azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

Lesbian lizards.I probably should have specified heterosexually reproductive species. If we could reproduce asexually, everybody could be as gay as they wanted without imperiling humanity. Too bad about that.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

Is there something which necessarily would mean that if homosexuality were naturally a larger portion of the population that the population would necessarily be less to a great degree? It seems obvious at first glance, but since when did homosexuals not have kids outside of their homosexual desires? And I've never seen any evidence that physical attraction necessarily lessens the desire for one to have kids. Would people as a whole have not adapted to the prevalence of homosexuality similar to how individuals who want kids but are gay adapt to the situation? And if homosexuality were a larger portion of society, it seems this adaption would only be easier. Easier to adopt, easier to have relations for reproduction in conjunction with relations for love, etc.Next premise: Is the assumption that society "thriving" to the extent it has must be necessarily tied to reproduction patterns and population? I could certainly see how it could be, but not that it necessarily is the case.It seems each premise is flawed here. Perhaps true, but not necessarily true. And with the introduction of this new sort of "norm" other means of moving forward as society would be developed.Its abnormalcy doesn't lend to objectionability in any way, as some would suggest. Plenty of things are abnormal and harmless, like sleeping naked or autofellatio.True exactly. What constitutes normalcy though? If it is only the extent to which it is practiced as a percent of a people, I'd guess no one is normal completely. Are there more people with say a foot fetish than who are gay? Are there more people into S&Mthan who are gay? How does the percent of straight people who like ass sex compare to the overall homosexual population if that is the case? How about those who dress like characters? A specific character? People who like leather vs. those who like lace?By what measure is homosexuality abnormal if "normal" sex is not the norm? I would guess normal sex, if sexually active people are honest, is the abnormal. I think perhaps the wording is incorrect, as others have eluded to.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

There are too many people anyway. 1/2 the world being homosexual would drown the population, so to speak, from nearly 8 BILLION to a better 4 billion or less!
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

I consider it to be abnormal merely due to the fact that we are not intellectually honest about what sort of behavior is normal and natural and what isn't.None of us choose our sexual orientation - we are born with it, but does that make it normal? The current pro gay crowd is permiated by double standards and hypocrisy. If we accept homosexuality as a type of behavior that society must condone given the current arguments of naturality, then let's be fully consistent.Nobody chooses homosexuality and it happens in nature - therefore it is normal and cannot be considered unnatural.--------------------Nobody chooses to have a taste and a craving for human flesh - cannibalism is a very common phenomena in nature and has been recorded in 1500 different species - therefore, cannibalism is normal and cannot be considered unnatural. Why not give the people the opportunity to sell their bodies to a food corporation for a large sum of money after they die just like they do for medical institutions. And given this, cannibalism is natural - it happens in nature, therefore it's normal. To deny this is hypocrisy and discriminatory against people who wish to eat human flesh.-----------------------------Cross-species sex i.e bestiality also has been recorded in nature. Animal hybrids are not uncommon at all. If we evoke and defend homosexuality because it's natural, therefore we must also defend cross-species sex. If we truly have sexual autonomy, why can't a man have sex with his horse? We must consider it to be moral and natural and why not even have parades for besties?-------------------------------There is a whole research paper devoted to necrophilia in regards to the Mallard duck. If such an occasion happened in nature, must we then determine that is is natural and normal?------------------------------There are many more cases, but I just wanted to get my point across.I would also like to say that homosexuality in animals is generally not due to active attraction to the same species - rather it is a show of social dominance.If we are prepared to defend homosexuality with the given arguments, it would be arbitrary to deny all the above mentioned sexual practices. It would actually be hypocritical.Given that society sees the previously mentioned practices as taboo, I must conclude that homosexuality must also not be condoned by society.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

False analogy. The same comparisons can be made against heterosexuality. Also, Normal and Abnormal are psychological terms. look them up.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

You keep accusing me of false analogies like it's some sort of mantra. The naturality argument is exactly that - Homosexuality is documented in nature, therefore it is natural.I gave many examples of other societal taboo's that are documented in nature - we must conclude that the actions I mentioned are also normal and not unnatural. Should we therefore tolerate such practices.And abnormal is not necessarily a psychological term. It means ''not normal'', or ''deviant'' or even ''unnatural''. Look it up on the dictionary, I'm not interested in debunking rethorical fallacies.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

You are turning it into a moral debate.Bestiality is natural. So is pedophilia. So is heterosexual sex.The first two are harmful to something which has no choice in the matter. The third and homosexuality are not the same. Your analogy, while technically is correct in that it is a part of nature, is incorrect in that it is making a broad assumption about sexuality in general and only comparing it to homosexuality.Here's how the argument goes:Gays aint naturalOkay, then you show them that, okay it's natural since most mamals have a percent of it. Oh! Ignore that! It aint right I meant!But it doesn't hurt anyone.Then...Well animals rape eachother too! You saying that's natural an everyone should just rape!Which is why it is important to point out where your argument is incorrect in its assumptions though technically correct in part, in and of itself.Basically, if you can use the exact same argument against heterosexuality, it is not a good argument against homosexuality.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

I don't really see why the bestiality question in terms of consent from the animal is relevant. We don't generally care about animal consent, so why should we care in this case? Do we need consent from animals in order to send them off to meat factories or zoos or have them undergo medical tests?I only compare these to homosexuality as they are all sexual deviances - they are certainly not part of the social norm. If it were a norm, homosexuality would be far more prominent and people would not have such a predjudice against it. You can't use the same argument against heterosexuality, because heterosexuality is not deviant behavior. Homosexuality is deviant behavior along with necrophilia, bestiality and cannibalism. These are all social taboos and all of these things can be defended with the same arguments i.e sexual autonomy, only affects the people involved, can be consensual etc.It would be hypocritical to support and defend one minority that engages in action Y while condeming another minority that engages in action X, when the arguments that support action Y also extend to action X.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

Maybe it was unintentional, but your argument is a strawman.Homosexuals, cannibals, necrophiles, those who want to engage in beastiality, are simply normal people who desire different things that most other people do. A desire is not bad, it is not harmful to others, I have no problem with people desiring whatever they want. What I could potentially disagree with is people acting upon those desires.Now, you need to look at the problems with the act itself, the harm is causes onto others, onto the individual, and so on. Where homosexuality takes place between two consenting adults, the others cannot make the same claim (except cannibalism, but I do not think you need too look too far to see why ripping flesh could be considered bad).What you're saying is that just because something happens naturally, it must be fine. That's not what is happening here. Even if homosexuality was not natural, and people wanted to do it just because they wanted to, then there would be no issue. The only relevance to homosexuality being natural + therefore moral is a rebuttal to the argument that homosexuality is non natural + therefore immoral. I believe this argument is flawed, but it is harder to point out flawed logic to those that believe the same, than it is to find a gay animal.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

My argument is not a strawman.Cannibalism, necrophilia and bestiality - these are all things that can take place between consenting adults. A person can express intent in his testament - he can give ownership of his cadaver to someone else and that someone could either eat the body or have sex with it. Depends on his desires. The consent is there.To say that necrophilia and bestiality have no consent is outright incorrect. I find it especially funny that you would imply that animals don't consent to sex - well they also don't consent to being stuffed into meat factories to live a miserable, worthless existence. If you eat meat, then I don't see why you would ever care about animal consent.I'm just saying that all of these things - cannibalism, necrophilia and bestiality - can be defended with the same arguments. Like homosexuality, the previously mentioned actions can be consented to, only affects the people involved and is generally a private matter. If people take offense, well then tough luck. People take offense to homosexuality as well, but somehow they have to put up with it. So why condemn those three and condone homosexuality - it's intellectual hypocrisy.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

... lol, oh wow. Do the summersaults your brain has to do to come up with this make you dizzy?In some extreme instances Cannibalism could be consensual. Like an airplane crashing on a desert island and a particularly selfless person says go for it. Necrophilia and bestiality by their nature cannot be because a dead person cannot give consent, nor can animals communicate to a level to allow us to know if there is consent. So no. This is just dumb. Ignoring the rabbit hole of falacies...your ultimate argument is that "if nature does something it is not necessarily right."Okay. This would be true.But it is also not necessarily wrong. You need to accept that too or you just look dumb... which you are beginning to look at this point.I could as easily say "monkeys eat eachother" (some do) "monkeys also have heterosexual relations" (most do) therefore sex between a boy and a girl is like monkeys eating eachother.That is what you are saying, but replacing heterosexual for homosexual. If the two are interchangable, you do not have a valid argument. You clearly do not here.This is more interesting on a psychological level to me though, I sense quite a bit of narcissism: If people take offense, well then tough luck. People take offense to homosexuality as well, but somehow they have to put up with it. So why condemn those three and condone homosexuality - it's intellectual hypocrisy.The difference is that one or the other in a relationship is being harmed in your assinine examples, and none are being harmed in a homosexual relationship. (well necrophilia techncially they are not being harmed, but the family might be, and there's the disease thing.)But here's the interesting part:People take offense to homosexuality as well, but somehow they have to put up with it.No one has asked you to put up with anything. You don't need to take a dick in your ass if you are a dude, or eat carpet if you are a girl, or anything of the sort. It's nothing to do with you in fact. It is so not anything to do with you, that you should not even have a say in who practices it.You see the point now? It's not about you. The world doesn't revolve around you or your feelings or what you think of what others are doing. So let other people live how they want.You have every right to be offended by homosexuality. It's fucking stupid, but you're allowed to be.You're not allowed to step on other's rights though, simply because you have a self-centered knee-jerk superstitious reaction based on absolutely no rational thought on the subject.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

You have completely missed the point. Consensual cannibalism is not extreme at all. In essence, what is the difference between me selling myself to a food corporation and me selling myself to a medical institution? In both these cases, after my death, they will get ownership over my cadaver and they can use it for whatever they please. You also keep running your mouth about how animals can't give consent and I already adressed this point - we don't consistently care about animal consent anyway. If we did, we wouldn't send them off to meat factories like any other resource to any other factory.My ultimate argument is that is we take nature as the ultimate criteria for determining our morals, then nothing that happens in nature is inherently immoral. And if nothing is immoral, then cannibalism, bestiality and necrophilia cannot be immoral.You can't replace heterosexuality with homosexuality in this question because heterosexuality is not a deviation from the norm. It's the most common behavior for animals, it's what we are, by our nature, supposed to engage in in order to reproduce. Anomalities like homosexuality are deviances. These kinds of behaviors deviate from your regular, normal behavior just like necrophilia deviates from normal behavior, just like bestiality deviates from normal behavior.And yet again, I don't know why people resist this point so much, but nobody is harmed in the cases of consensual necrophilia and cannibalism. Who the hell is harmed? In both these cases the partners are dead from a completely unrelated cause. Who is being harmed? When you criticise my points, keep your straw men at home.And no the world does not revolve around me, but clearly it does revolve around politically correct clowns. If people find it acceptable to force moral relativism down my throat, then why can't I respond in fashion?
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

I agree with youngidealis. This is a failure comparison.Yes, cannibalism, bestiality and necrophilia are natural. But they aren't the same thing that homosexuality because they aren't sexual orientations, and they cause harm to others. Besides, they aren't consensual. Nobody wants to be eaten, animals don't have how say yes or no and dead bodies are dead. Homosexuality causes absolutely no harm to society.Yes, it is. Recent studies show that there are several specimens that only have sexual relations with another individuals of the same sex and specie. It's their instinct. In humans, how we don't have instincts (not in that way), the instinct is replaced by sexual desire.And why would society do that? According to you, homosexuality must be compared to cannibalism, bestiality and necrophilia. So why don't compare these to heterosexuality too? You don't choose to love the opposite sex. And who knows if homosexuality is the normal and heterosexuality is the abnormal? Just because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals? There are more men than women in the world. Does this mean that being a woman is abnormal?And I actually don't understand homophobes. Tell me, how the homosexuals bother you?
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

This is a completely consistent comparison.Tell me, who exactly does cannibalism, bestiality and necrophilia harm? And how does it harm them? All of these things can be consensual, so your first paragraph is moot. I even said that in terms of cannibalism where I suggested that people should be able to sell their bodies to corporations, so when they die the corporation gets ownership of the body. Before you criticize my post, you should read it.As I said, all of these things can be consented to. The only harm that other people might get is emotional harm - people may get offended. Well, so what? People get offended by homosexuality too and we tell them to put up with it. And you are actually affirming my point. I don't choose the opposite sex and I don't choose the same sex to get attracted to - but necrophiliacs don't choose their attraction towards cadavers and besties don't choose their attraction towards animals, so should the society tolerate and condone such behavior?. Your comparison of gays to women is outright laughable. Women are no deviation from the general norm. You might as well say: ''Well, who knows - maybe down syndrome is actually normal and people with 46 chromosomes are abnormal. Just because there are more non-down syndrome people doesn't mean that down syndrome isn't normal.''My whole point was that if deviation from the norm is acceptable, then why draw the line at homosexuality when the pro-gay arguments could also be applied to bestiality and necrophilia?
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Normal

You deviated from my main point. If homosexuality can be compared to those behaviors, why heterosexuality can't? And ALL of those things? Cannibalism OK, although I don't think people would like to be eaten. But how an animal would agree with that? Unless it's from Narnia... And necrophilia? How could a dead body consent or not with sex?All those behaviors can cause countless diseases. And don't come with "homosexuality causes AIDS". It was already proved that AIDS can affect both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and can be transmitted by vaginal and anal sex.You're messing things up. Cannibalism is an eating preference. Bestiality and necrophilia are fetishes, in other words, exclusively sexual. Homosexuality includes love and passion. If you forbid cannibalism, bestiality or necrophilia, the people who have these behaviors will just limit their desires and keep living their lives. I would love to be in London now, but I can't, so i limit my desire. If you forbid homosexuality, the homosexuals will be force to live a miserable life without love. This seems emotional crap, but just imagine a life without love and passion.No, it isn't. If homosexuals are abnormal just because heterosexuals are more numerous, so women are abnormal too. I don't agree with that, I'm just following your logic.P.S.: Stop trying to attack me. It won't work and the more you try to insult me, less rational is your argument.
Debate: What do you think about homosexuals? And about homosexuality?
Side: Abnormal

Erm.. I don't attack you, I attack your arguments. But of course, it's always far easier to silence the dissident than to answer his statements.Why heterosexuality can't be compared with homosexuality is exactly that - heterosexuality is the norm, homosexuality isn't. Homosexuality is a sexual deviance and as such, it should be compared with other societal deviances. A person can get consent for necrophilia from the guy while he is still alive. I don't know how many times I have mentioned this. If a person explicitly states in his will, that his heir gets full ownership of his cadaver to do whatever he pleases with it - who are you then to say that the heir can't have sex with the corpse?And animal consent? Who cares about animal consent? Do we ask for animal consent when we send them to meat factories, use them for our entertainment in the circus, imprison them in zoo's, conduct medical experiments on them? No, we don't. I'll let you figure out why.And those behaviors can cause diseases? So? Alchohol can cause diseases, but it's legal nontheless. Smoking too. They are legal because we assume that people are rational enough to understand the risks involved. In the case of necrophilia, cannibalism and bestiality - if taken the necessary precations, there are no risks involved. And even if there are, so what? We assume people are rational enough to know the risks just as we assume in the case of smokes, alchohol, drugs, medicines etc.I'm not messing things up. In essence, these are all societal taboos - they deviate from the norm. Bestiality and necrophilia - fetishes or not, they still represent sincere sexual attraction towards either corpses or animals. Cannibalism along with bestiality and necrophilia are, in essence, no different from homosexuality. They are all societal taboos, they only affect the people involved and it is a private matter. If I limit homosexuals, I also limit their desire, which is to have homosexual relations. This desire, in essence, is no different from the desires of necrophiliacs and besties - a bestie is generally only sexually attracted to animals. If you don't allow him to have sex with animals, then it in no way differs from limiting homosexuality. The bestie will live a miserable life as he cannot act on his natural desires and insticts. Same applies for necrophiliacs.Your analogy is just... if homosexuality was the norm, it would in fact be more numerous. But it isn't numerous. Neither is necrophilia, bestiality, nudism etc. That's what abnormal means - that you have a general behavior pattern, where some lines of behavior do not conform to the general trend. If not for the number, what the hell would you define as abnormal? By your reasoning, nothing is abnormal. Diseases aren't, down syndrome isn't, deformities aren't - nothing is.Also, I have not insulted you at all. Unless of course my views are insulting. Please show me where I directly insulted you?