azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

Really, the point at which you choose to value life is arbitrary.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

Ant can carry a huge amount of weight and have a brain to body ratio higher than any other creature. They're far more incredible and worthy of life than foetuses.....
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

So let me get this straight if you had a choice between getting rid of fetus's for ever or ants which one would you get rid of?
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

What type of  ant?
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

all species of ants.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

Well the thing is... I know its prejudice but I don't really like the ones that bite. But the ones that don't bite I'd say it was worse to kill them than a fetus yeah.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

So which one is it? get rid of fetus's forever or get rid of ants forever?
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

I already answered. That its worse to kill the non-biting ants than the fetus. So conversely killing a fetus is less bad than killing a non-biting ant.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

You do realize without fetus's the human race will not exist and we'll go extinct.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

World population is increasing. If we culled 1 in every 2 foetuses population would level out and we wouldn't be at risk of running out of food and fresh water (as we are now).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

You do realise im talking about getting rid of fetus's forever correct? im not talking about for a short time.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

Yes, I'm quite bright. I understand the concept of death meaning not returning. It is different from sleeping, for example.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

No shit sherlock!
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

I'm sorry. You didn't want me to answer your statement? The question marks threw me off.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

which statement?
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

You do realise im talking about getting rid of fetus's forever correct?
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

So your telling me you would rather exterminate the human race. Your own race then exterminate every single Ant species?
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

Nope. "Killing a fetus or killing an ant". Killing an (non-biting) ant is worse. I didn't say all.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

ok but my question was which is worse exterminating all fetus's or exterminating all ants?
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

Well that wasn't your question before but okay it is now.Are the ants the biting type or non-biting?
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Ant

both .
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

If it had to be 100% of both of them then I'd say kill the ants. If it were only 75% or so, I'd say definitely foetuses in order to avoid overpopulation.
Debate: Whats worse? Killing a Fetus or killing an ant (non-theists)
Side: Fetus

Oh ok well thank you for giving out your opinions and thank you for a fun debate.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

Sperm Whale?Dammit! I knew it! I KNEW IT!! Those Sperm whales are soooo gay. LOL
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

I'm actually going to have to agree with lolzors on this one. Just because other animals do it does not, necessarily, make it the norm.Now, I think the issue here is more of what is "normal?" If we mean the average, homosexuality is not normal. If we mean by what is practical, homosexuality is most likely not normal.I think you're merely taking what is natural, and sure, it is natural, but so is heart disease. Unless heart disease were to become the average cause of death, it wouldn't be "normal" to have heart disease.Abnormal doesn't have to be negative. Lolzors may be against homosexuality in general, but that doesn't change the denotation of the debate.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

I think you are getting normal and abnormal mixed up with something other than their psychological meanings. In psych, 'Abnormal' doesn't just mean uncommon.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

If we mean by what is practical, homosexuality is most likely not normal.I think though that the example highlights the normalcy of a species to have a percent of homosexuality. As in "Is it normal for some animals in a given species to be homosexual" and the numbers clearly say, yes, that would be a normal phenomenon. There is no reason to introduce the additional factor of practicality. After all, how much of human sex of any sort is "practical"? Assface mentions normal as a percent, and this too could categorize it as abnormal.Again though, it is picking one of many "abnormal" things and comparing it to a whole. When manipulated and surveyed I think that "normal" in terms of sexuality, is not normal at all. The whole of it is quite abnormal, and this makes the various forms of it, including homosexuality, normal.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

After all, how much of human sex of any sort is "practical"?With added aesthetic values and our scientific age, the practicality of homosexuality is no longer as relevant. We could all become gay right now and it wouldn't matter.However, at face value homosexuality is not very practical for a species. Rational human beings will want to have children as they always do because of our rationality, but animals, for the most part, will just fuck those of the same gender and wouldn't give child rearing a thought... because they don't think that way. Consider the Bonobos which have a very diverse sexuality, it's mostly paraphilia and of the sort, but includes incest and homosexuality. The bonobos, still, enjoy sex with those of a different gender because they are indiscriminate.Homosexuality, though, is sexual arousal towards those of the same sex. This not practical for a species that doesn't think as rationally as we do. If the human species had been mostly homosexual since pre-civilization, we would not have a very large species at this point. When manipulated and surveyed I think that "normal" in terms of sexuality, is not normal at all.It is when your options are between "do you prefer your own gender, the opposite gender, or both pretty much equally?" considering that most prefer their own gender is what makes it normal in terms of orientation. Sexuality is not limited to orientation.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

I agree.Using animals as an example that it is normal is actually quite stupid, it is not normal. It may be natural, but definitely not normal. Homosexuality should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).The only reason someone would be against this is because they were unable to accept the truth that hurts too much (honestly now, who would want to consider themselves as fucked up?). If you have issues you have issues, saying otherwise won't change it.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

Homosexuality should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).How about...Blondes should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).I mean, blondes are a lower percentage of the total population right? So obviously not "normal."Or People with green eyes should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).OrOld people should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).If the factor which determines "normalcy" is only that thing's prevelance as a percent of society, and if anything which meets this criteria should also necessarily be treated as a disease, even if there are no negative side effects,then there is not a human on earth who is not diseased in one way or another.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

Blondes should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).So stupid...How about being awake should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, ... I'm not as stupid as to finish this.I mean, blondes are a lower percentage of the total population right? So obviously not "normal."You don't seem to grasp "normal".Oh, and here where I live they are not exactly a lower population, in fact, if I remember correctly, they are the higher population. There's a lot of them... including myself (although a darker blonde).Yeah, I get it, you're stupid.People with green eyes should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).I already got it... you're stupid.Old people should be treated similarly to diseases and disorders, because that's exactly what it is (simply has no adverse effects).Okay, this is new, you're an idiot.If the factor which determines "normalcy" is only that thing's prevelance as a percent of society, and if anything which meets this criteria should also necessarily be treated as a disease, even if there are no negative side effects, then there is not a human on earth who is not diseased in one way or another.Homosexuality is a disorder. How hard can it be to understand?If you have sexual urges for the same sex then you have a problem with your mind or with your genetics. Having sexual feelings for the same sex is not normal. There are two genders of humans, not one. Without both genders working with each other we...I might as well ask you why is cancer treated as a disease? Or Down syndrome as a genetic disorder? Because that's exactly what they are. The same goes about homosexuality, it's a disorder.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

1. There are less blondes in the world than brunettes. It wasn't a blonde joke... you turned it into one when you mentioned the color of your hair though ._.2. You've defined disorder as something which constitutes a lower percent of the total population. I was showing you how your logic is stupid.3. You are now trying to compare homosexuality to a disease. A: diseases are not abnormal. B: diseases do cause harm and you yourself have established that not only does homosexuality not cause harm, but a thing does not have to cause harm to be abnormal.There is no single sentence of your actual argument which does not contradict itself. Congratulations. That's probably hard to do... even for a blonde.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

There are less blondes in the world than brunettes. It wasn't a blonde joke... you turned it into one when you mentioned the color of your hair thoughSo what?And no, I did not. Your mind must be rather fucked up if you think I did.You've defined disorder as something which constitutes a lower percent of the total population. I was showing you how your logic is stupid.You call my logic stupid, yet yours is clearly inferior to mine. Idiot.You are now trying to compare homosexuality to a disease. A: diseases are not abnormal. B: diseases do cause harm and you yourself have established that not only does homosexuality not cause harm, but a thing does not have to cause harm to be abnormal.'You did notice I said it is a disorder? Seriously...There is no single sentence of your actual argument which does not contradict itself.My sentences do not contradict themselves. You must be delusional to think they do. Congratulations. That's probably hard to do... even for a blonde.Yup, you're an idiot and delusional also.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

Just letting you know... there are also documented cases of cannibalism, rape, incest, bestiality (meaning having sex with humans), pedophilia, etc. in the animal kingdom. So if you are going to argue this tactic then you have to also say that it is natural to eat other humans, rape other humans, have sex with animals, have sex with kids, etc.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

Well, he was arguing about naturality, not morality....still....what, EXACTLY, IS immoral about two being of the same sex showing their love for one another in a personal act?
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

Two beings of the same sex? You mean a male human and a male dog? Yeah... that is normal.Talking of morality, homosexuality goes toward immoral. Shoving it into someones ass is simply disgusting, you'll get shit all over it. Ass is for letting things out, not inserting them.Personally I don't care about gays. All I see them as is people with issues.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

Oh, ain't that cute. Someone downvoted simply because their feelings got hurt, because they heard a bit of truth. That is weak and sad.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

Whilst I did not downvote that, as I agree with it, I can kinda see why. It seems like you called homosexuality immoral because it's distasteful. Then some gay probably got all butt hurt (pun definitely intended), and downvoted it.Morality isn't based on personal taste, I feel.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

So a Hetrosexual couple that have Anal Sex are Immoral because Anal is not just something Homosexuals do. Your statement that you think Homosexuals are people with issues and that they are immoral for having Anal sex rather than just acccepting them as people show's you do have a problem
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

I said toward immoral. It doesn't matter whether heterosexual or homosexual, if you are shoving it into someones ass you are doing it wrong and, most importantly, it is disgusting.You might as well eat your own shit while you're at it. Now why does no one do that? Because the taste is far too bad? Who cares! It's not wrong! I do it all the time so it is okay, it is normal. You see the problem in that? That it's not normal?Shithole is not for banging; shit is not for eating. If you like to do those then go ahead, but don't claim it is normal.Your statement that you think Homosexuals are people with issues and that they are immoral for having Anal sex rather than just acccepting them as people show's you do have a problemSeriously, reread my argument, seems you missed the last line.They are people who have issues, because they are banging the wrong sex and into the wrong hole (there's no such thing as the right hole on the same sex) and they claim there is nothing wrong with it. Everything's wrong with it. They are people, just people with issues. You are the one with a problem if you cannot accept this.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

Your problem is right there "they are banging the wrong sex"!! There is no such thing as the wrong sex and your argument is based on the assumption that all Homosexuals are having Anal sex, what if they are just engaging in mutual masturbation and oral sex or is that not normal either?, what about Lesbians they dont neccasarily engage in Anal Sex and they both have the "right holes" or does the Vagina somehow become the wrong hole when it's two women because you have said "there's no such thing as the right hole on the same sex".
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

There is no such thing as the wrong sex and your argument is based on the assumption that all Homosexuals are having Anal sex, what if they are just engaging in mutual masturbation and oral sex or is that not normal either?The same sex as yours is the wrong sex.My argument is not based on ass banging, it was just an example. Doesn't matter whether they are doing one thing or another. Normal people don't do any of that with their own sex. And having issues is normal... but if you go to the specifics then not so much.what about Lesbians they dont neccasarily engage in Anal Sex and they both have the "right holes" or does the Vagina somehow become the wrong hole when it's two women because you have said "there's no such thing as the right hole on the same sex".Same sex and right holes do not exist. Men don't have right holes in the first place... they've got sticks.Would you like humanity consisted of only one sex that has both balls and tits and all the rest? Dream on... that's never gonna happen. We have two sexes, that should say it all (not that you'll get it).
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

I dont remember saying that I wanted the Human race to consist of only one sex, I think sir that you are deluded and your definately wrong in your assumption that I want this. I ike the diversity of the Human race and I dont judge people on their Race, Sex, Sexuality or Religion I make my decisions on what I think of people by what they say and how they act. It's sad that there are people in this world who are too narrow minded to see beyond Sexuality, Sex, Race or whatever excuse they use to spout their bigoted views and wont accept people for who they are
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

I dont remember saying that I wanted the Human race to consist of only one sex, I think sir that you are deluded and your definately wrong in your assumption that I want this.It was just a question. Humanity consists of two genders, not one, both are needed for us to keep existing. Doing the same sex is stupid. I ike the diversity of the Human race and I dont judge people on their Race, Sex, Sexuality or Religion I make my decisions on what I think of people by what they say and how they act.Neither do I, if you haven't still gotten that. All I am saying is that homosexuality is a disorder and, well, wrong. It's sad that there are people in this world who are too narrow minded to see beyond Sexuality, Sex, Race or whatever excuse they use to spout their bigoted views and wont accept people for who they areYeah, there are those, but I'm not one of them. I accept them (homosexuals) as they are - people with an issue, assuming there's nothing else wrong with them.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

Two beings of the same sex? You mean a male human and a male dog? Yeah... that is normal.You knew what I was talking about. This is a debate about homosexuality, not bestiality. Talking of morality, homosexuality goes toward immoral. Shoving it into someones ass is simply disgusting, you'll get shit all over it. Homosexuality is about a lot more than anal sex. How much anal sex does your average lesbian have in the course of a week? Besides, all you highlighted was that you, personally, find anal sex gross. You never made a point for homosexuality "going towards immorality".All I see them as is people with issues.The love who they love. It isn't harming anybody. It is mutual consent. Where is the issue?
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

The love who they love. It isn't harming anybody. It is mutual consent. Where is the issue?The issue is saying it is normal. It's basically saying it is okay to have a disorder or to be genetically messed up. Homosexuality is not okay, it is a problem, just as is every other disorder. It is natural (as there are also many different disorders), but not normal.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

WHY is it not okay? WHY is it a problem? Why is it immoral? Who is being harmed? So far your only cogent argument against it to me is that you find anal sex disgusting.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

It is a problem because it is not normal.You have anything against bestiality? How about necrophilia? They harm no one. I'm quite certain you regard those as not normal, or just disgusting, or something like that. If you think homosexuality is okay then you must also think the same about those.Sexual arousal toward something wrong is abnormal. If you're not attracted to the opposite sex, that means you're not normal, it means there's something wrong with you.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

It is a problem because it is not normal.Statistically speaking, vegetarianism is not normal. Neither is wearing all black, or eating a sandwich with a knife and fork. Being an innovator is not normal. You going to rally against these things too? Normalcy is not, in and of itself, the arbitrator of morality. You have anything against bestiality? Yes. When it comes to sexual affairs, I have a problem with those acts in which one or more participants is not a consenting human adult. Because only a human adult can properly conceptualize the meaning and potential repercussions of the act, and communicate its consent to its partner.  How about necrophilia?Well, if the corpse had given prior consent before becoming a corpse, then in the purest sense I do not...although it is no activity I'd wish to participate in. However, society tends to prefer to respect its dead. Particularly the loved ones of the deceased. So I can see why a societal taboo would be in place (not to mention certain health risks). And if the corpse did not give consent prior, see my above answer. If you think homosexuality is okay then you must also think the same about those.No, you mustn't. There are more factors in play here than just normalcy. These are all very different sexual practices that need to be judged and compared using ALL criteria, not some arbitrary talking point.  If you're not attracted to the opposite sex, that means you're not normal, it means there's something wrong with you.And even if I were to agree, what is it to you? How does it affect your life, or make society any worse? Why the hell should you care what two people do in privacy and in love?