azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

some say guns are ok if you follow procedure. In the UK we have a proceedurre. After some idiot shot up a school, we said, 'Guns are to be kept under lock and key outside an official hunt or target practice venue. Even then, you must be a member of a club. The ammo is to be kept separate under the same security. Guns are not to be used for self defence except by the police. So far that has worked. Nobody else shot up a school. Nobody has tried to run amock with a kitchen knife against 300 kids. We have had the odd decommissioned gun being used to kill, but since those were not high powered automatic weapons, the damage is tiny compared to the per capita gun deaths in the USA. Other homicides are also much smaller in number. Those automatic guns really push up the death toll. If you really want less people killed through guns, and this will definitely result in fewer killings, I can thoroughly recommend an outright ban on firearms.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

Of course guns kill peopleGuns are not sentient beings, thus they do not hold the capability to kill. The gun is an object; the person is the one who manipulates it.but should they be banned as well?All of those things require some amount of outside stimuli to kill a person. They cannot do things by themselves.Overall I agree with you, but you're wrong in saying that guns kill people.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Guns are not sentient beingsThat's a blatant straw man argument. Nobody claimed guns were sentient beings. When someone gets hit by a truck, they were killed by a truck. When someone gets shot by a gun, they were killed by a gun. Why don't you come back when you have an argument for the proliferation of death which isn't entirely reliant upon your own misunderstanding of English?Idiot.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

killed by a truckNo, they were killed by a person driving a truck recklessly. That's why we charge humans with crimes.misunderstanding of EnglishBy saying that something killed someone, you are implying that the object is capable of that feat by itself without a person. Otherwise, you admit that people kill the person.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

Also, you don't need to sign your arguments.------------------
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

What are the purpose of guns? To kill, self-defense maybe. They have no other purpose and with a weapon that lethal still allowed is crazy. I mean sure you have to be open minded when it come to this big topic, guns don’t kill people the people do, however if you take away the guns from the people they become harmless, even with other weapons. Guns aren’t the only weapons out there but they are still the most harmful especially since they aren’t banned in America. Why is it that school shootings are so common in America because teens have easy access to guns, I mean in some parts of America you can go to your local Walmart and buy a guns so... what’s to say that the crime rate in America won’t go down if guns were banned, or at least less manufactured and harder to come by. And trying to get rid of the problem by teaching people how to use guns safely is not giving a solution to this entire problem because weapons are gonna be weapons and most people won’t even care for these regulations. Just like some people won’t care if guns were to be banned. Guns banned or not it’s up to the nation to decide weather this is an issue that will be resolved or just continue being an issue. Now some people would argue that guns are not to blame if not gang culture and lots of other things that influence crime rate in America... I don’t know what do you think?
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

There are always exceptions to everything. So when people say “guns kill and not people”. I can’t believe how narrow-minded that statement is. Not only are there exceptions but the majority of people handling a gun in particular will eventually end up using it for its soul purpose to kill… why do people keep comparing guns with knifes, bows, and other weapon? It’s as if guns can be compared with a knife, knives are actually pretty wholesome if you think about it, because it’s used for cooking while guns are pretty gruesome since their mainly used to hunt. I think you can see where I’m getting at. Knives don’t pose as much a threat as guns, I think that’s common sense. As well as cars and Big Macs, because these things are not causing your life to be in immediate danger. Of course I can be contradicting my self but at least I’m willing to accept the other options. Whereas others will never begin to believe that guns are truly harmful. And that stubborn thinking process is why America is the way it is. I hope things start to change.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

I thought that this was pertinent and rather interesting. I thought I'd submit it to see if it got any reaction.“The Beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try and take it.” Thomas Jefferson
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

That was almost a good point, I was totally against guns before and that nearly dented my opinion. But then I couldn't help but wonder whether his (Jefferson's) views on the matter would be the same if he could have foreseen the future of "arms". That is: mass commoditisation of personal weaponry. The lethality and diminutive nature of such weaponry. The rate of fire of these weapons and the speed of reloading. And whether he'd consider it still pertinent when the government owns and deploys tanks, HMGs and fighters on home soil. Which of course, in order to remove such a government, would require not just pistols and other personal weaponry but at least RPGs and SAMs. I wonder whether (wish) he would have restricted it (the 2nd amendment) to contemporary weaponry of his time, that is: "muskets (36+ inches long) and single shot pistols". But now I am not 100% for a total ban, as I'd love to see "Cops" the TV show with them running around with huge heavy muskets and taking 20+ seconds to reload their pistols. Also Columbine would have gone from un-fucking-believable horror to almost sublime comedy.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

phuqster, you have to understand that it was created to defend yourself for thugs, including the evil government. So you really think that what is available is evil vs what is available in military? Go figure.Only stupid, ignorant, selfish, crazy people kill fellow citizens. With those, they would be put away anyways. I also support shoot on the spot if you see a killing spree or someone is robing a bank. I think that would work really well.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

i disagree it was explosives than and its faster firing weapons now its not as easy as video games make it out to be to kill such a large number of people recoil is a big concern and if your a few degrees off its a miss additionally full auto weaponry is very hard to aim when in full auto and is rarely used by any competent soldiers also it was retarded to ban bumps tocks as the shooter would probably have killed more people without one
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION The right to keep and bear arms. I, for one, am happy to know that I live in a democratic nation that has a fail safe built into it. If it were to fail, be over run by a tyrant or whatever the case, if it were to fail, I would have a fighting chance, and so would my peers. I think disturbing the constitution is a bad idea, especially when we're talking about something like the 2nd amendment. If you touch the constitution, and at the same time, strip the people of it's property, and the property of which could help protect them in dire situations, you're going to have a reason to amend the constitution again because there will be a revolt. You know what I mean? You are changing the game, and then you are making it to where it's harder to keep fair if they wanted to change it again, and on top of all of that, it's not a belief that's being taken from them, like the belief of freedom, it's a material possession that has the power to defend itself, while in the right hands. Tobacco, which I am all too familiar with, was responsible for 18.1% of deaths in the U.S. in year 2000. 435,000 deaths in 2000 compared to firearm related deaths at 29,573 in 2001. Look at the difference there! 405,427 more people died by smoking than being shot... What do cigarettes do to protect the citizens from each other or the government? I would have to say, only calm one down a little for a short amount of time and make their fight weaker and more difficult to endure. If we're going to do anything concerning the second amendment, it should be to teach gun safety in classes as a sort of D.A.R.E. like program. Just because we teach people about drugs doesn't mean they'll seek them out, this should be the same with firearms.I do think that we need to keep guns off of the streets, but this isn't a gun issue, it's a fairly complex societal issue.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

I would like to add that we are a constitutional republic.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

If you look at history, the first thing empire's do to have total control is to disarm it's citizens.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

Yes that might be true but are you suggesting that we should be allowed to carry semi-automatics or greater weapons? If our government wants to control us with force they are not going to use pistols and hunting rifles, they will use the military and they use far more powerful weapons. the only way the people could successfully counter that is with weapons of near equal or greater power than what would be deployed by the military or non-violent movement such as the Indian Non-violence peace movement to overthrow the British Empire in India.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

You argue that the caliber of the weapon is the only factor in a fight. While this is a significant factor it is not the only one. Tactics and training are in many ways more important. Finally the reason why the only reason why the Indian non-violence movement succeeded was because the British Empire chose not to use force. When you discuss a military actively engaging in suppression of resistance you've passed the point where non-violent resistance will work.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

I did not mean it to sound like the caliber of the weapons was the only factor. tactics and training are also very important if not more so. but isn't the American armed forces better trained than an American citizen? wouldn't it be better than a militia as well?I guess i don't see the point of the first part of this rebuttal.as for the second i should have done some research before bringing that reference up nonetheless non-violence is an important tactic and it may not alone stop the suppression but it could be a catalyst for something greater that could. If they were true to the form non-violence could work, it just would be very bloody.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

And that my friend, is why Vietnam was lost. The Guerrillas were indeed poorly trained, compared to the American GI, however they were far superior to the GI in terrain mobility and knowlegibility of the battlefield. That is why a standing militia is often incorporated into the defense force because of their greater defensive potential. Moreover, the American armed forces is a largely offensive unit, indeed they are trained to deal with hostile environments, rather than sympathetic ones, although some more advanced units are given training in insugency. Also, the whole point of a militant revolt is to avoid excessive bloodshed on the rebelling side.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

It's not really accurate to say that Vietnam was lost in a military sense. We lost the war because there was no political backing and withdrew before the job was complete. But the guerrilla tactics used by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese certainly gave our soldiers a hell of a fight. Militias are definitely best suited for defense, a well trained militia knows the terrain, prepares for likely invasions and drills often enough that it can deal with any uncertainties. Don't underestimate the strength of an out gunned, dedicated force that knows the battlefield better than the enemy. The American Revolution was one by such a force.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Therefore, we should be like Swiss, 1 year of reserve service. Government provided ammo every year to practice. Citizens are allowed to purchase the rifle and learn how to use it.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

the Vietnamese were defending their home; they knew the terrain. the American army didn't know it nearly as well and wasn't prepared for the war they were going to fight.I think that if the American armed forces were going to suppress its own people they would be better prepared because of what they learned in Vietnam and far more knowledgeable of the terrain. Also now they have far better intelligence technology than during the Vietnam war.Before Vietnam and Korea the American armed forces did not have to deal with a solely guerrilla war and thus were not as prepared as they are now.Lastly, no matter if the rebelling side is using peaceful means or armed as it appears you are supporting, there will be excessive bloodshed. Yes America lost Vietnam(and around 60,000 people) but the Vietnamese lost more than a million troops and civilians at least (I'm only counting deaths). They were less trained and they had weapons but that did nothing to reduce the amount of losses that they endured.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Ever heard of the Vietnam war, or the 1973 Afghanistan war?Both had poorly trained, poorly armed forces defeating the two most powerful militaries of their time. Also high tech weapons and training are only a small part in winning a war, if it wasn't don't you think the Iraqi insurgencies would have lost by now? My point is: in a war between the US Army and the American people the army would have a very hard time even if the people only had hunting rifles and pistols.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

Yes i have heard about both wars and i even mention the vietnam war in one of my posts on this subject. I believe i have already explained why i think they are different than today. also as pvtNobody said, the political pressure on America to leave the Vietnam war did have an effect on America losing that war. but that was back in the 60s, don't you think that our weapon's technology has increased by then?the times have changed and yes the us gov would have trouble attacking its own people, and i would hope that our military would be patriotic enough to disobey orders to attack their own country but the US gov knows America better than it knows any other nation. also god forbid the US might consider using light nuclear weapons on more remote areas, because who would retaliate? the Afghanistan war against the soviets was lost on their part because they had an awful plan and didn't properly prepare for the war and the afghan forces had assistance from US and the CIA as well as US weapons and money.To best defeat you enemy you need to understand your enemy, America didn't understand its enemies as well as it should have and that has hurt America's wars.as for you other post about Switzerland and target hunting and such. if you read pvtNobody also talked about Switzerland's gun policies so there is no need to bring it up again since it isn't new info. i do agree however that poverty and lack of education are major causes of crimes and i believe i mentioned that earlier as well. like i also said guns may not kill people alone but they give the person a tool that greatly facilitates killing if that is what the person wants at that time.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

If every household which meet criteria was mandated to be armed with high level weaponry, it would increase the security of the USA.Watch sons of Guns, they have it right but that is rare in our society.We would fight back any threat, and may lose but at least we would fight rather than hide because of being disarmed.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Therefore we should have those rifles and ready for gorilla warfare. That's how Afghanis' win the war. But, I know for sure that US government won't let it get to that point. 1, military personal will side with constitution, at least 80% of them. 2, government won't do anything stupid that won't really get money from our tax dollar. Therefore, they won't wage war with citizens. However, you do need those rifles to keep the government in check for your own safety.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: yes

Do you realize your talking about empires, which existed hundreds of years ago, when there weren't "hardcore" gangsters and a black market, people abided by the rules or wouldnt have life.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

that argument makes sense only if u say that u believe America will have some civil war if it lost it's GUNS or that in some stupid way America can only prevent its self from turning into a totalitarian state if it has guns...
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

That is exactly the argument and is the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

Good poetry but outlaws are not the only problem.You haven´t tought about massacres in schools, have you? These pupils shooting around would definitly thing about what they ´re actually doing if it would´t be this easy to get guns.This would prevent many children from dying!
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Guns don't kill people, poeple kill people. The vast majority of people who commit gun crimes obtain their wepons illegally in the first place, so if guns are taken from the law abideing citizens, you'll have a situation where the outlaws will have guns and the sane people who should be allowed to have guns will be defenseless. also it shifts the balance of power in favor of the politicians instead of the citizenry. It's just one more step towards tyranny. This country started by shooting the poeple who tried to supress us. We can't allow our government to become the very thing we killed to escape from in the first place. Do you really want the politicians to have complete control of you lives?
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Freedom was won with guns...
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: yes

And freedom can be lost with guns in the wrong hands. It works both way.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Key word: "in the wrong hands." Yeah its possible for a maniac to get ahold of a gun, but its also possible for a maniac to get in the drivers seat of a car. (see my post)Perhaps we should ban cars in America?
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

I meant that I wanted guns to be kept in the right hands. I did not mean that I wanted guns to be banned.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Oh, thats cool, I agree. Sorry bout that.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

Who ever voted up is the stupedist person ever and you are a democrat or as i like to call it comunism!
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: Yes

Are you crazy?! ban cars really? how are we going to get around in this bloody place then lad? How? That is dumbest idea ever!
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Not too long ago I would have, without hesitation said yes. But given the drift in this country to more and more centralization of power in the presidency I am not so sure. I wonder about forces such as Blackwater; is this destined to be a private force of the executive? What if McCain is elected? He believes in 'winning the war' on terrorism. I believe he will naturally seek to exert increased control over security to the detriment of constitutional safeguards of liberty. It may take ordinary citizens, armed, to ultimately defend our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers fought against linger odds. It reminds of something I once read --- what if every Jew in Hitler's Germany killed one SS troop as he came to arrest him? The number of Jews vastly outnumbered the German SS.
Debate: Should guns be banned in America?
Side: No, guns don't kill people.

Gun control laws simply don't work. Just look at the violent crime rates of areas with strict gun control laws, such as Washington D.C. and the U.K. (both of which have gun bans). Then compare it to areas with less gun control laws, such as Texas and Arizona (where concealed carry permits are fairly easy to obtain). The difference is huge because criminals are far less likely to commit a crime if they think that the victim could be armed.Their was also a study (I don't have the link handy) that showed that the majority of violent crimes involving guns, the gun that was used by the criminal was obtained illegally. That's what criminals do, they break the law. If someone is really going to commit a crime with a gun, then why would they choose to obey any gun control laws?I believe that Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."