azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Do you know who I am though? Do you know my real name?
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

No. But you said you werent gonna tell anyone and you just did.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Be contextual. I'm saying that when I run for it, the majority of people won't know my plan
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

You are just freaky moron, Christian equivalent of monkeys screaming Islam will dominate the world...
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

This isn't something that anyone should seriously argue since I am sure it isn't stated in seriousness.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Oh no, I am dead serious. Plato believed that a philosopher-king would be the greatest form of government. And that combined with Christianity would be wonderful.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

You reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally are not serious at all!!!!
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Why do you say that I am not serious at all? Why would I be talking about it if I wasn't serious?
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Because this whole fucking thing is a big ass joke! A not funny joke I must add
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Who said that this is a joke? I'm dead serious. I'm going to be the monarch in a theocracy that takes over where the US ends.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Oh yeah of course you will, and while your at it you will be a genocidal dictator and people will still love your god damn country instead of wanting to change it back! LOL very funny!
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Who said that I would commit genocide?
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Common sense said that you would commit genocide. That is what most dictators do.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Yet, I'm not going to be a dictator. I'm going to be a monarch.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Whatever the fuck you want to be is bad.This is just comment filler so I can get away with breaking the 50 character policy.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Why would it be bad? You have no premises to support that accusation.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Yes. According to the first amendment, we are supposed to be free to practice any religion we want to, to peacefully assemble, to speak and to petition the government for a redress of our grievances. We can vote on the basis of any belief we have and we can even run for offices to represent those beliefs. What we can't do is use government to Establish our religious beliefs as laws and that is a very different thing from simply having an influence. If religion is the reason someone's gut tells them that something is wrong and that there should be a law against it... they are supposedly free to push that agenda. I'm in the camp with those that say a secular case is much easier made and has a better chance for success -- but the Constitution does not require that. According to the 1st. Amendment, a hardened zealous bible thumping religious crusader has the same right to speak, vote, assemble and petition the government that an out right atheist has.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Yes.*
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Yes it should. Besides, it already does. We are free to practise any religion we chose to.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

No, Theocracies are the most barbaric and backward regimes on whole planet.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

I dont think the government has to reform into a theocracy. It says "influence". Meaning it could just give way to law. For example a religion may say "dont steal for it is morally wrong". I think we can agree that is can be applied to law. Or something like "thou shall not murder" can just be applied in US Law making murder illegal. Which is pretty acceptable. The debate question didnt say "Should religion influence the US Government". It just asks if religion can influence US law. Meaning they can just take normal things from any religion and just get ideas for new laws. The entire US Government doesnt have to reform.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Those things can not be applied to law as a religious maxim, or else it is theocracy. However, those things are not religious in themselves and can be applied in other ways.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

You failed to realize what I was saying. Influence: to have an effect on the condition or development ofAll one can do is just read the bible and say I agree murder is wrong. They dont even have use anything else. They can just give a normal reason why its wrong. It doesnt have to have its religious backing. It can just help inspire new ideas for laws or, as the debate says, influence. It doesnt start a theocracy. Ideas for laws come from almost anywhere. I never said it had to follow its religion but in fact it can just inspire new ideas for laws. That is what the debate asks for. Everybody esle is applying religion to the government itself. This just says "law" meaning can a religion give new ideas for laws? Sure. A car crash can give new ideas for laws. Its just an idea. It doesnt have to have religious reasons.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Which religion do you mean ?
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Any religion that has a common moral agreement with the public like theft or murder.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Off course they do, otherwise they would have no followers, that's also why they don't like suicides.They also say that they the only true one... which is a little cliche ...
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Oh dear God, marry me! Just kidding, I agree. .
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Religion influences morality, which influences the decisions of law makers. Religion does affect U.S. law, but it shouldn't.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

No! Us law is built (or supposed to be) on equality, and their are things in religion that are not that equal, not to mention claiming one religion means claiming that one religion's rules, which is not equal.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

While I do not believe in a theocracy, the "no state religion" was to prevent one branch of Christianity from ruling over others, not alienate it from the government. The US was built on equality, but this was based on the belief that God has created all men equal (the writers of the constitution thought slavery would die out quickly ). This is also shown with the part of unaliable rights, where else would they come from? As I said, a theocracy is a bad idea, alienating religion, specifically Christianity was never its intent.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

The U.S. was built by deists, all of whom were not Christian. Some maybe, but not all. As division, and equality fell one religion (the one of the man in charge) took over, and that's why we have the theocracy we have today, the ineffective system that pledges hypocrisy.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Nope! :)http://www.adherents.com/gov/FoundingFathersReligion.html
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

What's that proving? That they were not all Christians as I said? Anyway, you can't deny that America was built out of the idea of freedom, religious or otherwise. That being the case making a government based off of anyone religion, when the pledge of the nation was that of freedom(including religion) would be as hypocritical as it gets.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

You said most were simply deists. They wanted freedom of religion, not drop at the door freedom of religion. That includes having it in your law deciding for the practicing believer. Let's look at the evidence to show they didnt want religion out of the state completely:1. They had a paid chaplain in congress before the revolutionary war ended.2. They called the first that thanksgiving after the war to thank God.3. The quote by william Penn, "if we are not ruled by God [in principle], then we will be ruled by tyrants".4. The first amendment was to allow free practice of religion not to shut the crazy Christians because 90%+ were Christian.5. Here's what chief justice Kent said for new.York, "We are Christian people, and the morality of the country us deeply grafted upon Christianity".6. Pennsylvania court said "Christianity, general Christianity is, and always has been, a part of law of Pennsylvania..."
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

In thanking God they were simply representing their personal beliefs, that wasn't a decision they were making for the nation.William Penn, wasn't the first president.The 1st amendment is actually what supports the idea that they were not governed by one religion. That fact that any religion can be used shows that one religion's principals aren't in control. If it was their would be a rule against other gods, as there is in Christianity.Kent of the Chief Justice is not the president, he's a person with beliefs.Pennsylvania court, again is not the presidency.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

I AM NOT SAYING THEY WERE MAKING RELIGIOUS CHOICES FOR PEOPLE. I am simply pointing out that the idea that the fathers wanted Christianity completely separate from government is preposterous. Christianity doesn't have to rule with an iron first as supreme in government, in fact probably shouldn't as shown by several nations showed (England, Spain, etc.) because man is ruling and is fallible and is not God their-selves. However complete separation is stupid because religion has influenced the law from the begining. Our law system is based on the assumption that man is fallible (bibilical principle.)
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

That will start a civil war, If by any means you ever needed your guns it will be when religion influences American Law.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Making statements like this is probably enough to get you imprisoned in the USA. You need to be careful.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: Yes

Lol yeah I feel ya, I was drunk when I posted this shit, but yeah, no theocracy, anyways I'm going to leave my crazy comment un-edited just for shits & giggles : )But yeah word to the wise Alcohol and Createdebate don't mix, it's like "Srom in a Freedom from Religion Rally" lol.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Edit that asap! Are you trying to have big government send you to prison? Come on, be careful, eh?
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

And ?
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Religion? No. Basic morality? That's a whole new minefield. However in keeping with the title, no. I don't believe it should, but there should definitely be a revision of what exactly constitutes a human being.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

Religion and Politics don't mix. Religion should stay out of Politics.
Debate: Should religion influence U.S law?
Side: No

As a religious person (Christianity), I would yes, however the USA is a democracy, so it must represent all its people. No doubt has religion received it's positive long term and short term effects(U.S civil war united the country). However, religion can lead to aggression(U.S civil war caused many deaths). So religion should not be influence U.S Law
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

We had less income disparity when the rich paid more taxes. The rich also paid a smaller percentage of the taxes.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

"Income disparity" is a construct of the left designed to exploit resentment and envy of those who are unhappy with their lot in life. There is nothing constructive in this dead-end philosophy. Successful people are worthy of emulation, not condemnation.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Fine, not income disparity. Successful people have been able to keep more of their money without doing any more work and hard working working class people are being paid less money and doing more work since we started lowering taxes. Happy now?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Neither, I don't care. Your position still drips of resentment and envy. If a person has success in their life that is somehow wrong? You don't think people should enjoy the fruits of their labor and kick back and relax, or retire?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

You don't think people should enjoy the fruits of their labor and kick back and relax, or retire?No, that's you. That's what you don't get. You are happy that the working class works until they die, never enjoys the fruits of their labor, never gets to kick back and relax, and definitely doesn't get to retire. The rich have never ever had a problem enjoying the fruits of their "labor". The working class used to be able to.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

No, I don't like demonizing others because you're unhappy with your lot in life, that's all.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

So, you like demonizing the poor because you are happy with your lot in life?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

No, I'm not demonizing any class; I'm just disputing your assertion that those that do well should be cut down to size, that's all. BTW, how do you like my foot in your face, squished person?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

No, I'm not demonizing any class;How is calling the poor whiners and complainers and non contributing members of society not demonizing them, but me saying that when you make more money you have to pay more money is demonizing the rich? I'm just disputing your assertion that those that do well should be cut down to size, that's all.I have never asserted that they should be cut down to the size of the poor. I said the should be cut down by the same amount. Plus, I am not talking about your responses in this thread. I am talking about your overall demonizing you do over there --->BTW, how do you like my foot in your face, squished person?I have no idea. I have never been squished by you.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Didn't you say the 75 percent need to pay 75 percent of the taxes ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Yes. If you make 75% of the money you should be responsible for 75% of the taxes in a fair tax system. If tax rate is 10% for everyone and you make 75% of the money, you will pay 75% of the taxes. If the tax rate is 20% for everyone and you make 75% of the money, you will pay 75% of the taxes.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

"Successful people have been able to keep more of their money without doing any more work" ! Yet you say the 75 percent only pay 69.8 ! Do what ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Yet you say the 75 percent only pay 69.8 !If you used to pay 75% of the taxes and you don't do any more work and get to pay only 69.8% of the taxes it isn't fair to everyone else.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

You said 10 percent hold 75 percent of the wealth but they only pay 69.8 percent ! So the 75 percent need to pay 75 percent by your account !I can quote your words if you would like to see them !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

I agree with my words. Why don't you quote my responses to you in this debate? "You got it" and "Yes" I don't understand what you object to. What percentage of taxes should the people who make 75% of the income be responsible for?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

You said the 75 percent need to pay 75 percent did you not ?"The top 10% of the country own 75% of the wealth, but only pay 69.8% of the federal income tax. They need to pay an extra 5.2% in order to pay their fair share.""What percentage of taxes should the people who make 75% of the income be responsible for?"You answered your own question !!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Sorry. What percentage of taxes do you think the people who make 75% of the income should be responsible for? If I answered my own question the way that you like, what are you disputing?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

"What percentage of taxes should the people who make 75% of the income be responsible for?" You said 75 percent and now you dispute it ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

No. I don't dispute it. You are disputing me. You haven't actually said why you think I am wrong though. What have I said that is wrong in your opinion?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

"What percentage of taxes should the people who make 75% of the income be responsible for?" You said they should pay 75 percent so you now dispute it ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Excellent. So, you agree with me. Glad to hear it. You finally got something right.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

"The top 10% of the country own 75% of the wealth, but only pay 69.8% of the federal income tax. They need to pay an extra 5.2% in order to pay their fair share."So what you have said is the 75 percent need to pay 75 percent of the taxes !Are the 75 percent paying their fair share ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Not right now. They pay 69.8%. But, since you agree with me, you already knew that.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

"The top 10% of the country own 75% of the wealth, but only pay 69.8% of the federal income tax. They need to pay an extra 5.2% in order to pay their fair share."So what you have said is the 75 percent need to pay 75 percent of the taxes !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

You said it too friend.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

If the 75 percent pay 69.8 percent what about the 50 percent ? Do me some of your Obama math if you will !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Tell me what you will believe if I give you the numbers.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Show me the numbers you have and the math you used to get to those numbers if you will !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Show me what the numbers will convince you of.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

If the 75 percent pay 69.8 percent what about the 50 percent ? Do me some of your Obama math if you will !Looking for your numbers to back up your math !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

If I give you the numbers what will it tell you?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent should pay 75 percent of the tax but what about the 50 percent that only pay 2.78 percent of the tax ? How does that math work ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

You are mixing up the percentages. The top 10% of people make 75% of the money. They pay 69.8% of taxes. The bottom 50% of people make 2% of the money and pay 2.78% of the taxes. The top 50% that aren't in the top 10% pay 27.42% of the taxes and make 23% of the money.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent need to pay 75 percent of the taxes is what you said ! Now what about the 50 percent that pay 2.78 percent of the taxes ? Show me how that works out with Obama math !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

The 50% that pays 2.78% should only pay 2% since they only make 2% of the money.The people who make 75% of the money should pay 75% of the taxes. The people who make 23% of the money should pay 23% of the taxes. The people who make 2% of the money should pay 2% of the taxes.The top 10% of the population is the first group. The top 10-50% are the second group. The bottom 50% are the third group.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent own the wealth and according to you should pay 75 percent of the tax. 50 percent own the wealth and pay 2.78 percent of the tax. 75 plus 50 equals what ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

75 percent own the wealth and according to youNope. 10% of people own 75%.75 plus 50 equals what ?I gave you 3 groups of numbers that all add up to 100%. Stop mixing up the numbers.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent of the wealth needs to pay 75 percent of the tax as you say but 50 percent of the wealth only pays 2.78 percent of the tax so how does your math work ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

but 50 percent of the wealth only pays 2.78 percent of the taxNo, I said 2% of the wealth pays 2.78%. How is that fair?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

Your ignorance is shown !"The top 10% of the country own 75% of the wealth, but only pay 69.8% of the federal income tax. They need to pay an extra 5.2% in order to pay their fair share."Then you say this - " No, I said 2% of the wealth pays 2.78%. How is that fair?"You spin a bit to much which has made you very dizzy !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Your ignorance is shown !You can't read what I wrote and I am ignorant?There are no conflicts in those statements. The top 75% of wealth and the bottom 2% of wealth are 2 different groups of people.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent pay 75 percent of the tax is what you said but what about the 50 percent that pay 2.78 percent of the tax ? 75 plus 50 equals ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

75 percent pay 75 percent of the tax is what you saidNo. I said they should. And, you agreed. That's the group that makes 75% of the money. Those are the top 10%.but what about the 50 percent that pay 2.78 percent of the tax ?Yes. The bottom 50% makes 2% and only pays 2.78%. 75 plus 50 equals ?60. Since the 75 you are referring to is 10 when used with 50.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent pay 75 percent of the taxes so you say but how can the 50 percent pay 2.78 percent of the taxes ?
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

75 percent pay 75 percent of the taxes so you sayNo. The top 10% should pay 75% since they make 75% of the money.but how can the 50 percent pay 2.78 percent of the taxes ?The top 10% would pay 75% leaving 90% to pay the other 25%. If 40% pay 22.22% that means the 50% can pay 2.78%. So, we have 10+40+50 = 100. We have 75 + 22.22 + 2.78 = 100.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

75 percent pay 75 percent of the taxes but what about the 50 percent that pay 2.78 percent of the taxes ? Do your Obama math for me !
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

I did real math. Why do you want Obama math? These are the things that make everyone question your conservativeness.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

I mean the guy likes gay animal porn. His judgement in general is quite suspect.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

Now he is all mad that I gave him a link with words instead of pictures.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: Yes

At a certain point I'd be tempted to say you should just start linking actual gay animal porn.But then again, I doubt anyone other than him, and that weird bestiality teenager that used to come here, have access to any.
Debate: Should Rich People Have to Pay More Taxes?
Side: No

I would if he actually clicked on links.