pussies.So gay isn't the definition of a relationship between two people of the same sex? K... you're faggots then.Dirty twisted sodomites.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Idiot is simply a word used to replace another, worse word. I ain't no pussy dude. I actually turn down more pussy than you get offered, and I'm bisexual, not homosexual. Gay is just used for it because we are happy bein what we are. And if you look it up, faggot is the butt of a cigarette. Learn the proper definition of the words you use. Sodomites? Again? You know, people like you are the reason this word is no longer healthy, no longer strong enough to hold it's own weight. People with your mindset are the ones who starts wars and genecide because people are different, and you need a scapegoat for your problems.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Listen you dirty sodomising faggot. I've never mentioned violence against you disgusting twisted mental fucks. So you get facts straight. K, not straight, get them right. A faggot is a homosexual. Stop acting like it's not. We're not living in a dictionary world. Certain words don't have to be in a dictionary for their meaning to be accepted. Thus faggot = homosexual.In all honesty it's people like you who are the reason this world is no longer healthy and strong. Weak minded, pussyholes who run and hide from problems. Live in your little bubble, protected from the realities and harshness of life. The real men work to keep you happy in your soft environment.Please don't talk to me about getting pussy. Just doesn't suit you.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

Violence is a way of thinkin, not neccesarily an act. Learn what you're sayin before you say it. And I do have my facts correct.Do you really think we don't live in a dictionary world? Where can you get in life if your vocabulary isn't broadened past "fuck" and "faggot"? Certainly can't be a doctor.I have never ran and hid from my problems. I confront them face to face. Weak minded means weak willed, and my will is stronger than most anyones I've met. I can say no when I'm horny, or when it comes to drugs. Can you? Oh, and by the way, I work. I have two jobs and I'm only 17, so you need to get your facts straight. I've had a horrible childhood. Haha.And how exactly does it not suit me? I can talk to you bout anythin I want, it's a free country, and I have a right of free speech.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: Against Homosexuality

Violence is a way of thinkin, not neccesarily an act. Learn what you're sayin before you say it. And I do have my facts correct.EHH?Certainly can't be a doctor.Didn't say I was.Oh, and by the way, I work. I have two jobs and I'm only 17, so you need to get your facts straight. I've had a horrible childhood. Haha.You must be so proud. Paper boy. Laughing about your own shitty life. Don't blame your homosexuality on your shit life.And how exactly does it not suit me?*Cause you're a pussy. A cunt. And a faggot.I can talk to you bout anythin I want, it's a free country, and I have a right of free speech.Lol pussy. That means I can say whatever I want aswell dickmuncher.
Debate: Homosexuality
Side: For Homosexuality

You must be so proud. Paper boy. Laughing about your own shitty life. Don't blame your homosexuality on your shit life.Dude, I've been workin at a construction company for nearly a year now. I laugh because you have no idea how hard it is. I'm not blamin it on anythin. If I was doin anythin, I'd be thankin it. And yes, I've had a shitty life, and yes, it's been hard, but I still have a good attitude and I am a very nice person. What can you say you've done with your life?Cause you're a pussy. A cunt. And a faggot.I am not a pussy. I just don't like people bein dumb.Lol pussy. That means I can say whatever I want aswell dickmuncher.What do you mean there? I said I can talk to you bout anythin I want, not say anythin I want. Pay attention to what you're arguin. Many of the things you say are discrimination, which again, is illegal. I, however, am simply debatin.