azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

Sorry , delete post.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

What about the rest:When a person has body integrity identity disorder, we don't want to allow them to remove whatever limb they feel so intensely needs to be removed. We try to cure them. Is gender dis-morphia so different that the desire to remove a leg calls for mental healthcare while the desire to remove ones genitalia requires acceptance and support?
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

OK, I had to surf around a little and read a little about it.The example you're talking about is a subgroup of BIID, Apotemnophilia. It truly does appear to be a mental disorder though they need to know more about it. Anyway, it's a relevant analogy. I'm just thinking out loud below. Don't take this as direct attack of your claim, I'm just thinking as I write.First, I couldn't find any statistics on how prevalent Apotemnophilia is in the general population. I would be willing to bet it's far below how many are homosexual or transgender.Second, the ability of someone not yet adult age to go through with lopping of a limb is negligible. The Apotemnophilia follow throughs all seem to be adults in the examples I'm finding. Quite frankly I'd still let an adult do what they want to themselves. But then again I also support euthanasia rights for the terminally ill.Third, even if we were treating someone with Apotemnophilia as a mental disorder we still wouldn't a) insult them as immoral for having it, or b) expect it's a simple matter of re-education, or c) really even expect them to change. It seems to me treating it as a mental disorder means basically helping them learn to cope with being different. If all you mean is that then it's fairly harmless.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

I posted as a relevant analogy and the way I approach these matters. I expect that Apotemnophilia would seem like a much larger portion of the population if they had a very vocal advocacy organization. The situations I have read about imply that the only solution to the mental anguish caused by Apotemnophilia is to follow through with the removal of the limb in question. I wouldn't take issue with a person choosing to do that any more than I would take issue with trans operations. However, I don't think that this acceptance of another persons right to do what they will with their body should necessitate acceptance of their choice as a normal, natural, or healthy one. I would treat any disabled or ill person with the respect I extend to any human being. My consideration of trans-gender people as less than healthy should not be taken as offensive, any more than recognizing a person with downs syndrome as ill should be offensive. They aren't wrong or bad, but neither are they healthy. They can do what they want, but it is what it is.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

I understand and can respect your position.Yet I remain concerned that to people less thoughtful or sophisticated as yourself the label of mental disorder would be exploited to bad ends. I'm just not comfortable with calling it that or prescribing treatment for it.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

I think it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to find effective treatment to offer those who wish to be treated. Until something effective is found, acceptance may be the healthiest response to an unhealthy circumstance. With that, trans people need to be honest about their condition unless it is dangerous to do so.It is possible to use such a label to bad ends. I think mostly because of the stigma still surrounding psychological ailments (not so present with physical ailments). It is something that would need to be guarded against. However, I don't think that thoughtful people should regulate their thoughtfulness based on potential responses of less thoughtful people.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Your question was what do we do with them, my answer is treat them as someone with a mental issue I do not mean treat them the same as every other mental disability[which you have not denied it is a mental disability]
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

It applies. Treating something that is not a mental disorder like it is a mental disorder is an inappropriate or even hurtful treatment.And it's not a mental disorder.https://psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/apa-blog/2016/03/homosexuality-as-a-mental-disorder-simply-not-backed-up-by-science
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Mental disorder-Mental illness refers to a wide range of mental health conditions — disorders that affect your mood, thinking and behavior. [A]Being trans effect's the following things mood,thinking and behavior in the way that is a disorderDisorder-disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.[B]The things listed are effected by ruining the systematic functions and neat arrangement of the human anatomy and a genders specific tendencies in life.[A]http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mental-illness/basics/definition/con-20033813 [B]https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS705US706&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define+disorder
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

What's next?? Should black people be legal, should dogs be legal, should women be legal? Of course, on that last one, otherwise we'd all have to be gay! Who wrote this idiocy? Must have been "GOD", because they are judging against " HIS creations "!
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Yes.First of all, people should be free to express themselves however they wish, people should be free. Whether you think it's weird or uncomfortable comes 2nd if not last to that. We can't illegalize people for dressing a certain way, come on now. Bringing me to my second point, people are who they are, and yes people are mentally the opposite sex sometimes. Trying to make them repress that is far more harmful than letting them be who they are, letting them be.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

So, you are saying that I could identify as a helicopter if I want to? How about a lemon? This is illogical.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

No, I never said that, I said some people are the opposite sex mentally. I have no idea what relevance helicopters have.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Yup. People are who they are. But seriously, who is going to go around pulling a gender check to make sure people are dressing the way they should or checking if they look the way they "should". And for that matter, who is to decide how anyone of a specific gender should dress and look?
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Why is it anyone else's business what someone else does with their life? Why do you care? It doesn't affect you in any way.Making being transgender illegal is absolutely ridiculous. Numerous studies have shown that transgender individuals have a huge suicide rate if they haven't been allowed to express themselves and be accepted for who they are.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

"Why is it anyone else's business what someone else does with their life? Why do you care? It doesn't affect you in any way." Right so Hitler its okay sorry we forced you to suicide come back we dont care what each other do now adays
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Please explain to me how murdering millions of Jews is comparable to being transgender, you mouth-breathing moron.Being transgender affects the transgender person the most, not anyone else. Being Hitler affects the Jews the most.Delete your account.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

He means that you should similarly not care about what Hitler did by that logic, because it didn't affect you.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

No, but it affected 6 million Jews.Being transgender doesn't result in mass genocide. It doesn't affect you, and it doesn't affect anyone else (unless you desperately want to be affected and offended, that is). The holocaust didn't affect me personally, no, but it affected and still does affect other people.It's absolutely ludicrous to compare the two. It's not relatable in any way.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

Why do you care? It doesn't affect you in any way.Doesn't change the fact that this premise is applicable there too. Unless you're talking things completely arbitrarily, in which case, like some here, you don't need to present arguments.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

You're missing the point.Hitler affected other people.Being transgender doesn't affect other people.The comparison doesn't work because it's too extreme. You can't compare Hitler - a man who tried to wipe out an entire race, and threatened the entire stability of the world - with a transgender man/woman whose condition primarily affects themselves, perhaps one or two others.My original point is that a person being transgender doesn't affect the original poster. This still stands. Their way of living and their freedom is not affected in the slightest by transgender people.If I said "other people being transgender doesn't hurt you", would you accept that as a statement? If yes, you're being unreasonably anal, but at least you're not simply missing the point.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

Yes, but if we reduce it to affecting you, then empathy isn't a valid argument. Ideally, you'd have understood the flaw in your original claim. f I said "other people being transgender doesn't hurt you", That's, as I said, making things too arbitrary to bother presenting arguments. Unless you can explain why this line of reasoning is valid here and in limited cases, where the considerations of other cases would prove inefficient.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

You ignored his first question that asked why it matters what people do with their own life.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

That'd have a lot of possible interpretations. So generally, it'd be too vague to receive any attention. But he added as long as it doesn't affect you, with which we had a clear meaning. Now, of course, you can argue for the purpose of each word, but parts of questions don't make for complete questions.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

But, that statement isn't true for everyone in the case of Hitler. For the Jews Hitler did affect them. For transgenders you won't find a group of people who are affected. And just because his third statement has a certain meaning why does that mean you can entirely ignore his first question which makes your entire counter argument completely irrelevant?
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

But, that statement isn't true for everyone in the case of Hitler. For the Jews Hitler did affect them. For transgenders you won't find a group of people who are affected. That's the flaw. 'You' aren't a part of any affected group. And just because his third statement has a certain meaning why does that mean you can entirely ignore his first question which makes your entire counter argument completely irrelevant?That's specifically what I answered. I'd recommend you read it again.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

What exactly is vague about "Why is it anyone else's business what someone else does with their life?"?
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

Because, anything you do can be classified as doing with your own life. Unless you can control minds.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

That's not what the question was asking and you should know that. All actions are classified with doing with your own life, so you should be trying to figure out what the question could be asking and not trying to eliminate what it is asking. Since your actions can control someone else's life the question is obviously implying that he is referring to actions that don't go on to affect someone else and only affect that person's life.You of all people couldn't understand the question without the word "only"? Really? You are all about subtle and you need everything spelled it for you? Why is your only debate tactic complete dishonesty?
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

That's where the qualifier comes into play. My only role here has been to recommend using the correct qualifiers.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

You never actually suggested a proper qualifier. You just said it was wrong because you had a hard time understanding.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

Come on, even you know that it's obvious what the proper qualifier would be here, especially when the other one is criticised.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Suggesting that the proper qualifier was obvious just proves that you are a lying sack of shit. It is obvious to me exactly what the guy meant. It is obvious to me that Hitler did not qualify under his first question.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

It being obvious to you doesn't matter as long as there is a very different implication from it which would be at least about equally as valid. And that is obvious as well, but I'm not surprised. I hope that you don't intentionally act like that just to try disputing me.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

You are a sick fuck you know that, right? You think you can go around murdering 6 million Jews and claim you were living your life. Sick fucks like you need to be locked up. I hope they catch you before you kill anyone.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

Hope all you want. Then tell me if there is something sitting on a cloud that grants wishes.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

Your missing what you said "Why is it anyone else's business what someone else does with their life?" meaning that why should anyone care what one does with their own life you never said anything about the choices they make with there life effecting other people you simply said why is it anyone's business what someone else does with there life. your logic is so pitiful the fact I have to break it down and explain it to you like a kid certainly means you should- in my stead- delete your account.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

So you're trying to slide by on a technicality? Pathetic. Not everything needs to be spelled out to you in bold, size 90 font so that your pitiful mind can understand it.you never said anything about the choices they make with there life effecting other peopleRe-read my comment you illiterate moron. "It doesn't affect you in any way."Furthermore, I clarified my statement to Jatin, which perhaps you should have read if your chromosome deprived brain couldn't decipher my initial comment. I do not retract my statement, nor does my opinion on the aforementioned deletion of your account change.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

You indeed did say it does not effect you in anyway but that is after a period a different statement not part of the same one. therefore all you said was that why should we care yadayada and it does not effect you. also drop the illogical insults lol just goes to show how easily flustered and weak minded you are. Just use logic and let it show you don't need to be the internet tough guy here and call me a illiterate moron when I am clearly literate.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

call me a illiterate moron when I am clearly literate.Well, maybe not completely illiterate, but you certainly have some very large issues with grammar and spelling. You don't seem to know the difference between 'your' and 'you're', for example.But, I digress - it is irrelevant what my original comment said if I clarified later on. Your "argument" if you could call it one is based on me not being clear enough. Well, now that I have clarified, are you going to desist from being an insufferable twit?
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

And there you go with insults again showing how illogical you really are. And I am currently neutral on this, I was arguing your poorly stated opinionated argument.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Don't be so thin skinned. It is not illogical to call an idiot and idiot. Therefore, by calling you an idiot, I am not being illogical.There is nothing wrong with my statement. It was you who chose to compare being transgender with Adolf Hitler. It was you who misunderstood the meaning.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

"my original comment said if I clarified later on"- said by youif you had to clarify your original argument then yes there was something wrong with your argument. And in a debate using insults in anyway proves nothing. Adds nothing to the debate or your point so it is indeed illogical even if I was an idiot.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: no

Exactly-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

People have a right in this world to be who they want to be
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

This question is illogical. Should trans-genders be legal ? Do you mean should people be allowed to modify their bodies and declare what they are? The answer is Yes. People can say whatever they want. I can I am white evem though I am clearly a dark skinned man sitting in a AP comparitive class. The only thing wrong here is your tolerance and something about you makes you uncomfortable to be around trans-gender people. Call it what you want. I'm not saying you have to like it. I'm just reminding you that they are people and like any other person you must tlhave tolerance. Is it really Godly to bash and suppress another human being because it makes you uncomfortable when they say I'm a banana? If you really have time to worry about what the next guy or girl is calling their junk then maybe you need a second job if you have the first one that is. Enjoy life and protest against something that really matters. FREE EXPRESSION!
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Something which is innate and cannot be changed over time or over counseling, or rather something which is biologically embedded within you is beyond the jurisdiction of justification. To put it precisely, they are the creations of Mother Nature and maybe She wanted them to be the way they are. To Her, all her equal, and in a world where one who indulges in female infanticide steers clear from the pinions of law, judging the trans-genders is beyond crap.
Debate: Should trans-genders be legal.
Side: yes

Sure. If a dude feels like a bitch and wants to dress up as one, be my guest; it's none of my business. If a girl feels like a swinging dick and wants to dress and act accordingly, so be it. But, they still need to use the bathroom that corresponds to what they were born with.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

If people have other religious views than they should be excused from saying that part of the pledge. That is the minority, why should the majority be punished for such a minor thing. Also we have free speech rights
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

because the founders believed in individual liberty no matter what the majority thought. if the majority says you can't have a gun would you just say ok?how are you punished if you just say the pledge (or any pledge, or prayer) on your own time?punished are the kids who decide not to say the pledge - mostly by being ostracized but are even still being arrested - http://www.thefoxnation.com/culture/2010/02/24/teacher-punished-making-student-stand-during-pledge  - worth reading the comments on that page too to get an idea of how people who would not want to say the pledge would be thought of and treated
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

last time i checked schools don't say the pledge due to this problem, and last time i checked kids who are Christians are losing freedom of speech and religion in schools nation wide. so who's taking things to the extreme now?
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

you obviously have no clue what you are talking about - most states do require schools to lead their students in reciting the pledge, some even require the kids to get their parents' permission to opt out of saying ithttp://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000074  (this is what people call a source...)if you mean a christian's freedom of religion at all time's except to disrupt the classroom - then it's still in tactif you mean their freedom to coerce children into acknowledging god at public school, then you and i have different definitions of freedom...
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

How are they losing freedom of speech and religion?What schools are not saying the pledge and for what reason?
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

Because every country needs a mascot :) Beside, America is about supporting the majority, and guess what? Around 76% of Americans are Christian :) Last time I checked, they worshiped God...
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

it should be removed. For one, it wasn't originally in the pledge; it was added by a Christian group in the 50's. Also, America is not a "Christian nation," we were founded on the idea for religious freedom. That in lament terms means that one religion can not enforce its own beliefs over people of another religion or non at all. We have a separation of Church and state and that clearly violates that law.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: Freedom from religion

it should be removed. For one, it wasn't originally in the pledge; it was added by a Christian group in the 50's. Also, America is not a "Christian nation," we were founded on the idea for religious freedom. That in lament terms means that one religion can not enforce its own beliefs over people of another religion or non at all. We have a separation of Church and state and that clearly violates that law.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

I don't believe we should force someone to "under god," but we shouldn't take it out of the pledge. If the people don't want to say it then they should have the choice over whether or not.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

I believe it should be kept and has the right to.Whether people like it or not this IS a christian nation.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

NO, this is most deffinitely not! Our nation should not be labled as a "Christian nation" our country shouldnt be labled at all, is there a reason to make people of various or no religion say something Christian?
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: No

Ha but we don't make anyone say anything that's Christian.All other countries our Allys and our Enemy's refer to us as a Christian nation.
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

Recognizing something legally and/or officially is violating the Separation of Church and State. It is effectively favoring one religion over another.So because people think we are, we must be something? Talk about giving into mainstream society peer pressure. So let's pretend your friends and your enemies think you're stupid, SIMPLY BY THAT STATEMENT ALONE and no other information included: does this mean you ARE stupid?
Debate: Should "under god" be removed from the pledge?
Side: yes

The 3rd recorded unanimous vote of the Senate was the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli.Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.