azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

No, a single parent necessarily lacks a fully functioning adult to help take care of a family. There is no way to correlate a lack of gender in the parent to the data.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

guess again. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302319/gay-parenting-bad-kids-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/1
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

I don't read links from you people because it almost never supports you guys. But, it looks like you found a source about gay parents. Well, guess what. I am still right. I said your other source doesn't prove anything, and I am still correct that your other source was worthless.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

I'm sorry, I misunderstood you, I figured when you started talking about data you were interested in seeing some. Why don't you try showing me some data that you don't consider worthless and I'll show you enough respect to actually look at it.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Someone else asked you for data to back up your claim. I came to tell you that your first choice didn't support you at all. If you thought your second choice was so great, how come you didn't use it as your first choice?Why don't you try showing me some data that you don't consider worthless and I'll show you enough respect to actually look at it.My point was not refuted by your second choice of data. My point was that your first choice was worthless.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Most definitely they should not. Fags/Dykes are not a normal part of society, as their very makeup is an abomination of humanity. Children should NEVER be exposed to such a sickness. We wish our children to experience a normal, healthy upbringing.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Gutuftyctuctucghhgfcghcugchghvhgchgvhtvhgv vgvutvhvvghhgctgfg cghc
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

No because they can poop on the couch and I dont want to clean that up, get what im saying?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

No, because, a child needs a man figure and a woman figure not two of each.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

I'm going to pay devils advocate a little because I don't think anyone else who isn't a completely homophobe will post on this side... homosexuality is, by definition, a sexual perversion. Its a sexual interest that goes against sexual taboos. I personally worry what other sexual taboos would they be willing to mentally overcome. Would they find some children sexually attractive?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Homosexuality is not a perversion, it is just a different mindset. Finding children sexually attractive is pedophiles, and that happens with straight people.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Homosexuality is not a perversion, it is just a different mindset. Finding children sexually attractive is pedophiles, and that happens with straight people.Please read Leviticus 20:13
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

A) The Bible is not factual, and can't be used as evidence.B) Leviticus bans lots of stuff, but you don't complain about anything else.C) Leviticus doesn't say it isn't a different mindset.D) Leviticus doesn't say that homosexuality leads to pedophilia.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

A) The Bible is not factual, and can't be used as evidence.Prove that it is false
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

That's not how the real world works. You need to demonstrate how it is true before I attempt to show it is false. But, the world is way older than the Bible says, boom Bible disproven.I am glad you agreed that I was right about the other 3 points.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

That's not how the real world works. You need to demonstrate how it is true before I attempt to show it is false. But, the world is way older than the Bible says, boom Bible disproven.I am glad you agreed that I was right about the other 3 points.Read Answersingenesis by Ken Ham I hope that they answer some questions from you and I never did agree with your other 3 points.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

A) Ken Ham is an idiot.B) You don't have anything to dispute about them, you gave up.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

A) Ken Ham is an idiot.B) You don't have anything to dispute about them, you gave up.Bill Nye is the bigger IDIOT TROLL!
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

So, you admit that Ken Ham is an idiot that shouldn't be listened to, cool.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

The burden of proof is on you too. Prove that it is correct. .
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

No it is on you not me....................................................................
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

No it isn't. Im not making cl;aims. .
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

The burden of proof is mainly on you here. You are using the Bible as a source, you need to back up the validity of that source. However, here's some information on some of the logical fallacies and things in the Bible that cannot be proven true."Many are familiar with Occam’s Razor, which states that, all things being equal, one should not seek complex explanations when more simple ones are available. No one disputes that these other stories predate the Judeo-Christian Bible, so we really only have two options:1. The religious explanation is that while the other stories were very much the same as those in the Bible, they are all false. But when they occur in the Bible (despite it being much the same content), this time the stories are true. One explanation of the resemblances to the earlier myths is that Satan created them to lead people astray from the true Messiah that would come much later. So essentially, an ultra-powerful and evil being (Created by God) influenced humanity to create deceptive stories — thousands of years before the real version — so that people wouldn’t believe the real thing when they saw it.2. The alternative explanation is that the nature of storytelling during the period was such that central themes propagated through time. This combined with the natural tendency to have certain repeating elements in human stories, and the fact that the Bible stories came after the other ones, explains the similarities to previous myths. And since the stories of worldwide floods, virgin births, and people rising from the dead that the Bible is based on were false to begin with (which everyone agrees on) — they are also false in the Bible. In short, the Bible is simply another iteration of the same themes that came long before it." Yes, I know I'm copy-pasting here, just trying to provide some proof against the Bible's factuality and using other people's research already. Source: http://www.danielmiessler.com/blog/the-bible-is-fiction-a-collection-of-evidence
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Please read Dirt Greed & Sex (Paperback) I think you need to be saved.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Perversion - the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.Is a man's anus intended or designed for intercourse?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

You think that thousands of homosexuals are having sex and not enjoying it? The prostate can be reached through the anus causing sexual pleasure. Apparently, it was intended/designed for intercourse. Plus, lesbians rub their vaginas together. Vaginas were designed for intercourse. Is it only gay men you have a problem with?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

You can enjoy many things that are harmful; drugs, alcohol, jumping off a tall building.I have a problem with perversion of gender in general.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

You can enjoy many things that are harmful; drugs, alcohol, jumping off a tall building.Are you saying that drugs, alcohol, and base jumping weren't designed for fun? There is harm from heterosexual relationships, too.I have a problem with perversion of gender in general.Ok, but you have demonstrated that your problem with perversion of gender is unfounded and you have no reason for it. Unless you want to actually address my argument.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

You are getting off track. Is doing something that is harmful more acceptable if the person is having fun doing it? And I didn't say "base jumping" I said just jumping.On the contrary, I have lots of reasons. Just try to point out an aspect of the sexual revolution that you think was positive and we can get this rolling. Unless you would just like me to give you some books to read on the topic.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

You are getting off track. Is doing something that is harmful more acceptable if the person is having fun doing it? And I didn't say "base jumping" I said just jumping.If something is harmful does that mean it shouldn't be allowed? What are you implying? You are implying that if something might be harmful, it is a perversion. That doesn't even make sense. Your example makes no difference. Everything has the potential to be harmful. Heterosexual sex is also harmful. You are way off track and you haven't thought about the implications of your examples. No one gets pleasure from jumping from a building. They get pleasure from jumping and surviving. That's base jumping.On the contrary, I have lots of reasons.But the one you listed is ridiculous.Just try to point out an aspect of the sexual revolution that you think was positive and we can get this rolling.Gays don't have to pretend to be straight, then marry the opposite sex while not enjoying it, then have a family they secretly hate, and go around having gay sex behind their spouses back. That's a pretty big positive.Unless you would just like me to give you some books to read on the topic.Don't bother.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

If something is harmful, especially if it is harmful to society, it should be discouraged. I would think the free fall from jumping off a building would be fairly fun, until you land. The reason I listed makes perfect sense to half the country. Gays never had to marry the opposite sex, hate anyone, or go around having gay sex behind anyone's back. Believe it or not, you can actually have a desire to have sex and not fulfill it. Sexual perversion inundating society is not a positive, it is a negative. The entire basis of saying it is something positive depends on homosexuality being immutable (something that an individual does not or can not change). Being an African american is immutable, you can not reasonably stop being so black. So any advancement to the African american community is positive. Saying the advancement of homosexuality is positive before there is consensus on weather or not it is immutable, and grounds to be considered a suspect class is immature and requires you to ignore all the other affects that advancement has had on society.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

If something is harmful, especially if it is harmful to society, it should be discouraged. Not always, mind your own business. Homosexuality isn't more harmful, and isn't harmful to society. I would think the free fall from jumping off a building would be fairly fun, until you land. So, you don't actually feel that jumping from a building would be fun.The reason I listed makes perfect sense to half the country. One of the items on your list was a perfectly legal item. So, no, your list was bad to the whole country.Gays never had to marry the opposite sex, hate anyone, or go around having gay sex behind anyone's back.That's what they were doing. Believe it or not, you can actually have a desire to have sex and not fulfill it.How generous of you. That is a truly great option you have presented.Sexual perversion inundating society is not a positive, it is a negative. The entire basis of saying it is something positive depends on homosexuality being immutable (something that an individual does not or can not change).You haven't demonstrated how it is negative. There are lots of choices people make in their lives. I am sure you do stuff that some people wouldn't like. Maybe we should use that as a reason to ban you from something.Being an African american is immutable, you can not reasonably stop being so black. So any advancement to the African american community is positive.That isn't true. Advancing blacks to an unreasonable status would be negative. Like if you made a special committee of black people that were allowed to enforce their own laws and weren't governed at all. That is advancement, but it isn't positive.Saying the advancement of homosexuality is positive before there is consensus on weather or not it is immutable, and grounds to be considered a suspect class is immature and requires you to ignore all the other affects that advancement has had on society.We are trying to decide if what they do is a reason to stop them from certain rights. We can decide that without determining if they will stop doing the action in the future.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Not always, mind your own business. Homosexuality isn't more harmful, and isn't harmful to society.When something is harmful to my society isn't it my business?You haven't demonstrated how it is negative.I have not, because homosexuality is only part of the problem and is related to the breakdown of the family, the emasculation of men, the rise of feminism, and sexual liberation. Most people out there can pretty obviously see the degradation of our culture, just go surf peopleofwalmart.com for a couple minutes. Of course what you would say is that homosexuality is not related.Open homosexuality is the end game of turning away from the traditional Christian nation we used to be. While the argument today is over homosexuality, it is still representative of the whole road that has led us to this point. Proponents of the homosexual agenda need to be made to defend the entirety of the sexual revolution before being granted further reforms of our culture. We need to be going in the opposite direction.Advancing blacks to an unreasonable status would be negative. I didn't bring up methods. The black community is unwilling to address problems within, and have been sold a false narrative by liberals blaming their problems on white racists. What I was trying to say the goal of rising blacks to an equal standing with everyone else is honorable, because being black qualifies as a suspect class. We can decide that without determining if they will stop doing the action in the future. If sexual orientation is mutable. "Discriminating" against those who chose to be homosexual is perfectly valid. So the methods liberals typically use to get their way (supreme court rulings), because they can not get their way through the democratic process, would just be a gross violation of the people's right to govern themselves as they want. Of course if the people of the United States overwhelmingly decide homosexuality is ok then fine, that is the way it is. It doesn't matter if it is someone's choice or not. But unfortunately these issues are going to be forced into the supreme court by liberals. In there, the question of immutability is important... (of course what should be more important should be weather or not the constitution addresses homosexuals, which it doesn't... but unless Antonin Scalia is cloned 4 times and Scalia 2, 3, 4, and 5 are given seats on the court, that isn't going to happen. )Tell me, how many lawsuits have there been to try to re-ban gay marriage in the couple of states that actually voted to allow same sex marriage? So if a court can make same sex marriage legal, but never makes it illegal, how is it remotely fair for that decision to be made in court?
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

homosexuality is, by definition, a sexual perversion.According to an study called "Is Homosexuality a Paraphilia" (basically a perversion)"At least, if homosexuality were deemed a paraphilia, it would be relatively unique among them, taxonometrically speaking."-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310132/ So, basically, while homosexuality may have been considered a sexual perversion by Freud, it certainly is very different from all other sexual perversions. It is completely separate. Also, sexual perversion is not necessarily something that should restrict adoption rights. Homosexuality would in no way inhibit someone's parental capacity. It's not a sexual perversion, if it even is that, that would affect parenthood. Its a sexual interest that goes against sexual taboos. I personally worry what other sexual taboos would they be willing to mentally overcome....So you're basically saying that because someone is different in one way, they'd be ok with being different in more ways? You've claimed that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, which is genetic. If you have one genetic disorder (again, not saying homosexuality is a genetic disorder) it doesn't mean you are just like "Well, I've got one, lets pick another one." There is no evidence of people who are homosexual developing more sexual perversions than anyone who is straight. Would they find some children sexually attractive?Of your arguments, this one seems the least-well thought out.Are straight mothers sexually attracted to their sons? Are straight fathers sexually attracted to their daughters? Of course not! Well, unless they have a very odd sexual perversion, which has no relation to being gay.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

So, basically, while homosexuality may have been considered a sexual perversion by Freud, it certainly is very different from all other sexual perversions. It is completely separate. Also, sexual perversion is not necessarily something that should restrict adoption rights. Okay it is a sexual perversion different from some others.So you're basically saying that because someone is different in one way, they'd be ok with being different in more ways? I'm saying that it takes a lot of strength to go against a social taboo. Although some people may find the same sex attractive, because the taboo exists through our conditioning that causes repulsion to the idea of same sex relationships.My last question was poorly worded. What I meant to say was: if an individual can overcome the social taboo of same sex relations, then are they able to overcome the taboo of adult-child relations? The fact is there are a lot of men that would find young teenagers (or even children) attractive but it is due to a taboo, and repulsion, that they don't allow that idea to come to the forefront of their minds. If a gay person, had those feelings, they would be more likely for it to become a overt sexual feeling. So its not that pedophilic feelings are more prevalent in homosexuals it is more that if those feelings were there, they'd be more liking to go along with them, allowing themselves to feel an overt sexual feeling, and ultimately act on that feeling.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

1ho·mo·sex·u·al adjective \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\: sexually attracted to people of the same sex: based on or showing a sexual attraction to people of the same sexBe careful with the term "by definition"
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Be careful about patronising when you don't understand what they mean. Define: perversion. Put it in Google.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Slippery slope fallacy. Homosexuality has nothing to do with those other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html  http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Slippery slope fallacy was made up by liberals to discredit conservatives.It is well known fact that gays become that way due to them being abused as young children.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Dude, just stick to the Bible references idiot. Your statements at least make sense at that point.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Dude, just stick to the Bible references idiot. Your statements at least make sense at that point.YOUR A TROLL AND I WONT TALK TO YOU
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

That's a lie and you know it.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Ad hom fallacy. If he is wrong, say why instead of making irrational attacks.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Well that response makes very much logical sense, suggesting that you are most certainly not a troll... (sarcasm) Seriously. If you are making claims, provide viable sources. I have now provided evidence that the Bible is not an acceptable source. You are the only one here trolling right now.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Ok. You just made that claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Prove that. That is not a well-known fact, except maybe well-known among the ignorant zealots. However, if you want me to provide some credible sources against your claim, here you are:http://www.pandys.org/articles/abuseandhomosexuality.html http://kalimunro.com/wp/articles-info/lesbian-gay/am-i-gay-because-of-the-abuse http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths  (scroll down to number 3)
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Slippery slope fallacy was made up by liberals to discredit conservatives.Even if that were true, it wouldn't make sense because in NO instance is it EVER logical to say, "A -> B -> C -> ... Z, therefore A should not happen." It is well known fact that gays become that way due to them being abused as young children. For this to be true, you are assuming that EVERY homosexual has been abused as a child, without exception. Irrefutably, I can say that this is not true. I have gay siblings, and I know they were never abused. For future reference, if your going to make that kind of claim you should at least source where you are getting that information. Saying, "It is a well known fact" proves nothing, and delegitimize your argument.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Hahaha wow, I really hope you are trolling and not really that stupid.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

This is a troll post, right?I mean, you're not serious, are you?You're making my brain stall.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

Slippery slope fallacy was made up by liberals to discredit conservatives. That is your biased opinion, not fact. I dont care about left verses right and even if I did, that would still be a new low of irrationality. Saying something is wrong does not make it so. I prefer logic and truth to religious delusion.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: NO because

Look, can you stop quoting these logical fallacies. You clearly don't understand them. I didn't suggest that society allowing one thing would lead to society allowing another.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

I personally worry what other sexual taboos would they be willing to mentally overcome. Would they find some children sexually attractive? Yes you did, sweetie.
Debate: Should Gays Be Allowed To Adopt?
Side: Yes because

No. I dont agree with you that i allegedly do not understand these fallacies. That is YOUR OPINION. Have a nice day, cutie.