azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Lets look at these one at a time.You are assuming that "gay" is a choice and that it is something you are taught. You probably also believe you can "Pray away the gay".The "go forth and multiply" is an easy way to have too many children to the point that dual incomes are needed.This statement insinuates that anyone with gay children has raised them to be gay. This is not the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard, but it's close.Children should be raised not to be influenced by anyone. Especially people who believe in things that are based on faith. They need to be taught critical thinking skills and come to their own conclusion on how the world works.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

You are assuming that "gay" is a choice and that it is something you are taught. You probably also believe you can "Pray away the gay".If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preference. -thousandand1The "go forth and multiply" is an easy way to have too many children to the point that dual incomes are needed.So if I go out and have 10 kids... wife gets pregnant and says "well we just don't have enough money, I have to work." So I put 10, going on 11 kids in daycare... what is my net gain (assuming my wife isn't a neuro-surgeion, rocket scientist, or professional athlete) ?This statement insinuates that anyone with gay children has raised them to be gay. This is not the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard, but it's close. No, but there are parents who refuse to embrace gender norms, and inadvertently push gender disorders. I have no doubt there are a lot of well meaning Christian parents out there who have been blind-sided by one of their kids coming out. Children should be raised not to be influenced by anyone. Correct, optimally children should only be influenced by God. Especially people who believe in things that are based on faith. Correct, so next time there is a discussion on teaching evolution, I expect you to stand against it.They need to be taught critical thinking skills and come to their own conclusion on how the world works.You know, my wife doesn't understand why I'm always having these arguments online... There is even a pretty clear biblical prohibition against it, (Proverbs 26:4, 2 Timothy 2:14). I just consider it proselytizing and feel justified. But what I really feel I get out of it is every time someone challenges my faith and pushes me into a conflict, my faith is vindicated. I have no desire to be a Christian if someone can prove it is wrong... but you can't... what I find is usually the opposite. It is an incredible act of arrogance to assume everyone who holds a different opinion than you is guilty of not using critical thinking. It shows a shameful level of pride in the atheist community to assume they have a monopoly on thinking objectively.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preference. -thousandand1It is not matter of preference, it is genetic. Just because your book of bullshit is against... nothing changes...
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

A. thousandand1 is gayB. I have yet to see an article that says "this is it, this is the gay gene, this gene makes you 99% more likely to be gay"C. After you accomplish that, find the bisexual gene. D. Realize the entire academic community is sold out on the assumption homosexuality is genetic, if proof exists you shouldn't have to look to far to find it.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

It is not genetic but epi-genetic, it is caused by miss-fire by one of fetus protection systems that suppose filter out testosterone. Gay people pick their sexuality same way you have picked your hair color...
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

It is not genetic but epi-genetic, it is caused by miss-fire by one of fetus protection systems that suppose filter out testosterone.Gay people pick their sexuality same way you have picked your hair color...IF. And I do mean IF that were true... How is it not a disease? How is it not something that should be treated and prevented? My hair color doesn't make me incapable of living a normal life or reproducing.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Most of gays do live better life than you. Your life as a religious moron is worthless...How do you "cure" epigenetic miss fire that happen in the womb 20 years ago...? That saving person that has been shot by travelling back in time and sabotage the gun...
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Whew, finally time to get back to you.If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preferenceThis is an argument about Freewill and Determinism. It does nothing to prove your point.So if I go out and have 10 kids... wife gets pregnant and says "well we just don't have enough money, I have to work." So I put 10, going on 11 kids in daycare... what is my net gain (assuming my wife isn't a neuro-surgeon, rocket scientist, or professional athlete) ?If you've got 10 children, you probably are already in one of those professions or have some type of high paying job.Correct, optimally children should only be influenced by GodYes, children should be influenced by an invisible man in the sky. Makes sense. Correct, so next time there is a discussion on teaching evolution, I expect you to stand against it.Why would I. It is not faith based. I know, I know, you're going to play the "It's just a theory" card. Well Gravity is also a theory, but I don't see creationist jumping off of buildings. I have no desire to be a Christian if someone can prove it is wrong... but you can't...You're right, I can't prove it wrong. Just like you cant prove the flying spaghetti monster wrong. But if I claim there IS a flying spaghetti monster, then I need extraordinary evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. The burden of proof would fall on the person making the claim.It is an incredible act of arrogance to assume everyone who holds a different opinion than you is guilty of not using critical thinking.I do not believe that at all. It shows a shameful level of pride in the atheist community to assume they have a monopoly on thinking objectively.I think that we only ask for proof of your claims. In no way, do I think you do not have thinking skills. But I think you're wrong on this one.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Should atheist parents be forced to take their kids to church so that they can't be accused of trying to indoctrinate their children?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

No. That would be tyranny. While I prfer that children be taught plurality and comparative religion and spirituality, the gov has no right to force that on people and who gets to decide? The rule of law should be enforced, not mob rule.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

I know I was taught world religions in elementary school, weren't you? I was repeatedly informed that we live in a country with freedom of religion and it was my choice what I wanted to believe. But my parents raised me in their belief system just like all parents do. I was actually raised catholic and have "rebelled" against that and am a protestant (not sure which kind yet, might need to start my own denomination to be happy). My sister was raised the exact same way and is either an atheist or an extremely weak Christian. So if we live in a country where people are given a choice in what they want to believe, and routinely do chose differently than how they were raised, why do we have to go out and insult parents who are doing what they think is best? "Brainwashing" would almost necessarily require threats or violence which are already illegal anyway. Anyways, if the government were to take Dawkins' advice and label teaching a child religion as abuse, how is that not tyranny?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Mr. Dawkins' idea is the tyranny I refer to, and I got that whole new age shabang as far back as age 8 when they said that whatever you believe is the truth no matter what and I was thinking in my head "lkady are you nuts? You are not God who defines what is real". It is sad when an 8 year old knows more about absolutes than a "teacher".
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Agreed, either all religions are wrong or only one is right....................................................................................................
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by Me. -John 14:6 :)
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

What does 'rule of law' mean to you?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Rule of law means to me a certain code of conduct agreed upon by lawmakers and the people that vote for them. i do not support mob rule, but I oppose a dictatorship too. a middle ground where government is a partnership between the people and the lawmakers is ideal to me. Ill use an example: The Constitution of America is what used to be such a partnership. A democratic republic. What America currently is would be for another debate. Tell me whatcha think. :)
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

All parents should be expected not to indoctrinate their child into any perspective, but to equip their child with the means to think critically and formulate their own opinions. This includes parents who are atheists, but it does not follow that the way to do this would be for those parents to bring their children to church.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Child abuse is an act of child endangerment, such as molestation, physical harm and mental bullying. If something does not harm a child or harm his/her wellbeing, it is not a form of abuse.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

What a silly question. My dad tried to force Catholicism on me when I was little. It didn't work. I developed my own beliefs as I grew up. This is NOT child abuse. When children grow up they have their own mind. How can it be child abuse?
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

I don't believe it is necessarily "Child Abuse." I would call it "Indoctrination." Every child to an extent is indoctrinated with their parent's beliefs, whether it be Theism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheist. Now if you are talking about the parents FORCING them to believe something, that is an infringement on freedom and rights. Also it depends on what you call "religion."A Theist will teach their child to be Theist, and an Atheist will teach their child to be Atheist. Children have always and will always lean toward their parent's belief, it's a natural tendency.However, if you must call it Child Abuse, to be fair you must put Atheism under the label of "religion" for the sake of the debate.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: Yes

Indoctrination commonly refers not just to the teaching of ideas but to the representation of those ideas as inherently true. Such absolutism is effectively a prerequisite for religion to exist; it is not equitably necessary for atheism and is not especially applicable to agnosticism. Even were theism and atheism equitably parallel in this respect, your argument does not disprove that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse but rather expands the terminology to include atheistic indoctrination as well.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

Note: I'm ignoring the description of the debate by posting this, so apologies there.I will even say that actually forcing your child to be a member of your religion, or to subscribe to any of your beliefs, is a form of child abuse. But by that same token, forcing a child to abstain from religion altogether, telling him he is an atheist, and not allowing him to investigate religion on his own terms is child abuse for the exact same reason.The reason that I voted 'No' after noting the above, and the reason that I am ignoring the description, however, is because of what the generally accepted definition of 'forcing religion' is said to be. What most people call 'forcing religion' is not in fact forcing religion of any kind. Someone wearing a crucifix at work- even if they work for the government- does not constitute forcing their religion on you. Someone praying in a public place- even if it's government property- does not constitute forcing their religion on you.I acknowledge that this diverts significantly from the subject at hand, so I'll leave it at that. I would like one person to dispute this to balance out the votes in the debate- any others, please choose clarify, as this is somewhat tangential to the debate topic. I will take your argument as a support or dispute based on its contents rather than the word next to your name; there is no need to artificially skew the vote either way.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

You can't exactly "force" it. Otherwise, I'd agree .
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

How can you force someone to hold to a particular religion? It's a personal choice. Anyway, when the child is grown, they can make their own decision. And I would think that they would abandon the religion that was forced on them. On the other hand, if their parents did not instruct them in their religious beliefs, wouldn't that be even worse? It would mean that the parents did not care about their child's eternal soul.
Debate: Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Side: No

It is true that a child has the right to believe/ dispute certain beliefs and to choose from the diverse branches of religious philosophy and to a certain degree, a parent as the responsibility to guide their child in the right direction to learn the fundamental moralities of humanity. However, there is no quintessential set of values or book instructing parents on how to raise their children developing into a 'perfect adult' as no book exists and this is parallel to how there is no such quality/ state of being 'perfect'. Children who are sent away to a different country or in the past wars, would have left the security and guidance of their parents/ family, it doesn't mean they are completely clueless as how to act as a human or to care/ love/ honour others. Conversely, children need to experience and learn from their experiences to make these judgements for themselves. However, it is true that some things are hard -wired/ inherent to us from the start such as turtles when born know instinctively that they need to go to the water, it may be product of evolution for survival, but children also seem to understand the concept of death before someone has explained it to them.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

Sort of. There is supposed to be equal protection under the law. If we give some couples benefits for being together we need to give it to the rest.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

Sort of. There is supposed to be equal protection under the law. If we give some couples benefits for being together we need to give it to the rest.Talking about the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? That was talking about slavery.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

So, you want to treat gays like slaves then?
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

So, you want to treat gays like slaves then?Nope I just do not think the government should give out marriage licensees personally. Where in my arguments did I ever said gays should be treated as slaves?
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

The 14th amendment has been used many many times to justify decisions by the courts and none of those had to do with slavery. I just wanted to illustrate how bad I thought your point was.Since you aren't advocating the complete abolishment of government recognizing marriage, then I would say it is a right because the government has recognized it that way for straights.The government probably doesn't need to do it any more and it should be removed for everyone, though.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

The 14th amendment has been used many many times to justify decisions by the courts and none of those had to do with slavery. I just wanted to illustrate how bad I thought your point was.Since you aren't advocating the complete abolishment of government recognizing marriage, then I would say it is a right because the government has recognized it that way for straights.The government probably doesn't need to do it any more and it should be removed for everyone, though.My point is when they were signing the 14th amendment I don't think they meant gay marriage.I also think that the same arguments for gay marriage could be used for polygamous marriages by using a broad view of the 14th amendment. Also I would like to note I am avoiding the slippery slope fallacy by stating that I am not saying it will lead to it but that the same arguments could be applied to it.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

Why is polygamy wrong? If everyone involved is consenting adults, and they want to marry five different people, who cares? Just like if a guy wants to marry a guy, why does everyone else get all freaked out? If gay marriage is legal, it does not mean that everyone must enter into a marriage with their own sex, and polygamy does not mean everyone must have multiple spouses. So what difference does it possibly make? Just because an argument in favor of gay marriage can also justify polygamy doesn't make it less valid and shouldn't prevent it from being used. Additionally, the fourteenth amendment wasn't about slavery, it was about protecting the rights of ex-slaves who were still being treated poorly (although, admittedly it didn't do that very well...). The thirteenth amendment is what abolished slavery. A large part of interpreting constitutional law relies on the precedent set by the Supreme Court. In the case of the 14th amendment, it has been translated to include any person who is not being treated equally under law. This meant it ruled bans on mixed race marriages to be unconstitutional, with the Court saying that marriage is a legal contract that citizens of the US can enter into, and should not be kept from any citizen of the US. In Yick Wo vs Hopkins, the Court stated that the 14th amendment was applicable to all races, colors, nationalities, without regard to differences, and in 1971, gender was also something that provided equal protection. 1975 saw disability be added to the list of protection, and 2006 is when homosexuality was decided to be included under gender. With that in mind, bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional and now it is simply a matter of enforcing it.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

Why is polygamy wrong? If everyone involved is consenting adults, and they want to marry five different people, who cares? Just like if a guy wants to marry a guy, why does everyone else get all freaked out? If gay marriage is legal, it does not mean that everyone must enter into a marriage with their own sex, and polygamy does not mean everyone must have multiple spouses. So what difference does it possibly make? Just because an argument in favor of gay marriage can also justify polygamy doesn't make it less valid and shouldn't prevent it from being used. Yes when I meant it was about slavery I meant that as it was part of the "civil war amendments". My point is that was definitely not the original intent of the amendment we can argue all day on whether we should have a "living Constitution" such as the federalists promoted or a original intent Constitution. I personally side with original intent myself.That is not the main point. I don't think any marriage is a "right" as in basic human rights.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

No, we wouldn't argue all day about a living constitution. Equality is a good thing and can be generalized.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

The right to marry is considered part of the basic human right to happiness and the pursuit thereof.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

My point is when they were signing the 14th amendment I don't think they meant gay marriage.A worthless point, good for you.I also think that the same arguments for gay marriage could be used for polygamous marriages by using a broad view of the 14th amendment. Also I would like to note I am avoiding the slippery slope fallacy by stating that I am not saying it will lead to it but that the same arguments could be applied to it.Having one wife is hard enough, let guys have more wives. The second wife should get you a medal.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

A worthless point, good for you.So how is that a worthless point if the 14th amendment didn't mean gay marriage rights?
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

BECAUSE IT IS USED TO GUARANTEE OTHER RIGHTS ALREADY.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

BECAUSE IT IS USED TO GUARANTEE OTHER RIGHTS ALREADY.I am saying it was abused for that in most cases.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

Yeah, those damn people getting equal rights because of the slavery ending. That totally sucks. /endsarcasm
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

Yeah, those damn people getting equal rights because of the slavery ending. That totally sucks. /endsarcasmSo do you think when they were signing the 14th amendment they meant gay marriage?
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

No, they weren't thinking of gay marriage. So what? They were thinking of equality. That's good enough. There isn't equality.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

No, they weren't thinking of gay marriage. So what? They were thinking of equality. That's good enough. There isn't equality.If that wasn't the intended meaning how does it count?I guess it depends if you support original intent or a loose constructionist. I am personally a supporter of following the original intent.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

Well, that's clearly bullshit. The founding fathers never intended for you to use free speech on the internet. Yet, you are here.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: No

Well, that's clearly bullshit. The founding fathers never intended for you to use free specch on the internet. Yet, you are here.I mean use interpretation when they have to but it's pretty clear what they meant and it should be up to the states.
Debate: Is Gay Marriage a Civil Right?
Side: Yes

That's cool. Hypocrites thrive here. It doesn't make sense for it to be states rights. It has federal implications. Plus, a gay couple in Texas isn't really any different than a gay couple in Ohio.