azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not affect the security of the practice of religion, even with the “free exorcise” clause. It is not the U.S. Constitution that directly places restriction on religion, and the practice there of. It provides Judicial separation only. It is the “Alter or Abolish the course of a tyrannical governing bodies.” From the Declaration of Independence which sets a scale to the extent any judicial separation can be sought out, with a nonbiased fashion, by the U.S. Constitutional separation process. The U.S. Constitution insures only the opportunity to a judicial separation. The First Amendment describes a refusal of this invitation as a declaration of Independence by religion set by precedent of the United States Declaration of Independence then United States Constitution. In connection to taxation as payment in advance for representation. This is the trap set by precedent, Religions collect donations which equates as taxation to members.The First change described to the Constitution in Amendment One is toward the bias Separation process itself. Religions can be accused as a Tyrannical form of governing body, when not offering a Basic non bias separation process themselves. The members of a religion are often tax payers of some kind, or citizens of the United States of America.
Debate: Does The First Amendment Protect The Right To Practice Atheism!
Side: No it does not!

The fact remains Atheism is practiced under the United States Constitution. It is a spoken and written denial of something not described to the Atheist, by others. It has a connection to the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment right, as are most all religion at some point are a militia. Words, and the assembly of people being the most basic Arm that a person can bring to bear against others, be it Speech, Press, or Grievance. What religions often do not practice is a Fifth Amendment. As religions often compel criminals to be a witness against themselves without U.S. Constitutional non bias separation as a guide to due process of law.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

I'd say it most certainly hurt the children involved. Someone's sick penchant for simply VIEWING such horrific acts can only be allowed by the acts taking place to begin with.Those who perform these acts, video them and then distribute them should be brought to my place. Once I'm done with them, films such as Hostel and Saw will look like G rated Disney movies.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Eliminating the makers will stop the viewing, but eliminating the viewing won't stop the makers. people rape children because of an urge inside of them, not because people watch shit.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Did you actually type that while sober? What an imbecilic response.People who make/watch such things should be taken out back and given a new breather hole in their forehead. That being said, eliminating the makers must stop the viewers since the elimination of the makers doesn't allow for the viewers to view. It would be impossible to view should the makers be eradicated. It does sound as if you're quite knowledgeable regarding the reasons people rape children. I won't ask why.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

It seems that you are somehow unable to read what this topic is about, despite the fact that I've probably said 10 times by now. My point, in the response to yours, was that the elimination of the viewing of CP (well, making it illegal) does not do anything to help stop the raping of children.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Once I'm done with them, films such as Hostel and Saw will look like G rated Disney movies.Damn right... save me some...
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Again not all child porn refers to a real child being raped in anyway shape or form. There are instances of drawn, sculpted, and written child porn. In which don't necessarily pertain to anyone being hurt in the first place. Viewing child porn hurts no one and the children cannot be re victimized by the replay or repaint of a video or photo without there own mind destroying them. They do not get a magical spider sense that tingles every time someone gets off nor are they any longer connected to the information except in terms of pixilated rendered form in which case a real child had been abused. This demonization of accessing or possessing child pornography is simply to make people feel better about themselves while harming others.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Your anger suites your well. That's where logic took a long walk and won't come back.First look at yourself for not going after the FBI for the distribution , then can you say your not a hypocrite.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Odd fetishes and strange behavior can be attributed to a wide variety of mental issues. Most of which are developed in childhood by means of isolation, sexual abuse, physical abuse, (and so on...) later develop in a more absurd manner, such as a sexual fetish. It is strange and hard to understand, but it occurs no less. It is not a healthy state of mind, and viewing pornography of a fetish only further weakens the mind.-Not to mention what occurs to make child pornography. That is a whole other kind of wrong.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

And do you think this applies to homosexuality too?  Just wondering because this actualy argument has obviously been won on the 'yes' side...
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Men's sexual abuse of boys is more accurate labeled "male-male molestation". Men's abuse of girls is called male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.Child molesters are equal opportunity abusers. Even heterosexual abusers will molest boys.The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Quoting Gilazy - I believe that the point Kinda is trying to make is that, whilst you argue that homosexuality is different to paedophilia based on the fact that one is a consenting sexual relationship, your argument does not define the difference between the two TYPES of people - the person not the act.You yourself said that homosexuality comes down to a preference for a mate of the same sex, as hetrosexuality is a preference for the opposite sex. In this sense, paedophilia is preference for those who are younger (specifically, prepubescent children - and hebephilia is a preference for pubescent individuals). So, in essence, paedophilia is just the same as homosexuality. It is merely that society (with it's boundaries on age limits of sexual intercourse) judges whether or not it is acceptable to be one way or another, but in truth just like homosexuals don't have any choice in being gay or straight, paedophiles don't have any choice in that they prefer a younger partner. By judging paedophiles as being "disgusting, mentally disordered beings" we are also judging homosexuals as the same.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

"So, in essence, paedophilia is just the same as homosexuality."Your argument does not support that conclusion. In fact, quite the opposite. Child molesters are typically unable to have mature relationships and thier gender identity is not formed as it is with hetero or homosexuals. Their sexual orientation is toward children, often of either sex. Many times, its a crime of opportunity as the perpetrator typically can not have his (or her) choice of a victim of a certain sex.Your comparison of homosexuals with child molesters is flawed in a number of ways. 1. Adult homosexuals are doing nothing illegal when they form loving relationships with other adults. I challenge you to find a law still standing forbidding homosexual behavior in private between two consenting adults.2. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. I challenge you to look in the DSM-IV (I think that's the latest version) and find it listed.3. Child abusers have a choice -- to not abuse. Contrary to popular beleive, sex offenders generally do not re-offend. If they do, it is at a lower rate than other criminals.I believe your conclusions reflect your hostile attitude toward homosexuals more than anything else. It certainly is not a result of logical of factual thinking.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

No. Homosexuality can and does develop the same way that heterosexuality does, by individual preference. A great way to explain this is by using the example of musical preference, which I assume speaks for itself. A further example is the prominence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, whether it be for lust or dominance is negligeable. If you do not agree, I have an experiment that should result in some form of evidence. What we do is unite all people and decide to cast no judgement and have no negative disposition towards one another, thusly providing the ideal conditions for mental normity. This should conclude, after generations of practice, by naturally eliminating mental corruptions, such as fetishes or social development issues. If homosexuality persists, than it is undoutably a normal human condition, and not caused by some damaging mental catalyst.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Really? I'm comparing homosexuality with paedophilia. I don't see how musical preference has much to do with it but mostly fags listen to JLS or Lady Gaga and shit like that (joke - it's not really an argument) I would also say that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a lot different from that in human society - but from a lot of the example there are extremely rare gay relationships and more often acts of homosexuality - like a male dog humping another male dog and then humping a female dog. Show me the experiment but I doubt it'll be without its flaws.I love how people say we shouldn't cast judgement upon another when it comes to gays but not the same when it comes to paedophilia. You're telling me if paedophilia (and all other sick 'fetishes') continue to exist (and even grow as it is doing now) it is a normal human condition?Everything you can say about homosexuality can be applied to other fetishes (which imo is basically what gayness is) and I'm pretty sure if they did research on animal behaviour you'd find similar results with them. Some major differences which I can always talk about but you know what my point is.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

I would like to point out that we are not competing, but rather trying to reach a common ground of understanding. My mention of musical preference more or less was my inadvertant way of saying "to each his/her own". The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is undeniably vast. The issue with pedophilia is that a mature adult engages in sexual activity with a child whom, due to immaturiy, is sexually undeveloped and easily manipulated, which is why it is commonly considered rape. Homosexuality occurs between two mature persons whom choose their sexuality. One could say that the goal of sex is to bring forth life, and therefore homosexuality is immoral. However, one fails to realize how the majority of all human choices do not promote life.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Hmmm ok I respect that I guess but in THIS case I will always see it as a fight. I feel homosexuality has gone too far and is too far integrated with society to the point where drastic steps need to be taken (or so I feel anyway). But ignore that for nowYes you're right paedophiles do take advantage of the fact that these people are easily manipulated and it is considered rape. That doesn't exactly defeat the nature of paedophilia. You're not arguing the nature of it only the route to which they can fulfuill their 'needs'.Also your last point should be set aside as there are millions of disputes to your case.Can you give me a reason why homosexuality exists and is considered normal and okay while paedophilia isn't?
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Well I thought I already did. Homosexuality is a decision between two persons while pedophilia is rape.-I would like to know how homosexuality affets you. What has it done to you that you feel violates you?
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

I believe that the point Kinda is trying to make is that, whilst you argue that homosexuality is different to paedophilia based on the fact that one is a consenting sexual relationship, your argument does not define the difference between the two TYPES of people - the person not the act. You yourself said that homosexuality comes down to a preference for a mate of the same sex, as hetrosexuality is a preference for the opposite sex. In this sense, paedophilia is preference for those who are younger (specifically, prepubescent children - and hebephilia is a preference for pubescent individuals). So, in essence, paedophilia is just the same as homosexuality. It is merely that society (with it's boundaries on age limits of sexual intercourse) judges whether or not it is acceptable to be one way or another, but in truth just like homosexuals don't have any choice in being gay or straight, paedophiles don't have any choice in that they prefer a younger partner. By judging paedophiles as being "disgusting, mentally disordered beings" we are also judging homosexuals as the same.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Wow. I am honoured.You have been able to put across my points better than I feel I have ever managed to. Or maybe I understood what you had to say before you even said it.Either way - nice one.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Soz for late post didn't see this.How is it that paedophilia is rape but homosexuality isn't? If a child and a grown adult want to get it on - why is it still rape?(Not to say I don't think it isn't wrong)You wanna know how it affects me?It definately pisses me off. Faggots walking round the streets with their gay walks, strutting round like women. Wearing gay clothing. They are not men. Men should be men and women should be women. That simple. They're fucking with the system. It just pisses me off to see a queero. Tight leather jeans and tight pink tops and shit. But the worst part is not that it will personally or physically affect me. But my sons and daughters will have to grow up in a world where this shit is not just legal but the fucking norm. It sickens me.Plus how can a guy let another guy fuck him? Or how can he give head? Or even kiss (with tongue) another guy? I shudder just thinking about it. Even when I see it on T.V. - I know they're acting but wtf? cmon!!?There I said it. Not trying to be rational and debateable and logical. It's a rant. Fuck fags. Not literaly.:D
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

More than about watching child porn being morally wrong or inciting child abuse, it is about demand and supply. While a lack of viewership cannot completely make the making of such videos go away, it can certainly reduce it a lot.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Disregarding the making of, legality of and acceptability of child porn. The viewing of child porn hurts those involved in child porn. Proof arises from the recent case of Vannessa George, and her two accomplices, in the Little Ted's Nursery case. As far as I am aware, the mothers and fathers (and in the future the children) do not know if their child was used and abused in the pictures taken. It causes them all great distress. So the mere knowledge of the existence of child pornography which can be looked at by others surely hurts the child involved and the family supporting that child.Furthermore to dispute the point made about "1000 videos for 1000 children" and that watching pornographic videos reduces the urge to perform sexually abusive acts towards children, I would like to raise the point that catharsism doesn't always work. It has been shown in aggression that the acting out or observation of aggressive behaviours does NOT discourage/reduce aggressive acts (as in the situations where in ye olde days, in ancient Greece, they would put people to fight each other in pits, as it was thought the audience would have expressed enough aggression in the viewing of it to reduce the aggression in society). And in fact it has been shown that in situations where aggressors act out behaviours they feel positive afterwards and so are encouraged to increase acts of a similar kind, causing an on-going snowball of acts of aggression.So it can't be said that the viewing of child pornography reduces the chances that they will act out on it in future. However, it also can't be said that it will encourage it. So in reference as to whether or not the viewing of child pornography hurts those viewing it: if the viewer is a paedophile, then it can't be stated how it affects their complicated mental states. Now, if the viewer is a child it would most definitely cause some sort of mental harm (since we're not specifically arguing the legality of viewing it for pleasure, we must bring into account what happens if someone not WANTING to view it experiences the scenes displayed in child pornography).
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

The same argument can be made for violent movies or porn. Just because it could mess up a child's mind doesn't mean that adults shouldn't be allowed to view it.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Violent movies dont have the same effect, beacause then there would be more people going around shooting everyone simply because they've seen a violent film. Porn does mess you up though, even adult porn. Just as drugs mess you up, porn has addicted many, and makes many want to act out said fantasies. And what if that person is watching child porn, they will want to act out the fantasies.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

so you're suggesting that people want to have sex because they see it in porn?you do realize that porn hasn't been around as long as mating.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Yes take for example video games -they show tremendous violence the most infamous video game Grand Theft Auto showing rape. Shooting games in which there is endless killing. Does that make someone want to go on rampage? There are lots of extremely violent films with lots of gore in them. Child porn does not make people who view it into sexual predators who would hunt down children. The same can be said about adult porn - why are men attacking women; or women become more deviant. Or BDSM porn want people want to hurt each other, or granny porn want to chase old ladies. A rapists may have lots porn but his actions are not determined by porn, what he does is because there is something wrong with him, he does not see the consequence of his actions. He can be someone who rapes women or children -he is a psychopath. Not everyone is a psychopath. Those who find it disgusting should not see it. All porn is disgusting for some people. The incidence of rape will not be lessened with absence of porn and it does not increase because of it. Ending porn will not end rape, otherwise it would be best solution to all sex crimes.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

Yes it does. When you're a consumer of a type of media you're creating a demand for it. When you create a demand for child pornography CHILDREN are hurt as a result.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: Yes

I hear a lot of people saying we have to look at this and such with an open mind but, honestly, isn't that just selling yourself? If you don't agree with something why would your take the others down with you claiming "have an open mind". Having an open mind to me is supposed to involve things like a new dish at a restaurant or a new country--not criminal acts that harm millions of people regularly. The point of having an open mind is to expand your knowledge in a positive way, not to find some good in a mentally unstable criminal and encourage the rest of the world to say "hey, they're only kids, they wouldn't matter so much. Let's watch them being abused and raped on camera so we can add to the demand!". With the millions of jobless, poor people in the world that desperately need financial aid and money something illegal, easy, and high in demand would definitely spark, even with people who wouldn't usually be attracted in such a thing. Anything to stay alive and keep food on their table, even if they have to risk their morals. I'm not saying I'm closed minded and don't want people to try to accept things they usually wouldn't, it's somewhat of a double standard, but some things are illegal for a reason.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: Yes

I've met people who act like that. "Don't be so close-minded! Are you against equality or something?!" No. I'm just not into people getting hurt physically or emotionally. Things that cause (directly or indirectly) or have the potential to cause other people physical or emotional pain are never okay and I don't understand how anyone could ever try to excuse themselves for it.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

hello pyg , who i hate to love , love to hate. If i smashed someone in the face with a videotape of cp then it will hurt. NOT as much as the hurt caused to the victims of cp. unfortunately.You give me ideas of going out and killing sick twisted arseholes. CHILD PORN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. EXCUSES FOR CHILD PORN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IF THIS IS ACCEPTABLE THEN IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR ME TO KILL PEOPLE.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Child porn doesnt not automatically constitute the victimization of a real child. There are Written, painted, drawn and sculpted renditions of children that are in no way hurting anyone in there making or viewing. This fact must be acknowledged.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

THIS IS HOW MUCH OF A MORON YOU ARE , KINDA. YOU HAVE THE SHITS AT ME AND BECAUSE YOU ARE A TERRORIST YOU JUST DOWNPOINTED ME FOR AGREEING WITH YOU THAT CHILD PORN IS WRONG . ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT YOU DONT REALLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS WRONG? ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU JUST SAY ITS WRONG TO HIDE THE FACT THAT YOU INDULGE IN IT? FUCK YOU , YOU BACKSLIDING ANIMAL!
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

Mmmm ,Mmmm ! Talk about being emotional . This clouds rational thinking.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: No

As i've clearly pointed out several times, this is not a debate on the MAKING of child porn. It is merely asking on whether the viewing of it actually hurts anyone? Unfortunately, for you guys, you can not prove that it does.
Debate: Does the VIEWING of Child Pornography hurt anyone?
Side: yes

What benefit does it have. The harm may not be physical, but viewing anything distasteful is harmful to menatl well-being.