azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

So you're just saying that homosexual marriage will never come to fruition if acts like those occurring in India continue? Does that mean it hurts people? I still don't understand the argument you were trying to make."there will be no homosexual couples in a world dominated by the women haters"I'm not sure I understand how this goes to prove your point. It seems like you are saying homosexuals and women are in the same boat on this one and progress will need to be made for both. If this is what you're saying then I agree with you. If you are instead saying we shouldn't achieve equality for homosexuals until women are treated as equals around the world, then I would have to disagree. Why should homosexuals suffer as well just because women are treated badly in third world nations.I am not trying to convince you, I am trying to tear down your ridiculous arguments. If I thought you were a reasonable person I might try to persuade you, but clearly you're not...so what's the point?
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

your debate skills are only eclipsed by the depth of your understanding.bravo.you win.woohoo.name calling, classy.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

So you're the one who possesses all the understanding, you just can't articulate your thoughts...Riiiiiiight
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

articulated my butt off. . .and I did not bring in name calling.none so blind as those who will not CI am bored now.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Gay marriage by itself probably doesn't. Gay marriage as it is being lobbied for takes away the First amendment rights of many americans. States which have passed these laws immediately begin teaching children that it is "ok" and even "good" to be gay. Some people just don't believe this, and they have that right! You have a right to believe the sky is purple and you have a right to teach that to your children! You have a right to teach your children that black people are evil and gays are going to hell. Are you a stupid bigot? YES! but you do have that right!I have no problem with gay marriage, I do have a problem with the invasion of people's rights to believe that gay union is wrong. I also do not believe that marriage is a constitutional right, so gay marriage would have to be approved by a majority of voters in order to be obtained (and not in a courtroom!). If all of this happens, great! Just don't take away the rights of those who are religious to believe gay union is wrong.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

So let me get this straight. As long as a majority of people oppose someone else's right to something they themselves enjoy, that wronged person has to wait until the majority get with the program, and then and only then, does he get to enjoy what everyone else is enjoying? Huh? The religious right can and do believe anything they want, no matter how stupid and obnoxious and irrational it is. They can and do teach their kids whatever nonsense they care to.My right to equal protection under the law - my right to enjoy the same tax breaks, visitation rights, and property inheritance rights everyone else has - does not in any way interfere with that. How do you conceivably justify this denial of my rights under the same constitution and under the same tax code, with whatever minor challenge to someone's religious beliefs there could possibly be?This is like denying rights to African Americans or Hispanics because the KKK has issues with it. That wouldn't stand for a second. Why am I any different?No one is challenging any one's right to their beliefs here. But as a taxpaying American, I most certainly DO demand the same rights as you enjoy.Let's be perfectly straight here: no one is asking a church to perform a same sex wedding. Most people who are gay wouldn't step foot in a church to begin with because there is so much hate there. As Ghandi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so much unlike him."There are plenty of Christian churches that love and accept us that no one would ever bother for one moment thinking about going into one of the palaces of hate that so many churches have become. So how in heaven's name does that interfere with your religion?My own Episcopalian church couldn't possibly be a more warm and inviting place for gay and lesbian people. I love it there. It has allowed me to grow and thrive as a Christian. The old Baptist church I was raised in was a spiritual killing field. What kind of idiot would go back there for any reason?
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Two rebuttals here i'd like to offer:1) research about homosexual couples being better parents or that homosexuality is genetic. I'm sorry, but neither of these things are proven facts, and there is a lot of controversial research on both sides of the aisle. I think both sides should be able to agree here that neither side has been proven. I know, I know, you can show me 100 studies that say the above is true, but guess what, I can show you 100 studies that say the opposite and then we just get into the "who's study is better" thing, and it's just a waste of time. Many things can be conclusively proven. These are not yet in that category for either side. Besides, for all the "studies show" comments above, no one has cited a single one. I find the funniest thing about such studies is that everyone has heard of them and is sure something has been shown conclusively, but no one is quite sure when or where.2) the adoption thing is really irrelevant I think. In this country there aren't hordes of orphans wishing for parents to adopt them. This is a myth taken from the situation some time ago. Walk into an adoption clinic, things have really changed. It's not easy to adopt. Now outside of this country things are very different I know, but I still don't think gay marriage is going to significantly impact this. Feel free to disagree with me here, I just really think this is a seperate topic. Oh, and if you disagree, I think you will see that studies show I'm right ;)(I'm kidding in case you didn't catch that) :)
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Yes, unfortunately that is democracy. The constitution gives us certain basic rights. If we want more we can pass laws to make more by majority vote or through our elected representatives. If those rights violate the constitutional ones, the courts can overturn them. If this happens the people can amend the constitution to pass the law anyway.The constitution didn't give anyone the right to marry. People have passed laws allowing marriage between a man and a woman. These laws apply equally to all, so equal protection isn't violated (I'm sorry, you have just as much a right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else). If you don't like it, you vote to change the laws.That's democracy. It's not perfect, but it's the best thing out there!Oh, and it's not the same as civil rights, and if I was black I would be horribly offended by such a comparison. They were fighting for basic human rights which had been denied them. They were being killed, and denied work opportunities and the right to vote. Homosexual's aren't being denied anything (that isn't already denied to everyone else in the country). They just aren't getting what they want.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Are you trying to rebut a particular argument? If so, you should pick one and click the "oppose" link there at the bottom of the argument.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

I don't know that I'd argue that it hurts everyone per se, but I definitely think there's something to be said for the argument that homosexuality hurts homosexuals. See, most of the opposition to homosexuality on the part of religious people isn't bred of hate, it's bred of love and concern that A) the homosexual lifestyle is inherently sinful according to the Bible and B) that there are certain health concerns, such as AIDS, which in the U.S.--despite gay-rights activists proclaiming, "it's not just a gay disease!"--is mostly spread through male-male sex or women who have sex with a man who also has sex with men. And also needle-sharing.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

A) Separation of church and state.B) Condoms have made the AIDS argument moot.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

In case you haven't heard, condoms aren't 100% effective. Also they dont prevent against STI's and STD's
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

No, condoms aren't 100% effective, but they do drastically reduce the risk of many STDs, including HIV.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

oh we're sorry... 99.95%. There, does that make it better?
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Correct, I was just practically saying the same thing. STDs, STI's, Hepatitis are also the other diseases from the result of homosexual behavior. Doesn't matter if it's gay or lesb. Both actions are harmful and it will never be natural.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

I am just curious as to if ou know what A) means???????????????????????
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Separation of church and state - idea that the government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs. In the United States, this idea is based on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that the government cannot make any laws to establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.(source)Banning gay marriage because the Bible says it's wrong is tantamount to establishing Christianity as a state religion.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Banning gay marriage is absolutely justified as that would be banning aids/hiv, sexual abuse, pedophilia, drug abuse, Hepatits, STIs, STDs, indoctrination of kids into an unnatural state of behavior and plus, it will continue the human race. Separating Church and state is out of the question. Religious freedom is absolute. The freedom of uncontrolled sex? Not gonna happen. You are declared a truthphobe and your arguments are as weak as you are a man. Continue to push your false ideologies and I will silence you with more facts of truth. You will be bashed until you disappear.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

He clearly doesn't because he's one of them. He's a meth head who likes sex and drugs. He belongs in a sanitarium.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Wrong again. No amount of condoms is going to get rid of aids/hiv. However, you admitting that aids/hiv exists makes your subjective opinion completely invalid and moot. Have fun in jail because you will stay there and face the death sentence for pedophilia, rape and indoctrination of kids. You are declared a truthphobe, Christophobe and heterophobe. Oh and um, heptatis, STI's and STDs are also issues they discuss on the topic of "Teen Sex and Drugs" when it comes to the lesson on puberty and Sex Ed. I've learnt it before and I know the truth. Heterosexuality rules because it is natural. God is absolute, Church and state will be united. Separate snowflakes into mental sanitariums where they can be re educated on absolute objective truths. Sedate the mentally ill like jessald.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

If your username is a reference to Isaac Asimov, I'll have you know you are exactly the kind of person he disliked. A) Well shopping at walmart may be inherently sinful according to someones religion. What is your point?B) It is mostly spread through unprotected sex. Just because more heterosexual couples use protection to avoid pregnancy and therefore have a lower incidence rate of aids, does not mean it is a gay disease. Gay or straight sex is not the issue, it is whether or not you use condoms. And speaking of your beloved bible, although you may not be Catholic, the pope's recent statement that condoms do not work and make the aids epidemic worse is going to directly cause the deaths of thousands of people.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Going to walmart is sinful? Changing the subject are we now? Are you irrationally in fear of the truth? When did the guy ever say he is this Issac Asimov? We reserve the right to speak facts and truth. Marriage and true love is only between a biological man and a biological woman. Anything else doesn't exist. "B) It is mostly spread through unprotected sex. Just because more heterosexual couples use protection to avoid pregnancy and therefore have a lower incidence rate of aids, does not mean it is a gay disease. Gay or straight sex is not the issue, it is whether or not you use condoms. And speaking of your beloved bible, although you may not be Catholic, the pope's recent statement that condoms do not work and make the aids epidemic worse is going to directly cause the deaths of thousands of people."Stats already prove homosexuals inherit aids/hiv, STIs, STDs and Hepatits for women due to their uncontrolled sexual behavior. Heterosexuals don't overdo sex dumbass, that's the point of marriage. Homosexuals cheat and lie, and steal husband and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends are even stolen becuz of them through manipulation. Kids are indoctrinated in schools. Lgbt are pedophiles who will be held responsible in jail and by the absolute Law of both God and men.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Yes, gay marriege hurts everyone. Because the government is giving consent to homosexuality. Because most of our children go to puclic schools they are taught to trust Ceaser. They grow up thinking that the government is on their side and all policemen are nice and then they get jobs and taxes are cut from their check and they go "what?". But the point is that most Parents don't want their kids going to the mall and see mr and mr Smith. Its traumatic for a child to see two men or two women kissing. But when the government that hey've been told to blindly trust and pledge their alleagience to (bleh!!) sends teh message that this kind of behavior is normal then it creates a rift between the parents' raising of their child and the governments message.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

"Its traumatic for a child to see two men or two women kissing."No it isn't.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

In turn it helps the child become more aware of homosexuals and will (hopefully) lead to a new generation of acceptance of homosexuality which without would lead to another generation of prejudice which we don't need.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Yes it is. You are a truthphobe, heterophobe and Christophobe. You like indoctrinating kids into it hm? You are a pedophile and you deserve the death penalty.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Gay marriage hurts everyone.The phrase "gay marriage" is an attack on language, and hurts everyone, as all people use language.The phrase "gay marriage" is itself an attack on the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". The lack of a clear and agreed definition of a word makes it impossible for people to have a reasonable debate on the subject pertaining to that word.Indeed by confusing the meaning of the word "marriage", it makes it impossible for people to rationally discuss it.A new word or phrase should be chosen so as not to do harm to the existing meaning of words, while at the same time recognizing the essential characteristics of what is to be described by the word or phrase.The new practice of what may be called a "homosexual union" is new, because it carries with it recognition under the law, which is unprecedented. But separate from whatever legal definitions may be ascribed to it, the failure to adequately name the practice does harm to the established language and its meaning.In particular, the practice of calling this "gay marriage" does harm both to the word "gay", and to the word "marriage", both of which have established meanings in language, and are widely used. Indeed the word "marriage" has no synonym which can be used in its place, unlike the word "gay" which can be replaced in usage by the word "happy"; So the destruction or redefinition of the word "marriage" is hurtful to the language in a way that can not be easily mended.It is precisely the confusion over the definition of the words which has caused so much apparent disagreement which could have been avoided with adequate clarity and agreement over the definitions of the words which they are arguing over.In conclusion, the phrase "gay marriage" hurts users of language by confusing the established meaning of words, making rational discussion impossible. The phrase "gay marriage" is describing something new in that it claims legal status. Therefore, one should pick another set of words that do not harm the established meaning of words in use. In particular, the word "marriage" has an established meaning, and cannot be easily replaced. The phrase should instead be "homosexual union" or some other phrase that recognizes the nature of the relationship, while at the same time not doing harm to the long established meaning of the word "marriage". Finally, by unequivocating the meaning of the words used, much unnecessary disagreement and wasted debate could be avoided.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Doesnt hurt anyone

Would you have said this in 1967 prior to Loving v. Virginia?"Interracial marriage hurts everyone.The phrase "interracial marriage" is an attack on language, and hurts everyone, as all people use language.The phrase "interracial marriage" is itself an attack on the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". The lack of a clear and agreed definition of a word makes it impossible for people to have a reasonable debate on the subject pertaining to that word.Indeed by confusing the meaning of the word "marriage", it makes it impossible for people to rationally discuss it.A new word or phrase should be chosen so as not to do harm to the existing meaning of words, while at the same time recognizing the essential characteristics of what is to be described by the word or phrase.The new practice of what may be called a "heteroracial union" is new, because it carries with it recognition under the law, which is unprecedented. But separate from whatever legal definitions may be ascribed to it, the failure to adequately name the practice does harm to the established language and its meaning.In particular, the practice of calling this "interracial marriage" does harm both to the word "interracial", and to the word "marriage", both of which have established meanings in language, and are widely used. Indeed the word "marriage" has no synonym which can be used in its place, unlike the word "interracial" which can be replaced in usage by the word "miscegenation"; So the destruction or redefinition of the word "marriage" is hurtful to the language in a way that can not be easily mended.It is precisely the confusion over the definition of the words which has caused so much apparent disagreement which could have been avoided with adequate clarity and agreement over the definitions of the words which they are arguing over.In conclusion, the phrase "interracial marriage" hurts users of language by confusing the established meaning of words, making rational discussion impossible. The phrase "interracial marriage" is describing something new in that it claims legal status. Therefore, one should pick another set of words that do not harm the established meaning of words in use. In particular, the word "marriage" has an established meaning, and cannot be easily replaced. The phrase should instead be "heteroracial union" or some other phrase that recognizes the nature of the relationship, while at the same time not doing harm to the long established meaning of the word "marriage". Finally, by unequivocating the meaning of the words used, much unnecessary disagreement and wasted debate could be avoided."There is a difference between harm and progress.
Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Nice try at a cut and past job, but your argument does not hold water as the analogy between interracial marriage and homosexual unions does not carry over.As I stated in my previous argument the practice of legal recognition of aspects of homosexual unions is new and unprecedented. Indeed it is unprecedented everywhere in the history of the world. This is quite unlike interracial marriage which has been practiced in many times in many places throughout history, and in most cases without any special legal opinion on the matter. Homosexual unions are different and are new in their established recognition under law.But that aside, i would point out that my original argument was addressing the issue of the curruption of language, and of the importance of preserving the long standing meaning of words, especially when there are no easy alternatives; such as in the case of the word "marriage". By attempting to broaden or slightly redefine the meaning of a word, you neccessarily dilute its original meaning.If proponents of non-sex-specific unions had rallied for civil unions, or same sex unions recognition under the law, we would not be having this conversation. What proponents of the phrase "gay marriage" demand is that the rest of society be forced to accept their own standard of the meaning of those words. And they seek to force this by attempting to enshrine their own particular minority definition upon the majority. This is form of calculated aggression against long standing traditional meaning of language, and should not be tolerated by a civil society.In this Republican form of government, the minority should be protected from the majority, but the majority should also be protected from the minority. Even at their peak, the Nazis never had a majority of political affiliation, they took power as a political minority, but look what havok they wreaked upon their own citizenry and the values which they imposed by force upon the majority!When language is eroded by degrees, then it ceases to have meaning; communication, and even thought itself become impossible. And society is brought unto a state of total decay and ruin. What once were men are then little more than animals. Read a page out of Orwell's 1984. The government's new speak is double ungood.