azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

The term marriage cannot have a different meaning depending on the state.According to who? Marriage in this country has had different meanings depending on the state on many different occasions. When Virginia adopted the crazy Racial Integrity Act in 1924, that did not suddenly make ethnicity an "integral" aspect of marriage.Which is irrelevant. The societal definition of marriage held it to be homogenous: Interracial relationships were not acceptable, and were considered unnatural.Consequently, when that law was abolished by the Supreme court, that did not redefine the term "marriage".When one definition is held by a group, and the Supreme Court legally forces them to change it, they most certainly redefine it. Particularly when doing so goes against the socially accepted definition of the time in that area.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Did you read the text of Virginia's "Racial Integrity Act"?It says nothing about definition of marriage. Rather, the act bans interracial marriage.It was not a "definition held by a group".It was a restriction imposed by a group.For example, consumption of alcohol out in the street is illegal in my country.Than doesn't mean that the term "drinking" or the term "alcohol" has been redefined.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

simply remove the gender question from the marriage license.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

There is a legal definition of a marriage. You are even given a marriage license as proof.In fact, if you get married in a church without applying for a license, you are not legally married.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Definiton: Marriage should be defined as two consenting adults, regardless of gender, entering a lifelong commitment to each other.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Certailny a bigoted question, because having a legal definition will mean that liberal LGBT activists will no longer be able to waddle in their lalaland of "equality". Which actually stands for something else - creating legal precedent.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

The legal definition of a black person used to have them counted as 3/5 of a person. That changed. The legal definition of a voter used to be a white male. That changed. Having a legal definition doesn't mean that equality has been reached.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Having a legal definition doesn't mean that equality has been reached.That's absolutely correct and totally irrelevant here.Having a legal definition of marriage doesn't mean that equality has been reached. Whereas not having a legal definition of marriage means that campaigning for "marriage equality" is political demagogy, at best.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

That's absolutely correct and totally irrelevant here.Then why did you mention it? You claimed that the LGBT would no longer be able to cry for equality. Legal definitions don't prevent the gays from their "lalaland of 'equality'" just like it didn't for blacks and women.Whereas not having a legal definition of marriage means that campaigning for "marriage equality" is political demagogy, at best.Except you don't need a formal definition in order to set rules for government treatment. There is government supported definition of America and we were still able to figure out who gets to be married and who doesn't. One group says they want the rules to be changed to fit their lifestyle and you claim that they are a political demagogy, but the group that wants to define marriage so that the rules can't be changed isn't.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Then why did you mention it? You claimed that the LGBT would no longer be able to cry for equality.Because, once there is a legal definition of marriage with gender removed form it, there will be no reason to redefine it further using the 14th amendment, to include other sexual minorities. The "reasonable benefit" argument is very weak and will be overruled by the courts. One can argue that there is an obvious reasonable benefit for the state, to allow a wealthy man to marry several women and raise children from all of them - whereas otherwise, some of these women could have been living in poverty, and their children would suffer (that's the argument in the Islamic world). So, polygamous marriages would be next.LGBT doesn't want to be held responsible for opening this can of worms.Such a turn of events could lead to a strong counter reaction, which could even lead to abolishing of "gay marriage".And that's why the LGBT doesn't want a serious legal definition of marriage.Except you don't need a formal definition in order to set rules for government treatment. There is government supported definition of America and we were still able to figure out who gets to be married and who doesn't.Yep, today you can "figure" that out. Tomorrow, activists from some other sexual minority and their lawyers, will figure it out differently. That's the consequence of leaving important issues solely to "judge's discretion".The situation with blacks was very different.For example, the voting process is clearly defined, and that definition does not mention any specifics regarding the participants, except that they should be citizens and of legal age. Sex and ethnicity are irrelevant to the process.In marriage, the sex and number of participants are central to the process. Because 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.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Because, once there is a legal definition of marriage with gender removed form it, there will be no reason to redefine it further using the 14th amendment, to include other sexual minorities.If the government defines marriage to include gays, then of course the gays won't have anything to complain about. I assumed you meant a definition that didn't include gays. Why would we debate about a legal definition of marriage including gays going against the gay agenda? That makes no sense.. The "reasonable benefit" argument is very weak and will be overruled by the courtsAs has been seen by all of the overruled court decisions so far.One can argue that there is an obvious reasonable benefit for the state, to allow a wealthy man to marry several women and raise children from all of them - whereas otherwise, some of these women could have been living in poverty, and their children would suffer (that's the argument in the Islamic world). So, polygamous marriages would be next.Multiple wives will probably also be legalized. That shouldn't affect gays.LGBT doesn't want to be held responsible for opening this can of worms.Such a turn of events could lead to a strong counter reaction, which could even lead to abolishing of "gay marriage".Right, because people hate gays for rational reasons. Get real.And psychologically, it's important that a child learns about both the male and female roles in society.There are many different ways to learn that. Wouldn't 2 mothers be better than no patents at all?
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

its only irrelevant if you don't consider that definitions matter to the arc of equality.something tells me you DO think it matters, and that's why you posted this bigoted question.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Certailny a bigoted question, because having a legal definition will mean that liberal LGBT activists will no longer be able to waddle in their lalaland of "equality". yup... that's sounds pretty bigoted.i gotta give you that one
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Thanks .
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Personally, I think marriage is an archaic practice. It was started to secure a males line of secession and to enslave a women and we see how well that has worked out. Now, it is used to give unfair tax advantages to married people and social acceptance. I think if people are going to procreate together they should have to sign a binding agreement to raise the child or children together. Otherwise, it's a bunch of crap. If the religious want to make it a religious event then do so, but don't try to force the rest of us to follow your beliefs. Feelings is what keeps a couple together and makes a home, not a piece of paper.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

I think if people are going to procreate together they should have to sign a binding agreement to raise the child or children together.that's what marriage is.and why limit it to only couples who will pro-create... why not provide it for couples who want to adopt... or couples who just want to live together as a unit because they love each other?there are societal advantages for encouraging this kind of thing (up to a point).there are no societal advantages to marriage when:the couple produce more than 2 childrenmore than 2 ppl try to enter into marriagewhen the 2 ppl are related directly by bloodwhen 1 of the 2 ppl is not of the age of consent
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

who is man to change the rules?the only reason change is wanted is so others will accept their lifestyle and they wont feel bad about the life they are living.people are free to choose their own life style but when they want to be made equal to something its not that is the injustice of the whole argument"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." Aristotle
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

who is man to change the rules?since we made up the rules in the first place, then i would say we (huMANs) are the best ones to "change" them.change is a funny word for it too... the definition of marriage has evolved over time along with our species... only the knuckle draggers have been the ones trying to hold it back.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

man made the rules ?do you read the Bible?that is one of the stupidest remarks i have heard in a Long time
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

yes. man made up the rules... man also wrote the bible....as for winner of the stupidest remarks contest, i bow to your supremacy in that regard.its all yours.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

only the devil wants change from what God put us here for..in the Image of him!
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

who is man to change the rules?What? We are referring to the "legal" definition of marriage, something that man created. Since man created it, man is justified in changing it.?the only reason change is wanted is so others will accept their lifestyle and they wont feel bad about the life they are living.No. In fact, it has nothing to do with getting others to "accept" a "lifestyle" (sexual orientation isn't a lifestyle). Changing the legal definition will have no impact on acceptance of homosexuality. It is about the Constitutional rights of Due Process and Equal Protections applying to the civil right (Loving v. Virginia, + dozens of other cases) of marriage.people are free to choose their own life style but when they want to be made equal to something its not that is the injustice of the whole argumentExcept if it was made equal, it would be equal. This is a legal topic, and thus legal equality is the only relevant form of equality.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

so Gods rules matter not cause of mans rules?is that your point?everything else is pointless if you think that!people are free to choose not free from the consequences of their choice!
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

The legal institution in this country is not gods rule. Your religion has no authority over our legal system.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

the Bible predicts this very thingMatthew 6:24King James Version (KJV)24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

The Bible says a lot of self evident things. The fact is that, as I have said, the Bible holds no legal authority in this country, and thus is irrelevant to the issue at hand: the legal contract of marriage.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Changing the legal definition will have no impact on acceptance of homosexuality.You are either deliberately lying, or completely ignorant of the facts.Changing the legal definition of marriage, by allowing gay marriage, does have an impact on acceptance of homosexuality. And is already has affected it.That was the main purpose of injecting the whole "gay marriage" idea.The logic is stupid, but simple and effective.Since now gays are officially married andMatt and Steve are just as much "married" as the normal couplethen they are just as normaland so, schoolkids should now be "educated" on this subjectto remove any chance of "ignorance" and "bigotry".And from here, we move to the deeper levels of propaganda.Inventing "gay teens"making "safe zones" for themand in fact encouraging homosexual experimentation among young children.I've described just one of the many propaganda methods which are based on the "gay marriage" precedent.THAT was the real of the "gay marriage" agenda.Only about 2% of gays have gotten married, in the states where it has been allowed.So, it's really not about marriage.It's about indoctrination and raising as many "chickens" as possible for future consumption.(BTW, gay slang has more than 200 terms for preteen boys, all of which have sexual connotation).
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Changing the legal definition of marriage, by allowing gay marriage, does have an impact on acceptance of homosexuality. And is already has affected it.And yet you have provided no statistics on approval ratings to back that up.That was the main purpose of injecting the whole "gay marriage" idea.No, it wasn't. The whole purpose was people wanting their rights, and demanding them. It is arrogant to assume it was about people like you accepting them.Since now gays are officially married and Matt and Steve are just as much "married" as the normal couple then they are just as normal and so, schoolkids should now be "educated" on this subject to remove any chance of "ignorance" and "bigotry".Statistically they are not normal, but the point is who the fk cares? Inventing "gay teens"As they can tell you, they have existed for a long time.making "safe zones" for themExamples?and in fact encouraging homosexual experimentation among young children.Citation seriously needed.I've described just one of the many propaganda methods which are based on the "gay marriage" precedent.You've made claims without evidence, sure.Only about 2% of gays have gotten married, in the states where it has been allowed.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/26/how-many-same-sex-marriages-in-the-u-s-at-least-71165-probably-more/ The figures are actually two to three times that, which still isn't much. But how is that surprising, when you have a sub-culture that has gone for so long without marriage, expecting them to suddenly get hitched is unrealistic. That doesn't change that it was always about their rights.It's about indoctrination and raising as many "chickens" as possible for future consumption.Seeing as how one can not be "raised" homosexual, that argument is just preposterous.(BTW, gay slang has more than 200 terms for preteen boys, all of which have sexual connotation).Then go ahead and list them.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Man already has changed the rules. Marriage used to be between a man and a women of the same race. Or the same social class. Or the same religion. Do you oppose interracial marriage? By this argument, you should.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

I love the down votes you got without any responses.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

no i support Gods rules not mans.racehas nothing to do with it !
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

and "gods" rules were made by man.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

no i support Gods rules not mans.race has nothing to do with it !
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Ok, so if you support everything that the bible says about marriage:You think marriage should not be allowed between a man and a woman who does not submit to her husband as if he was the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22-33)You think marriage should not be allowed between a man and a women if either have had sex before marriage. Or if either have committed adultery. (Hebrews 13:4 and others)You think women should not be allowed to be divorced from their husbands (and that divorced women should not be allowed to remarry) unless their husbands are dead. (1 Corinthians 7:39 and plenty of other verses)You think marriage should be banned for those men who do not love their wives. (Ephesians 5:25)And so on. And yet, you seem to only be preaching the anti-gay part of it. If you want to support what the bible says, maybe you should expand your message.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Interesting way to word this side of the debate. Either way, all states have a legal definition of marriage, and the overwhelming majority state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now federal courts do not have the power to over rule what the people and state governments have enacted, unless of course it is unconstitutional. For the issue of marriage, being that this is not a federal issue, ergo it is a power left to the people and the states, the federal courts cannot interfere with state issues.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Now federal courts do not have the power to over rule what the people and state governments have enacted, unless of course it is unconstitutional. For the issue of marriage, being that this is not a federal issue, ergo it is a power left to the people and the states, the federal courts cannot interfere with state issues.Loving v. Virginia established that marriage was a civil right, which makes it a federal issue, and therefore the courts are justified in pointing out that the states you are referring to are in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

Federal courts do not have the power to overrule what the people and state governments have enacted. In face the federal court cannot make any rule or legislation.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Federal courts do not have the power to overrule what the people and state governments have enacted.Actually, they do. The courts are the arbiters of Constitutionality, as per the balance of powers in this country. If the people or the state/federal governments do something unconstitutional, the courts are not only allowed to rule against it, they are compelled to do so.In face the federal court cannot make any rule or legislation.Ruling something is unconstitutional is not making a rule or legislation.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

No they do not, that would be exceeding their power. The courts are not the final arbitrators of the Constitution, we the people are
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

In this country, the Supreme Court is. How can you, on one hand, decry that is the fact, and on the other claim it isn't the case. Your arguments are internally inconsistent.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

In 1804, Jefferson wrote: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." His own view was that: "Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them."Later, in retirement in1819, he wrote that: “[T]he Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.“If this opinion [he wrote in the same 1819 letter] be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation.”Well, it’s only Jefferson, but he’s entitled to his opinion.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

He is indeed entitled to his opinion, but it has no legal relevance, for better or worse. Our system is what it is, despite regrets Jefferson (or any other founders) might have had regarding how they set everything up.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Bigoted question

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/ 2012/11/why-should-unelected-supreme-court-get-final-say-about-our-laws n his first inaugural address (1861), referring to the constitutional questions that were then tearing the republic asunder, Lincoln said: I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. Nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government [by which Lincoln means the executive and legislative branches]…At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.The history of judicial review is full of awkward surprises, and dissenting testimony from some of the most beloved figures of U.S. history, but I would say the controversy has mostly disappeared.Most Americans accept that the Supreme Court has the “supreme” final word on the meaning of the Constitution. But We the People are getting kind of cranky about it.
Debate: Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?
Side: Yes

Then "we the people" will need to try to change our entire system of government. If enough people want that, then it can happen. Otherwise, it is somewhat irrelevant.