azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

Marrying across species is completely different to same sex marriage and incest is nothing like homosexuality.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

If you are going to downvote, please submit a counterargument.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

What if two siblings love each other in a more than family way? From what you just said it's wrong to keep them from loving each other
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

By upvoting you I am not endorsing your comment, I am endorsing freedom of belief, choice, and speech.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

Sounds to me like you're just grabbing for attention while trying to look like a 'good' person and getting an upvote in return.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

I dont do drama anymore so look elsewhere. .
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

Then don't respond, 'victim' .
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

I dont usually consider myself a victim anymore. .
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

This isn't a surprise that people would down-vote me in the negatives. Just proves that what I say is right.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

So if I made the statement "Atheists are right", and we had the entire US population vote on it, then at least 75% of the votes would be down-votes, so that means atheists are right :)
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

Actually a lot of people would upvote you.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

75% of the nation is Christian, so at least 75% of the votes would be down-votes. You said people down-voting you in the negatives proves you're right, so using your same logic it proves that atheists are right.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

That's some twisted logic right there.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

You down vote my Atheist posts for absolutely no reason. You are an Atheist then.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

lol nope. I do it for my reasons.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

You said downvotes make me right, which means you support Atheism and oppose Christianity.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

It's only to me. Not to others.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

Downvotes make you right, upvotes make others right. Awesome.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

Upvotes and down-vote to me makes me right.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

Any votes make you correct is even more backwards, congratulations.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

Just to let you know, because you are so oblivious to the world, the reason you got downvoted is because of "This just disgusts and sickens me." You didn't watch the clip, and you have a "reaction" of disgust. The actually clip has 2 normal dressed women walking into the house and they say "Taylor has 2 moms." That's it. Not much to be disgusted with.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

It still shows that Disney Channel supports gay marriage.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

Thanks for pointing out the obliviousness. Look, we don't care that you are a huge homophobe. If you came on here and said that it bothers you we wouldn't have as much of a problem. If you said that it is a bad idea to promote gay marriage, fine. But, having it disgust and sicken you is ridiculous.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

I can say that it disgusts and sickens me if I want to because I am entitled to my own opinion. I don't know why people like you and others are so surprised and attacking me on this issue.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

I can say that it disgusts and sickens me if I want to because I am entitled to my own opinion.You are a liar. You know for a fact that it doesn't disgust and sicken you that they made it on TV. Disgust is reserved for those gays who go around in public with the assless chaps and ball gags whipping each other. "Taylor has 2 moms" is highly inappropriate at worst. You are entitled to your opinion, but everyone else is entitled to downvote incredibly stupid positions. I don't know why people like you and others are so surprised and attacking me on this issue.Then, you are a complete idiot, because I just explained it to you.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

You are a liar. You know for a fact that it doesn't disgust and sicken you that they made it on TV. Disgust is reserved for those gays who go around in public with the assless chaps and ball gags whipping each other. "Taylor has 2 moms" is highly inappropriate at worst. You are entitled to your opinion, but everyone else is entitled to downvote incredibly stupid positions.You can think, I am a liar but that's all up to you. You can believe a lie then because to me it disgusts and sickens me that people support this sin and perversion. You can say all you want that my position is stupid but it's true. I don't know why you continue to dispute me or even try to debate me when my position will never change at all. So why do you even try? Nothing is going to change. So why bother? Then, you are a complete idiot, because I just explained it to you.Again you can think I am a complete idiot but that's all up to you.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

people support this sin and perversion.Okay, why do you think they are supporting it? They never said they did.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

They are supporting it by putting it in their show. If they didn't then they wouldn't show it on there.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

They also showed a kid being a bully in that show. Does that mean they support bullying?
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

You can think, I am a liar but that's all up to you.You are a liar or an idiot, up to you.You can believe a lie then because to me it disgusts and sickens me that people support this sin and perversion.This one little sin, not really any others. What are you hiding?You can say all you want that my position is stupid but it's true.Not understanding the proper reaction to things is stupid.I don't know why you continue to dispute me or even try to debate me when my position will never change at all.Remember what started this? I was explaining to you why you were downvoted.So why do you even try? Nothing is going to change. So why bother? That might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard a Christian say. You are asking why I would try to change your opinion while trying to change everyone's opinion.Again you can think I am a complete idiot but that's all up to you.And the fact that you are a complete idiot.When you show disgust for something that is benign, what do you do for the stuff that is actually disgusting. You just equated showing gay porn to what this Disney show did. Apparently, you think the Disney channel is gay porn.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

This one little sin, not really any others. What are you hidingI am not hiding anything. What's your point? That might be the stupidest thing I have ever heard a Christian say. You are asking why I would try to change your opinion while trying to change everyone's opinion.Whatever, if you think it's stupid that's up to you. Just because I put out my opinion that it disgusts me and sickens me that people support this doesn't indicate that I am trying to change everyone's opinion. You can think I am but you're wrong. And the fact that you are a complete idiot.When you show disgust for something that is benign, what do you do for the stuff that is actually disgusting. You just equated showing gay porn to what this Disney show did. Apparently, you think the Disney channel is gay porn.Again, it's up to you if you think I am a complete idiot but I know I am not. Notice, how I don't even insult you but you insult me? I think you should be able to debate without insulting but I think you have a problem with that and many others do to. I am only saying that it disgusts and sickens me that they support it and others do as well. I never thought that Disney Channel is gay porn that's what you thought not me.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

I am only saying that it disgusts and sickens me that they support itThey showed a bully on their show, they obviously support bullying.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

I am not hiding anything. What's your point? It's ok, that part was for anyone else who reads the post. ;)Whatever, if you think it's stupid that's up to you. No, that's pretty dumb no matter what. You think it is crazy for me to do the exact same thing you are doing.Just because I put out my opinion that it disgusts me and sickens me that people support this doesn't indicate that I am trying to change everyone's opinion. True. The fact that you are trying to change everyone's opinion is indicating that you are trying to change everyone's opinion.You can think I am but you're wrong.Either way, I am not doing anything different than yourself.Again, it's up to you if you think I am a complete idiot but I know I am not. Notice, how I don't even insult you but you insult me? I think you should be able to debate without insulting but I think you have a problem with that and many others do to. You insult people all the time.I am only saying that it disgusts and sickens me that they support it and others do as well. I never thought that Disney Channel is gay porn that's what you thought not me.So, you are saying that gay porn doesn't disgust you. Interesting. Look, I am trying to point out what your statements mean. I assumed you must feel that gay porn is disgusting, right? So, if you feel that the Disney channel is disgusting, and gay porn is disgusting, you are equating the two. You are saying the Disney channel is as bad as gay porn.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

So, if you feel that the Disney channel is disgusting, and gay porn is disgusting, you are equating the two. You are saying the Disney channel is as bad as gay porn.Not necessarily. He never explained how disgusting he felt the two were.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

The only difference is his level of disgust which would still liken the Disney channel to gay porn.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

No, it doesn't. It just shows that they acknowledge it exists. They're not saying it's good or bad. It's good they're not taking sides.For example, they've shown vegetarians on the show. They've also shown kids stealing on the show. That doesn't mean they support it.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

Ultimately if they show that the gay couple that means they are supporting it. If they didn't support it they would have never exposed the gay couple at all.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

No, it doesn't. If they show a criminal, does that mean they support crime?
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: The kids are too young

It depends really. If that person was criminal in real life then yes.
Debate: First gay couple on disney channel
Side: It's about time

What kind of logic is that? If they show a criminal, and they are not glorifying him/her, why does that mean they're supporting crime?
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

Normally I would not agree with a government body enacting laws against dietary intake, however, when those laws act to prevent cruelty to animals I feel I have to agree. To think that one's dietary rights supersede the respectful treatment of an animal may be just too much. I realize that it is controversial as to whether or not the force-feeding of an animal is cruelty, but I believe there may be some physical evidence to support that it is: There has been documented physical trauma created by the insertion of the feeding device; also, it is well known that the rapid enlargement of an organ can cause enough increased tension on the capsule of that organ as to cause physical discomfort. Due to these aspects of the feeding process I feel that there is a form of cruelty being delivered to the fowl. As long as the animals are not being treated humanely I cannot support the sale of Foie Gras.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

Isn't killing animals to eat them cruel... i guess the government should just ban meat then right? problem solved? (sarcastic but not in like a mean way, just to make a point =) )
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

LKitchen, your comment brings up the reason why we have government regulations in the first place. The main argument I'm seeing against banning foie gras is that the government has no right to force a ban on how we eat. Why not? That's one reason why we even have a government, to set definitions and rules for living in a peaceful society. Yes America is the land of the free...within reason. Anything else is just barbarianism. If the government doesn't step in then the idea of "animal cruelty" would be open to wide interpretation.However I will admit that I believe the process is flawed and deeply corrupt but that's another issue. The issue here is that the procedure of force feeding duck and geese that causes discomfort to the animal AND has been proven to increase the mortality rate of the animal just to provide a LUXURY dish is morally wrong. Especially since it's totally unnecessary because a humane alternative is available where you still get your engorged liver but without the controversial mistreatment of animals.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

The government should have the right to ban this type of food because in this case, the animals are being abused. Is fatty liver truly healthy anyway? Why abuse so many ducks and geese for an unhealthy delicacy.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

First question we must ask our self, is how would we feel to be treated like this, being force fed a food to become more delicious for a consumer. That is not the way I would like to be treated. I work at a meat cutting shop in Az, and we sell Beef Tripe (which is the inside lining of a cow's stomach). We also sell Chiken Liver's, Hearts, Gizards, and Necks, but these animals are raised at farms the normal way not abused before death by (force feeding them).
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

Kay, so WOW, talk about double standards?! you say its wrong but you work at a meat cutting shop?! No matter how the animal is rased they should NOT be killed.. Force feeding an animal is wrong and so is being raised just to be killed and devoured!! (on a farm).
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I definitely believe that the government has the right to ban this. Personally I feel the government controls everything already but force feeding and animal that is definitely animal cruelty. I really think this falls more into the side of Animal Cruelty then the government trying to control what we eat. Right now I think that force feeding is hateful and heartless. I am in no way a vegeterian but why put suffering on an animal. It is morally wrong and not right in anyway.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I did not know what Foie Gras was until I read this debate!Duck or goose that has been forced-fed corn until its liver is eight to ten times its size, in a short time,sounds like animal cruelty to me.Eating any part of any animal that is hurt and handled in this manner does not appeal to me.To cause health issues and call it a delicacy,a French delicacy not here in America!
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I believe that this city has every right to ban the food. After doing a bit of research i found that foie gras is a fatty liver of a duck that has been force fed to enlarge it ten times its normal size. I dont know about you but if i were being force fed and my liver was ten times its original size i wouldnt be very happy with the fact that people were eating it. This is animal cruelty and should be stopped.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

Normally I don't like the government telling me what I can and cannot eat, however, in this case I believe that they do have a right to ban. I am not a vegetarian, but I do care about animal rights, force feeding just doesn't seem like something that should be done. I know that the other side of the argument is that the animals in feed lots are in dirty conditions that cannot be good for them either, however I believe that should be changed as well. If people are doing something that can cause health problems for an animal, I don't think it should be legal and that the government has a right to ban it.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

Cruelty to animals is the infliction of suffering or harm upon animals, other than humans, for purposes other than self-defense. More narrowly, it can be harm for specific gain, such as killing animals for food or fur use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals) I believe they have a right to ban Foie Gras. It is consider animal cruelty, read the above definition. How would you like to be force fed? It's like eating too much and having that really full feeling like your going to burst if you eat one more bite, but then your forced to eat more. It does not impose on our freedom because animal cruelty is already illegal and this falls into that category. Yes, we eat cows, chickens, and pigs which falls into the definition. Although I personally believe it is inhuman how they are treated, it is said that they are slaughtered in the most human way possible. It is not considered animal cruelty for that reason.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

Gavaging ducks and geese is morally wrong. If we can't help ducks and geese, how can we help ourselves? In my opinion, force-feeding animals is perverted. However, anyone who force-feeds geese, has a right to do that (in a place that doesn't have it banned already).
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

What about killing them beau? they are dying anyways and thats a lot worse than force feeding... would that mean the government has the right to ban meat?
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I would definitely rather be killed right away than tortured. There has to be logic here. It is cruel to force feed animals, I understand meat being part of the food chain but torturing an animal for food that is morally wrong we can definitely argue about this but I know its wrong no one and nothing should be tortured.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I believe the government is doing the right thing on account of its harm to ducks. Its one thing to kill something quickly and painlessly, but to have two weeks of force feeding is way too much, and is no way to treat any living thing.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

I am not the kind of person that is against eating meat or animals. They were put on Earth to eat, but when it comes to animals suffering or experiencing cruelty, that's where it crosses the line. I don't blame Chicago for banning foie gras, because it's not right to force feed an animal to make the liver bigger. It's just disgusting. These animals can feel pain just as much as you or I can. Would you like something crammed down your throat, and on top of that being forced to eat something you didn't want. This not only would make the animal frightened, but the pain of the tube in it's esophagus has got to hurt. It's stated that the bird can't breathe very well after, because it swells. I can't imagine feeling like I was suffocating. It's just wrong and cruel and seems pointless to make them suffer. I believe Chicago has any right to ban foie gras.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

We have no right to force feed anyone or anything especially with the methods that are being used. This is disgusting and it needs to be stopped.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

I think that if you want to eat fattened duck, you have the right to. If you have the money to pay for it then you should get to have it!!!!! The government has no right to tell us how to eat or what wwe can serve.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: No right to ban

Freedom isn't the right to do anything you please, thank goodness. Yes, money can buy you anything, but preferably cruelty free.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSEDmyaJMKs First let me say that I don't really feel comfortable debating this because there is a lot I feel I don't know and it's unclear to me if we're banning all duck and goose liver or just gavage-based foie gras but I have developed opinions based on the information provided and my own research.As far as the video goes, I know it's pretty bias and i disagree with a lot of what the narrator says but it does show that the process is pretty cruel. The question is what should we do about it? Hmmm if there was some way that an organization could set regulations to stop the mistreatment of these animals........I know it's a controversial subject seeing how the government shouldn't tell us what we can and cannot eat but this ban is really our only way of trying to prevent this mistreatment. We can't enforce our animal rights regulations in France and I see this as a way to maybe force them to adopt some. Besides nobody will die if they don't get their foie gras, it's a luxury dish...no harm no fowl. BOOM I said it first!I'm sure we would agree to ban gavage-based foie gras seeing how there's a more humane alternative but there's no real way for us to tell the difference so I would support this ban in the hope that international regulations will eventually be put in place to reduce the amount of the unnecessary suffering of these animals.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

would you like it if someone was cramming food down your throat just so they can fatten up your liver and eat it, I think not. I dont believe its ok to be cruel to animals just for a "tasty liver" snack. Although, in the article i read they said it was possible to obtain foie gras through natural feeding and i am ok with this because it does not entitle force feeding past the ducks normal food intake.
Debate: Foie Gras: Tasty Liver Snack or Cruelty to Animals?
Side: Right to ban

This is cruelty to animals. I NEVER side with government telling someone what they can eat, but this is not just any food. It is completely immoral to treat an animal like this especially for such a selfish reason.