azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Okay, now you've gone and twisted it again. I do think that marriage and sex is only between a man and a woman, but only because that is the only way for people to reproduce and that sex is only for reproduction. To blame STDs on homosexuals isn't discriminatory or anything, but it is wrong. STDs are just bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms that can be transmitted sexually.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Those diseases cannot be transmitted beyond one person if one person carries it into marriage and they remain faithful to their vows until death. It would be very rare for anybody to have any of those diseases if they would keep their bodies undefiled before marriage. People who pervert God's gift of sexuality and degrade their bodies as objects of pleasure rather than gifts from God by which they honor the giver when they keep it pure until they are joined with a spouse in the merging of two fleshes into one as husband and wife........those people are responsible for any STD they have and any STD they spread, and yes a few innocent people who never have engaged in perverted sexual acts as sodomites or normal male/female fornicators contract STD's from non-sexual sources such as transfusions, but those diseases would be extremely rare or non-existent if not for the perverts who try to push those diseases as a normal part of life...how twisted can a persons mind be to say that their own personal choices merit no blame for the consequences of disease they carry.Sexual indulgence is not only for reproduction, it's a bonding for a husband and wife to enjoy. Any usage of God's gift less than what He gave it for is abuse of what He has given and is perverted against God. A husband and wife are to enjoy committing their bodies to each other in a lifetime bond if they are able to reproduce or not. It's a gift from God.Perverts need to repent of all their perversions and stop being perverts and don't get dirty any more and reserve sexual expression for the spouse God might give them until death parts them. It's simple common sense right and wrong black and white indisputable logic. Be a pervert and blame yourself for any disease you contract, and be blamed for any disease you pass to others.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Well, let's see.Why are there separate changing rooms for men and women? Because, people are usually uncomfortable, when around strangers of the opposite sex - precisely because these strangers are, or could be, sexually attracted to them.The situation gets even worse, when straight people are in the same dressing room with gays. Because, not only are the gays potentially attracted to the straights, - straight people find that fact repulsive (unlike in the case of men and women in the same dressing room). So, that would be even more discomforting to the straight people (which also happen to be the vast majority).So, it would indeed make sense to have separate dressing rooms for gays.Of course, this logic only holds true for countries where gays are "accepted" and celebrate their "coming out" BS.Otherwise, there is no need for such arrangements.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Or maybe heterosexuals can realize that all people who aren't straight aren't super into them. It is my prediction that bathrooms at least will become genderless with individualized privacy. Not sure about changing rooms, but think about it: why do we separate genders?To prevent people from being sexually aroused by those they see? There's no way to verify sexual orientation, and trying to enforce that would be clear discrimination. And as gender identity has become more fluid, it's hard to separate gender into two sectors that way.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

I disagree that such separate facilities could be interpreted as discriminatory. In fact the provision of such an amenity should be interpreted by gays and lesbians as a thoughtful recognition of their deviant sexual orientation, all of whom seem to place great importance on 'coming out' and advertising their condition. If they did perceive such a move to be discriminatory then that would raise the strong probability that the feminist brigade could claim sexual discrimination for not being allowed into the men's changing rooms and/or men claiming discrimination for being barred from the female changing areas. I feel that the concerns of heterosexuals who feel uncomfortable, or maybe even threatened by the presence of these ''deviants'' should be seriously considered.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I disagree that such separate facilities could be interpreted as discriminatory. Well, me finding it discriminatory clearly proves you wrong. xD In fact the provision of such an amenity should be interpreted by gays and lesbians as a thoughtful recognition of their deviant sexual orientation, all of whom seem to place great importance on 'coming out' and advertising their condition.While many do find it important to have pride in their history, it doesn't mean that they should be separated from and isolated from others. Should blacks have felt proud to have their own water fountains and bathrooms?  I feel that the concerns of heterosexuals who feel uncomfortable, or maybe even threatened by the presence of these ''deviants'' should be seriously considered.Of course it can be considered. And I have provided a solution: individualized privacy. If someone feels 'threatened' or uncomfortable, they should (and do) have places to go with additional privacy. But who's to say a gay person wouldn't get uncomfortable with another gay person looking at them? Giving them their own changing room simply takes the problem off of you, and forces only gay people to deal with it. That seems pretty discriminatory to me. Additionally, your premise is completely impractical. How do you verify someone's sexuality? How do you enforce this?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

I am genuinely disappointed that you found it necessary to turn to juvenile pomposity to mask your meaningless counter argument(s), so I have no alternative but to eliminate you from any future involvement in my debates or answers. I won't ban you, but due to your embarrassingly low grade replies I would instruct you not to participate in any of my threads.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I'm very sorry if I offended you, I have been in a somewhat offhandedly attacking mood today. But I'm not quite sure how I was offensive in my comments, or why my counter arguments were meaningless. If it is as low-grade as you say, it should be easy for you to refute my claims.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I, personally see pirate's arguments better, not because I agree with them but they seem to have more thought behind them.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I disagree that such separate facilities could be interpreted as discriminatory.Well was it discriminatory when we separated black people from white people? If you find that separating blacks from white is discriminatory then how do you not see the same for gays?In fact the provision of such an amenity should be interpreted by gays and lesbians as a thoughtful recognition of their deviant sexual orientation, all of whom seem to place great importance on 'coming out' and advertising their condition.Because they don't give a fuck about what others think about their sexual orientation... Well some of them... Also this isn't 100% true. I go to school with gay kids and they have tried everything to hide it. It wasn't until just recently we discovered they were gay. I found nothing wrong with their orientation but a lot of kids did. Let's just hope soon it will be seen as a natural part of society and they won't have to hide it.If they did perceive such a move to be discriminatory then that would raise the strong probability that the feminist brigade could claim sexual discrimination for not being allowed into the men's changing rooms and/or men claiming discrimination for being barred from the female changing areas.I personally believe we should have one large genderless restroom that is filled with large stalls for people of all sexes to use.I feel that the concerns of heterosexuals who feel uncomfortable, or maybe even threatened by the presence of these ''deviants'' should be seriously considered.What makes you think that all gays are checking out the straights and/or other gays?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

I glanced at this, not knowing who wrote it, not reading the entire post, and saw your desire to have universal restrooms for everybody. No surprise it was you writing this, it's one of the stupidest things I have ever seen suggested.What planet did your parents come from? Women want their privacy, they don't want to be in public restrooms with men they do not know. Yes there are a few psychotic women who think they are mouthy and strong enough to discourage all perverts whenever they want to, but do you think men want women who are like that to be in their restroom?Who in the world was it that taught you common sense? They surely must have been sleeping too much while you were learning for deviant minds.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I glanced at this, not knowing who wrote it, not reading the entire post, and saw your desire to have universal restrooms for everybody. No surprise it was you writing this, it's one of the stupidest things I have ever seen suggested.How is it stupid? A large restroom filled with stalls that easily can be locked. There will be no under the stall hole like there are in the current public restrooms and Tada! You got yourself a hundred slightly larger than a portapotty stalls.What planet did your parents come from?Planet Earth, how about yours? 'Cause they need to teach you what respect is.Women want their privacy, they don't want to be in public restrooms with men they do not know.It wouldn't exactly be sharing a restroom. It would be more like walking down a hall then going into a stall that is completely covered. So no Herbert-type person goes peeking under the stall.Yes there are a few psychotic women who think they are mouthy and strong enough to discourage all perverts whenever they want to, but do you think men want women who are like that to be in their restroom?Same stalls would be given to the men that I said the women would have. So that way nobody can peek at eachother. Who in the world was it that taught you common sense? They surely must have been sleeping too much while you were learning for deviant minds.I'm starting to think your FromWithin's second (or third) account.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Actually it is possible to tell sexual orientations. But who would want to be tested like a lab animal?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Well, it is, but how do you make sure that only people of one sexual orientation are going into a locker room?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

You can't really verify someone's orientation in the locker room (unless of course it was part science lab). But I said that because you said There's no way to verify sexual orientation you didn't say It's hard to verify sexual orientation.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

You put the sodomite locker room on a island and lock it after all the sodomites are inside, and then if you catch a sodomite in a normal change room, you ship him off to the island where he can change with likeminded perverts who will enjoy his perversion and dirty mind and body.Keep it simple, stupid.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Why don't you do that with women who teach? They are also breaking guidelines from the same book. Also, where in the Bible does it say to do that?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

Aside from everything wrong with this idea, how do you plan on enforcing it? Installing "gaydar" to the entrance of every locker room?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

As I feel it would be wrong to forcibly corral the ''deviants' into their own exclusive changing rooms the use of the facility would be used only by those gays/lesbians wishing to take advantage of the amenity provided for them. Whilst it is not always possible to distinguish between sexual 'deviants' and heterosexuals they can regularly be identified and anyone who is clearly sexually abnormal and seen using the locker rooms for regular members should be questioned about their motives for doing so just in the same way a male would be if he used the female changing facilities. In this day and age of gay openness, gay tolerance, gay acceptance, gay pride, gay rights, gay parades, and all that jazz the 'deviants' should not take offence at the entrance door of their 'special area' being displayed as, 'Changing room for gay men' and changing room for lesbians''. If they're so proud of their condition then they should rejoice at the existence of such a ''special place'' and take great ''pride'' in being seen using what was provided for them.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Good answer, and very well written...full of common sense. Sodomites should be happy they are in America where they can't legally be thrown from the windows of tall buildings like they can be in Muslim countries....well, maybe it's illegal in Muslim countries, but nobody is going to stop those bloodthirsty murderers who use their woman and children as human shields. If Muslims ever dominate America like they say they are going to do, there will be a lot of dead sodomites since the idiots came out of the closet and paraded their pride with their faces painted to get attention.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

...which is why black people were overjoyed to have "whites only" and "blacks only" bathrooms.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I"m sure blacks appreciate you equating them with sodomites.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

I was actually equating the struggles of the two groups, which are very similar.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I think instead of having a separate changing room for gays, maybe we should have a separate changing rooms for idiots like you.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

That would work...separate changing rooms where perverts are not allowed.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Well, you have an option for that already. There are plenty of bathroom stalls available just about everywhere where you are free to change if you feel uncomfortable.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

I have an option to ignore your words, and that's what I do. You are lost, dying, on your way to Hell and need to be saved from it. All you have is vanity and your speech supporting sin and hating God is good for nothing but propelling yourself into Hell and persuading others to take the same road to the same destruction you are pushing toward.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Yeah. I think Hitler proposed something like that.So looks like you and your kind are in good company!You know: the dipshit confederation!
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

I don't read your stuff anymore because I know it's going to be dirty and hateful foul mouth poison. You are lost, dying, on your way to Hell and need to be saved from it. All you have is vanity and your speech supporting sin and hating God is good for nothing but propelling yourself into Hell and persuading others to take the same road to the same destruction you are pushing toward.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Yes, you can go in the changing room for sodomites and call me an idiot for staying out of it and going to a safer place to change.....and because of your statements here, you will never be allowed in that safer changing room.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

And because of your statement here, you will forever be a documented idiot.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: No, let them enjoy themselves

The problem with this idea is that you'd be placing them with the opposite gender and that's logically impossible in anything other than pairs.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

To clarify my question I would explain that I meant one changing room for gay men, and one separate room for lesbian women.
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Makes no sense. It's like putting a straight guy with a ton of straight women. Don't you see?
Debate: Should gays have separate changing rooms?
Side: Yes, they're out of place.

Prison is a great changing room for gay men. Why not let all the sodomites go in there and change?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

People don't have 'rights' as members of a group, but as individuals in society. Marriage is not defined anywhere in the constitution, so the government should not prevent any kind of "marriage" from occuring... I wrote some more at the link below, would be happy to respond there as well as here.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

So if "the government should not prevent any kind of "marriage" from occuring," why are you against same sex marriage?
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

I think the issue being addressed here is a question of whether or not marriage for anyone can be considered a right guaranteed by the United States government. Not necessarily the question of whether or not same-sex couples' marriages specifically are recognized by the government. As for my personal views on the issue I honestly think the best solution is for the government to simply call all civil unions precisely what they are: civil unions.Leave it to individuals and churches to determine the definition of "marriage."
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

"I think the issue being addressed here is a question of whether or not marriage for anyone can be considered a right guaranteed by the United States government"Please remember that this is an international website, with people from all around the world. The question is "should gays have the right to marry?" not "under current US legislation do gays have the right to marry?"Sorry to make a point of it, but this default position of all debates being centred around the US both alienates non-Americans, and absolutely bugs the crap out of me.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

I can't speak to policy of any country except for the United States. I don't even know if this is an issue for non-Americans. But more importantly I was rebutting an argument that specifically discussed the issue in regards to the US Constitution, or at least that's how I saw it when I wrote that response. As such I responded to that person's particular point.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

That's fine. I support that.Here in California, we have a prospective bill that would do just that.I honestly think marriage is a religious thing, but religion is in the eye of the beholder.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

The problem there is that the idea of marriage is embedded too deeply into our legal framework. State recognized married couples receive many benefits that gay couples don't. I agree that government should only deal with civil unions, but do you really think it's possible to take marriage out of government? No way, not in Christian America. The only practical, fair solution is to allow same-sex marriage.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

Replace the word "marriage" in government documents with the word "civil union", ta da! The government then only deals with civil unions between two consenting adults of any gender. Marriage would then be a word reserved for individuals and churches to define. If a church decides that only a man and a woman can marry then same sex couples will not be recognized as being married by that church or members of that church. They would still receive the same benefits of a civil union (previously known by the government as a "marriage") but the "sanctity of marriage" is maintained for groups who do not approve of same sex couples. Marriage is a word whose connotation and definition differ from individual to individual. The use of the word by government is provocation for misunderstanding and schism. Will people immediately say "Wow, the government isn't calling your union a marriage so I'm OK with you now,"? No. But that's too bad. A hundred and fifty years ago people looked at a freedman walking down the street and said "Somebody aught to sell him." Society has to change and we as rational human beings have to acknowledge that even when we don't approve of someone's choices they have a right to make them. We have to accept that all humans are entitled to equal treatment under the law. No one should be treated differently by the law because of their social class, their gender, their sexual preferences, their race, or any other traits unless they have in some way harmed another person through direct action or inaction.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: yes

Yes, I understand what you're saying and I agree that ideally that would be the best thing to do. But I'm saying it's not practical to do that because people would go apeshit if we replaced the word "marriage" with "civil union" everywhere. They'd say we were "undermining the Christian foundations of our nation." They'd say we were "demeaning a fundamental pillar of society." They'd say it was "political correctness run amok." It would never get done. Legalizing gay marriage is the easier way to achieve equality.
Debate: Should gays have the right to marry?
Side: NO!!!

The easy thing is hardly ever the right thing. That's one of the biggest problems with the world in any place at any time, people look for whatever will patch the problem as easily and as quickly as possible. Doing the hard thing requires the willingness to stand up and say we do these things "...not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." And while John F. Kennedy was talking about going to the Moon that's the mentality that we as responsible members of any society must have towards everything we do. It doesn't matter what action is taken, you can't please everyone so we must do what is right regardless of the criticism and uproar that comes of it. The right thing, the hard thing, is only rarely supported by the masses of the present but is always appreciated by the public of the future. P.S. Sorry this came out of the blue, this debate came back into my attention and I felt that I should finish what I meant to say but never had the time or the energy when I first got involved.