azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

The shouldn't wait. They could just travel to some other countries and drive there if they want to have the license any sooner
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

I would like to have my license ASAP and not having to wait till turning 18 sounds intriguing
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

That's stupid u should thank the lord u have two years left others have four years , but who cares , let's be against the law
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: Yes

I don’t care two years still look like a long long way to me
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: Yes

DAMN four years . That's. A lot. Don't worry I'll drive you till you reach that ravishing number
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

Maybe in fourteen is good too , coz someone like me should drive a car and show the amazingness of me in my beautifull driving skills
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

I COME TELL DISAGREE You might even be hitting the pedestrians and say that they were on you're way .
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

If having a license starts from 16, then life would be so much better in my opinion
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

I think the parental support (if it is actually there) is a plus, but most people I know who learn to drive later in life had close friends or family help them learn (i.e. they did not just jump in a car and go for it).
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

It shouldn't be exactly at the age of 18 . Some younger adults drive better than the ones older than them ! . So I don't think it has to be at the age of 18
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

The benefit of that would be better public transportation infrastructure. The drawback is that then you just have 25 year-old's who are inexperienced and thus less safe.
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

Im a teen and I have been driving since I was 7. im a good driver and ive never been in a accident. I also have a job so we should be allowed to drive.
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

yeah your so right , it depends on the person and his\her skills and not the age :)
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

ofcourse theyre not have to , its just an age and has nothing to do with skills , the countries with knowledgable people know that skills (especialy in somthing like driving ) isnt an age problem
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

it pains me to say this but you are right and yes theyre not have to wait and we should right now get a driver license
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

technically the age has no right to control the skills of someone so its not about the age its about the person himself .
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

Sure the teenagers are amazing like me :) yes i should drive because im amazing , adults are boring
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

what so ever , we can drive without having license , just be careless , be free . :)
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

if everyone wants to drive and theyre able to , and they can pass the test , why not ?:).
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

everyone .look at me , yes .. oh yes here . yeah you look at me the answer is :NO
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

why no ? the answer is simple the answer is :teenagers are amazing and they should be allowed to drive cars
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

idont know why i even have to explain this but im just writing to make that comment thingie allow me to put my comment :)
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

aha so the wer is no and we all said no does that mean the law will change anything ? no , so why wasting time
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

who cares lets drive a car i dont give a shit about the law seriously people , perfectness is boring
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

i think its clear that the answer is no plus quistion is realy smart , but who cares about the results ? , nothing will change
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

dude listen , lets learn how to drive and then drive and n one will see and who cares just dont give a shit >
Debate: should teenagers have to wait until they are 18 before they get their driver's license ?
Side: No

No, they are dumb idiots in every age category.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Yes: A legal binding contract between two consenting adults creating a familial relationship for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, etc.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

So, homosexual incestual marriage between adults is OK ?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

While I personally find it questionable, I hardly see why we have any justification to prevent it. I see no compelling interest for the state to forbid it.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

which one do you find "questionable"homosexuality or incesti can easily make a compelling state's interest case for one of those, but not the other.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

I find incestuous attraction questionable, in that I can not relate to it and don't particularly understand it. Nothing more.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

are you purposefully trying to equate homosexuality and incest?is that what you are attempting to do here?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Really what is the difference, they are both immoral acts, and the incest part does not seem to harm anyone, and you claim that homosexuality harms no one, so you should not have an issue here
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

The 14th does not apply the Constitution to the states.And how is homosexuality immoral?Bonus Challenge: Don't use the bible as your argument.the incest part does not seem to harm anyoneNo it doesn't the only thing that could be considered wrong about incest is the potential genetic defects of children born of incest.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

I do not read the bible, I am not a Christian, in fact I am not religious Homosexual sex acts, are just immoral disgusting acts. Russia has it right And again the offspring from two engaging in incest is not your concern. Just as two homosexuals getting it on is not my concern, but I will never accept that as normal or moral behavior
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Homosexual sex acts, are just immoral disgusting acts. What you have yet to say is why. I will never accept that as normal or moral behaviorWhy
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Led Zeppelin had an album that was called in through the out door. If you cannot see what is disgusting about two men raping their rear ends, there really is no hope for you
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

You clearly don't have a grasp of the word 'rape.' Homosexual sex (which is not always anal, by the way) is not inherently rape, as rape implies that one of the parties involved has not consented to sex. So far, the only argument you have presented against homosexuality is that you think it is rape, which is false. Do you have any other arguments against homosexuality?Also, you thinking that it's 'disgusting' is not a good reason to attack a large group of people.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Homosexual sex acts, are just immoralHow is it immoral? You seem to have trouble answering questions.disgusting acts.As disgusting as hetrosexual acts.Russia has it rightYou should move there then and tell us how nice it is.Just as two homosexuals getting it on is not my concernand yet you talk about it and are against marriages that according to you "not of your concern"
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

As for moving to Russia, nah, we just get rid of the leftists and problem solved, I am now against it because they keep forcing it on us.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

democrats aren't the only people in favor of equal rights for everyone.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Democrats have never been for equal rights. Remember they opposed the Civil Rights Act, and it is they who enslaves the blacks to government
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Democrats have never been for equal rights.Like you?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Yes, Conservative Democrats indeed opposed the Civil Rights Act, and Conservatives fought to continue slavery.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Homosexual sex acts, are just immoral disgusting acts. Russia has it right Then justify how they are immoral. Form an argument for once.And again the offspring from two engaging in incest is not your concern. Just as two homosexuals getting it on is not my concern, but I will never accept that as normal or moral behaviorWhy are you so self centered, to think they care if you accept it or not?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

The only one self centered here is you, that is why you cannot prove your point with logic and reason. All you have are emotions
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

that is why you cannot prove your point with logic and reason.You're the only one that isn't proving anything.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

The only one self centered here is you, that is why you cannot prove your point with logic and reason. All you have are emotionsI have provided you logical arguments time and time again, you just don't bother to pay attention.And, again, pretending that people are doing this because of you is self centered, in that you are centering the issue around yourself.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

the only thing that could be considered wrong about incest is the potential genetic defects of children born of incest.there's that whole "game of throne's" thing.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Incapable of staying on topic, eh?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Yes , you do seem to skip around quite a bit. But then when you only have liberal talking points we understand
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

I expected more from you than "I know you are but what am I".Guess I should have known better, expecting that much from someone who can't even get my political ideology straight.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Just following your lead. oh we know your political ideology on the left. Social liberals are indeed leftists
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

First, I have yet to do a "I know you are but what am I" response, so saying "Just following your lead" is employing ANOTHER "I know you are but what am I" right after the first. oh we know your political ideology on the left. Social liberals are indeed leftistsFor the third (?) time, I am not a liberal, and "leftist" is not an ideology.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

if you don't know the difference between homosexual love and incest, then i'm afraid you have some growing up to do before you are ready for such discussions.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

are you purposefully trying to equate homosexuality and incest?No. Should I?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

no, so why did you put them together as tho they were one in the same?did you not type the words above?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

I did type the words above, but you did not understand what these words meant.The usual argument against incest is that it may result in genetically mutated children being born.However, that argument obviously does not work against gay incest.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Ok, now the real arguments...1. Logically, that definition is somewhat lacking. It actually defines one unknown (marriage) by means of another unkown (family).Either there has to be a legal definition of "family",or we should omit the "creating a familial relationship" part.Which gives:"A legal binding contract between two consenting adults for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, etc."That's more or less a definition of civil contract.So why the need for redefining marriage?2. Proponents of polygamy would argue that the definition violates their rights, from the equal protection clause perspective.If one minority (gays) has been granted the priveledge of marriage, then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Ok, now the real arguments...1. Logically, that definition is somewhat lacking. It actually defines one unknown (marriage) by means of another unkown (family).Either there has to be a legal definition of "family",or we should omit the "creating a familial relationship" part."Family is defined as “one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage". It's not a complicated legal definition of family, and it makes perfect sense as it applies to a legal concept of marriage."A legal binding contract between two consenting adults for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, etc."That's more or less a definition of civil contract.Marriage already is a civil contract.So why the need for redefining marriage?Because there are many individuals who are prevented from entering into it with their partners in a way that violates Equal Protections and Due Process.2. Proponents of polygamy would argue that the definition violates their rights, from the equal protection clause perspective.If one minority (gays) has been granted the priveledge of marriage, then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?First, there is no legal argument linking those two. Second, marriage as a contract is between two people. No part of the marriage contract could work with more than two people. Third, I see no problem creating provisions within the civil contract of marriage that allow more than 2 individuals to enter into it, so long as issues of inheritance, taxation etc are provided for in a way that does not create a more advantageous situation than a two party marriage.If one minority (gays) has been granted the priveledge of marriage, then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?Again, that isn't a legal argument, that is the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is no compelling interest for the state to prevent two consenting adults to enter into a civil contract that already provides the framework for such. Comparing that to completely reworking the structure of the contract and all the benefits within is just silly.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?Exactly why not?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

because TWO is a couple, more than two is a "group"these are different things.apples and arranges
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

because TWO is a couple, more than two is a "group"So?...these are different things.apples and arrangesSure they are different things.Nobody is saying that TWO apples are the same thing as FOUR apples.However, according to the logic put forth by LGBT activists, the situation is very similar:1. There's a group of consenting adults who are a minority in terms of sexual preference.2. These people claim that their relations "hurt no-one".3. They state that their relations are driven by "love".4. They state that they are deprived of certain privileges (marriage), which are granted to other consenting adults.Can you spot the difference, between LGBT and polygamist argumentation in this issue?And, why should the supreme court not apply the 14'th amendment in this case, while having applied it in the case of gay marriage?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

there is no inherent advantage in the eyes of the state for more than two ppl to form a marriage.... point of diminishing returns is a fair criteria for the state to use when drawing the line.this is why i'm an advocate of limiting the child credit to the first two children only... after that additional children should become a tax liability.we have enough ppl.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

That's more or less a definition of civil contract.Except the government is basically a party to the marriage contract as it not only recognizes it, but provides benefits based on it.So why the need for redefining marriage?Is removing an exclusion on who can enter a contract a redefining of the contract itself?Was allowing interracial marriage a redefining of marriage?why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?Yes, logistics is a valid state concern, but I think the government can and should overcome those hurdles for polygamy. (We already allow people to marry lots of people, just not at the same time.)
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

as far as the state is concerned marriage IS a civil contract.... that's the problem. DOMA and other such laws have tried to make access to that form of contract out or reach for certain ppl based only in their sexual orientation.such policy does not pass constitutional muster.the easiest solution, with the least amount of paperwork, is to simply remove the "gender" question from the marriage license application in every state.done.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Civil marriage law enables the state to extend certain financial benefits and legal conveniences (e.g. end of life care, child-rearing, etc.) which generate greater overall social stability. It ought to be entirely distinct from any religious conception and viewed exclusively as a governmental mechanism for securing social well-being. Unless there are well documented, direct harms resulting from a relationship then it should qualify for inclusion within civil marriage law. Most current civil marriage law is overly restrictive in this respect, and thus fails to realize the full potential benefits of civil marriage law.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Unless there are well documented, direct harms resulting from a relationship then it should qualify for inclusion within civil marriage lawAnd here's the flaw.It's impossible to have any valid research on how gay adoption affects the well being of adopted children, until gay marriage has been allowed and gay adoption is legal.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

The only flaws in reasoning are yours. They are as follow:(1) Same-sex marriage and same-sex parentage are two distinct issues, and the latter does not necessarily follow from the former just as it does not in opposite-sex relationships.(2) Children have been and presently are being raised by same-sex couples. Adoption is not the only avenue to parentage available to same-sex couples, nor is marriage requisite to either adoption or alternative options (e.g. in vitro fertilization, children from prior relationships, etc.).(3) Same-sex marriage is legal in multiple states within the U.S. now, and has been legal in other nations for considerably longer. There has been more than sufficient time for research to demonstrate any potential harms associated with same-sex marriage (including parentage), and that no such evidence has emerged underscores the invalidity of your unfounded objection.(4) On a question of rights and equality before the law, the burden of proof falls upon the party attempting to restrict the Constitutionally secured rights of other citizens. Pointing to an absence of evidence for an unfounded fear is an entirely illegitimate basis from which to deny equally rights to any person on any matter.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Legalizing gay "marriage" is in no way similar to other historical events whereas equal rights were established for all citizens.The voting process is clearly defined, and the definition does not involve either the gender or the ethnicity of participants. So, when blacks were allowed to vote, this was not redefinition of voting, but the establishment of equal rights for black people. Same situation with woman's rights.On the contrary, in the case of marriage, the genders and the number of participants are central to the process. Since biologically, it takes a man and a woman to rear a child.And psychologically, it's important that a child learns about both the male and female roles in society.So, in the case of gay "marriage", the very term was redefined.Yeah, yeah, yeah. Before Loving v. Virginia, ethnicity was an integral aspect of marriage, and the courts overruled that as well. In that sense, the very term was redefined as well.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

The term marriage cannot have a different meaning depending on the state.When Virginia adopted the crazy Racial Integrity Act in 1924, that did not suddenly make ethnicity an "integral" aspect of marriage.Consequently, when the law was abolished by the Supreme court, that descision did not redefine the term "marriage".