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

Agreed. In the US, we may state that we respect the views and beliefs of others however just look at the news or prisons systems. The police don't have to tolerate disrepect of individuals who are different races and our prison systems are filled with black men and women. Even "tolerant" places don't tolerate acts that go against the grain so the least we can do is be honest about it.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

We should tolerate intolerance. First of all, by prohibiting intolerance we essentially have the government telling people what they can or cannot think or do. While a small issue at first, it could quickly escalate to the government being in complete control of our lives. Under our current laws dangerous or inflammatory speech is no more protected by the first amendment than "fighting words" as established first in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and while some may have unpopular or distasteful opinions, is that really means to limit what other people think? We should allow for a marketplace of ideas rather than limit unpopular opinion. If I do not agree with someone I'm not going to try and shape their opinion to reflect my own. Why should we let a third party step in and regulate our "marketplace of ideas"? What gives them that power? Just because someone is a Christian for example, and refuses to serve a homosexual in their business, should the government really try to step in and change their beliefs or even bar them from said beliefs? Conflicting opinions are just a part of life and if we have the government step in and shape people's views, does anyone really have an opinion? By not tolerating intolerance, we have some third party or the government step in and try to assimilate everyone to having the same opinion.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

At the end of the day, we the people will want liberty over safety. We should value liberty, freedom. We cannot allow the government to take away rights just because they insist they want "to keep us safe." No tolerance of freedom of speech?!....If we dont have the freedom to simply speak and express the way we feel and what we believe is right, then we are literally leading on the government to take away other rights. We must listen to intolerant people. If we keep shunning them, silencing them, or kicking them out then how are we changing anything? We would be making matters worse. They want to be heard. We must listen. There ARE some people that have crazy views, some are racist, some are hateful....but this is just how they were brought up, this is what they were taught. Therefore, we have to listen to what they have to say and unite with them, let them know they are citizens just like you, help them, and soon they will learn that we are all people. We all want peace.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

I feel that we should tolerate intolerance because all people have rights. Something you may see as unacceptable, may be something that they feel is necessary according to their religion. Just because some cultures are different, doesn't mean we have the right to put laws on every little thing that is different between our cultures.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

Allowing a government to interfere with any religion is unconstitutional. Not only would this violate some of the basic principles of democracy by interfering and threatening the first amendment, but it would also create a tyranny of the majority.If the government bugs a mosque or any place or worship for that matter it is violating freedom of speech. Most people for the violation of freedom claims it would reduce terrorist attack, and that may be true, but you're taking away these people's first amendment rights. They will become scared to practice and preach their religion. Which many of these people experienced in their home country. This would create a tyranny of the majority in America because America being a primary Christian country would essentially began targeting any religion they don't believe in or fear. You can say what ever you want and believe what ever you want, but it's your actions that can be against the law. Murder is illegal, but preaching to your followers in a religious environment is not. America is the land of the free so why can't all people be free to practice their religion?
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

Taking these precautions will not prevent anyone from worshiping how they please. And although I agree with you about your argument on the tyranny of the majority, you are honing in on a specific religion, when it envelopes more than just the one.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

I'm confused on the precautions you are referring to. I'm for freedom of all religion, so I'm a little confused on what you mean by this statement.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

It is not just against one religion. It just so happens that that religion is the one posing a threat, so they seem to be the forefront when in actuality this will be a system put in place for all of them.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

America is founded on freedom and diversity, so it would completely contradict every thing we stand for if we all become bigots. I believe that as long as there are no laws being broken and no citizens being harmed, we have no right to ban an act based solely on ones beliefs or preference.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

It would also contradict everything that we stand for to sit idly by and let a group threaten another's safety and speech. Also, no one wants to ban an act based on beliefs, only on imminent threats to safety.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

Intolerance can come in many forms: verbal, physical, emotional. This is important to understand when arguing this topic because it is not just centered around religious intolerance. The United States constitution was set in place to ensure that certain freedoms are protected. No matter how intolerant one may be with their speech or actions towards themselves it is not the governments place to interfere. Therefore being tolerant to such actions is a must. That being said, there are certain rights that should not be infringed upon. The only place the government should he allowed to step in is when the action of one directly causes physical or harassment related harm to another living being. I think that with this there should not be any exception. There are a wide variety of examples to look at but the one being used most on this forum is religion. If one group or individual following a religion is preaching what they believe or protesting in a civil manner than there is no problem. If they cause harm then actions are to be taken. So freedom is not something to be questioned because someones words are questionable. It is not intolerant to tolerate intolerance simply because as a free Nation we are entitled to our own opinions.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

Yes in America we have the freedom of religion and speech and those rights need to be respected by all, including the government. How foolish would America seem if we retract the part of our Constitution (that we've had for decades) that allows for those freedoms? In the eyes of immigrants seeking asylum America would become just another place where they are persecuted and America would lose some legitimacy as a free and democratic nation. While I realize that not all countries have a constitution that protects the rights of its citizens, since America has one we should honor and uphold it. By creating limits as to what people of certain beliefs or cultures can do we are creating necessary tension between those groups, which can be avoided if we respect their 1st Amendment rights. This tension can result in radical feelings towards Americans, which can develop into more than feelings if the oppressed feel inclined to revolt. I do believe however that in order to protect the majority the government may step in if laws are broken or threats of violence take form. But the action that the government takes should not limit one's 1st Amendment rights or else America will find itself in a situation where it will have to prioritize over the minority or majority.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

This nation was founded on the belief that everyone has unalienable rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, people should practice whatever it is that makes him or her happy, so long as they do not infringe upon other peoples right. There should be little tolerance for intolerant groups. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions. However, once the intolerant take action to make their beliefs reality at the price of anyone's peace and happiness, there should be a retaliation against the intolerant. The popular and the less known peculiarities of the last five decades or so are now the ordinary. This results in a variety of individual opinions ranging from indifference to extremes. At times, the extremes' opinions lead to violence and oppression on the perceived to be "intolerable". It as this moment when that the intolerant's beliefs are no longer valid. It should be the people's right to practice what they believe in with the limit being as long as no one is exposed to danger or someone's unalienable rights is being infringed upon. If a truly private goods business does not wish to serve someone who is against its beliefs, it should not be forced to do so. If one wants a place where everyone has the same mindset as others, there is this place that would be great for said person. It is a country between the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan, just south of and sharing a boarder with China on the eastern side.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

That is to general of a question. Also a self damning argument. If one were to be intolerent of being punched in the face should one conform to a tolerence for it?
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

We should tolerant intolerance.... to an extent. In a democratic society freedom of speech is guaranteed. It is a basic Civil Liberty that everyone seems to agree should be ensured. However, were violent or extreme speech is concerned we start singing a different tune. Why? Fear. We do not want violence to be incited, and we don't want what we deem as the good moral values of our nation to be corrupted. However, it is precisely because of these reasons extremist speech should receive equal protection under the law. Why?Putting public restrictions on extremists speech does not curtail its “underlying ideology and goals.” Instead it forces certain members of society to only express their views “underground” in private settings. This contributes to feelings of alienation and disaffection: “identified factors in the road to radicalisation and terrorist violence.”Moreover, by silencing national discourse the State loses a way to meaningfully engage “with those most at risk of being radicalised by exposure to extremist material” Finally, when the state takes repressive action against minority groups utilizing free speech it fuels the illusion “that clashing with authority is a ‘testament to truth,’” in other words it lends credence to extremist views.So as it turns out, to prevent violence, and radicalization we need open discourse of extremist views.Concerning religion, it is important to note while extremist speech should receive equal protection under, the physical implementation of violent values is punishable by democratic law, because it impedes the rights of another. For example, it is legal to utilize one's freedom of speech to express patriarchal views about women’s sexuality. However, physically abusing a female relative because of her choice to become sexualy active, for instance, is illegal.http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2017/ 01/18/more-speech-not-less/
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

There's no need to tolerate everything. Intolerance is a good example of something not to tolerate.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

People need to realize others are always going to disagree on topics and issues. We just need to compromise and coexist/protest peacefully. Unfortunately in 2017 this is an empty promise and coming to terms, this may never happen. The problems in USA isn't that we disagree we are just all a bunch of dickheads about disagreeing. Pick your battles wisely. When someone has an opposing view...let them (unless they plan to burn someone on a stake for disagreeing with them). They have this view because of lack of critical thinking you are arguing with a "fool" and that only makes you a fool. If they have this view due to critical thinking they will not "budge" and you shouldn't expect them to and you know you won't so it is a pointless exercise.The only exception would be someone coming to you and asking you to explain your views so they could consider your opinion and give it some thought...which doesn't sound like the case here. It is a shame that someone will shut someone down for the "one" thing they disagree with rather than continuing with it because of ALL the things which they hold in common with you...Its a good thing we can't all agree all the time(even one Christian with another Christian when discussing religion!!!) .... otherwise the world would consist of only ME and then there would be little expression / creativity / growth ;). For instance, a radical Islamic shouldn't be allowed to encourage their followers to hurt or kill people with opposing views thus leading to closed mindedness and it's this behavior that lead them down that road. Although if everyone agreed with everyone on every conceivable topic/issue what a strange world it would be. Healthy debate is essential for progress and without it we might still be living in the dark ages.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

An original act of intolerance is based upon someone's prejudice against different opinions, practices, or beliefs; it is it self an act of prejudice and I would contend that it is not hypocritical to refuse to tolerate a prejudicial view (particularly where it harms others). I think one has to be careful in identifying intolerance, of course, so that one does not merely become intolerant themselves. Additionally, I think that there are different ways to demonstrate an intolerance of intolerance - voicing one's own objection to the intolerance, supporting the target of someone's intolerance, etc. Banning speech or other similar approaches are likely to be counter-productive and on their own are generally undesirable.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

"Ah, paradox of tolerance. ... If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."- Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies" In the paradox of tolerance, there is wavering equilibrium between the rights of the tolerant and the intolerant and the receivers of both ends of the spectrum. If the state is tolerant of the intolerant, it puts the rights of the intolerant above the rights of the people that it abuses. If the state is intolerant of the intolerant, then it runs the risk of violating the first amendment. However, there is a middle ground, and it comes in the form of "clear and present danger", a precedent set by the Supreme Court. If a group of people are endangering the speech of another group, they violate the first amendment more so than would the government for silencing them. Free speech is not only infringed upon by the government, and when private groups such as churches and mosques endanger speech, it is the government's duty under the first amendment to stop them
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

I am all for free speech and civil rights, but I do not believe we should let people who intend to bring harm to others and radicalize other people to do the same. While there is a blurred line between where we should tolerate the intolerant or step in and stop them. The best place to start would be the radicalization of people trying to justifying killing other people with their religion. Freedom of religion is a prized civil right but when it becomes dangerous speech, it needs to be regulated to a degree. It is important to keep everyone safe and protect everyone's liberties as best as possible.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

Have a tolerance level which can't be tolerated.Be free. Express your views.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

I think we must try to fight racism or similar views if we do not want a group like the nazi party to rise again, we can not just stand by and let hate breed and take over, we must fight for equality and justice as so many great men have done before us.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

No, intolerance should not be tolerated. Yes, there will be arguments defending basic rights and laws set in place, such as freedom of speech or religion. However, where is the line drawn? If a Christian were to be killed by a Muslim, and it could have been prevented by some intolerance, or supervision, would precautions not be taken? In no way is this restricting the first amendment of freedom of religion, but simply protecting the average person from any danger that can be originated from tolerating the intolerant.Let's take the example of a sermon during time of worship in a mosque. During the sermon, the people are being convinced that they should act violently towards men of other religions. Later, a Christian is killed based on what they heard earlier. If the person is to be arrested, who says that this will not happen again? If this is tolerated, then it very well might happen. Another innocent person could be killed. However, this could be prevented by having some intolerance. By having some restrictions, while still allowing freedom of religion and speech. In the end, it boils down to absolute freedom vs. the safety of the average person. Does having total and absolute freedom worth the lives of innocent people?
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

For one not all Muslims are extreme. And most Muslims do read the Quran which does mention some hate of other religions, but a majority of Muslims don't follow the whole Quran just as some Christians don't believe everything in the bible. Your argument targets a specific religion which is what would happen if the government could intervene in the first place. Most Muslims are Sunni and they don't preach the hate and murder that you speak of. Fun fact did you know that some Christian churches encourage people to bomb planed parenthood. It this not the murder of innocent people. But this side is typically not look at because it is America's primary religion. Bugging mosque would create even more prejudiced among people leading to more crime and even greater fragmentation.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

Let me clarify that I did not intend to infer that all Muslims are extreme. I am well aware that terrorism at the hands of a Muslim is relatively low. The argument was not meant to target a specific religion, but to simply provide an example. My overall argument is that intolerance should not be tolerated. Not intolerance by Muslims should not be tolerated. No matter what ethnicity or religion you are, intolerance, for the basic safety of people, can not be tolerated. No, Christians should not be bomb these places because yes, it is the murder of innocent people. There is no perfect answer, and there can not be absolute freedom and privacy while still keeping the average person completely safe. I believe that there should still be freedom to worship as you please, but limited restrictions to prevent the possibility of something happening.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

Though freedom of religion and speech is important and needed in a society, it only extends as far to where you aren't saying anything or doing anything to harm others. It is an essential part of democracy for people to feel protected and safe. Some speech and religious beliefs can cause for other groups of people to be put in danger. For example, Muslims are turning on other Muslims and killing them based on their beliefs. Freedom of religion and speech should only extend as far to not break the boundaries of the law. The law should be held above religion because the law is made in order to protect the people. Society can be better protected when the law is held above religion. If we were to completely accept intolerance, who is to stop another Hitler from arising? "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: yes

If it is an essential part of democracy for people to feel protected then how would restricting Muslim religious freedom protect them? By being intolerant of their religion or culture then wouldn't you agree a person being persecuted doesn't feel safe in a country where that happens? And religious freedom is in the Constitution, which is the law of the land.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

Welcome to the paradox of intolerance. Now the question is should we as a people or should we as a government tolerate the intolerance of others and the answer to both is no. Allowing people freedom to pray to whichever God they choose is their business. However there is no chance that our freedoms can infringe on the freedoms of others. We as people have a responsibility to stop the intolerance of bullies and bigots in their tracks. If you are walking down the halls of a school and see a student getting assaulted for being christian would you believe the rights of the bully out weigh the rights of the victim? Hopefully no. In the same breath would you expect teachers to allow the bully to continue? Again. No. The government acts as the teachers and principals of a society. They stop one student from stepping too far and taking advantage of other students. We should protect the majority and stop groups from infringing on the rights of others therefor no, neither the government nor should people tolerate the intolerant.
Debate: Should we tolerate intolerance?
Side: no

The issue of tolerating intolerance is a paradox that doesn't really have answer. Supporting intolerance and by extension freedom of speech a religion may seem alienable just and right, yet one must understand what is allowed by tolerating intolerance. The freedom of speech is not limitless, for lines must be drawn. To tolerate intolerance provokes bigotry and allows injustices towards the minority. Freedom of religion has a line, these freedoms, these RIGHTS are no longer rights when they harm another human. One must have the empathy and the humanity to realize that tolerating intolerance breeds a system of injustice. Whether it's regarding faith or race or sexuality matters not, for intolerance from any fundamentalists should not be tolerated. Tolerance for the intolerance could propagate the idea of intolerance, such as the hackneyed example of Hitler. To not condemn the fascists and intolerant is to allow injustices to continue and perhaps grow into a more pressing matter.