azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Feeling the need to always carry bigger guns with more bullets because you are in constant fear of someone else with bigger guns and more bullets is not freedom, and it is that sort of fear which allows one to give up the true liberties which Franklin was speaking of. Freedom is the ability to go about your day without a gun because you know that laws made by the people are enforced by people appointed by people. If your idea of fun is having a sensible gun, fine, no one is suggesting all guns be banned, only common sense rules concerning them, similar to common sense rules about driving a car.btw, I didn't know if you realized but your avatar is all wrong. You are throwing around your American-ness whilst waiving around the flag of a group of slave-driving anti-american separatists. You might want to change that up.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Actually the confederate constitution outlawed the slave triad check your history. My avatar expresses my southern and bronyness pride that's all. And freedom is being able to own any gun you feel is adequate for you defense.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Ugh. It's so sad how schools in the south are allowed to misinform you poor bastards. The South never outlawed slavery and never intended to. Toward the end of the war when it was obvious they were going to get their slave driving asses kicked they began abandoning laws that supported slavery in small part, but that was after they were losing, and it was only partially. They never made a law saying slavery of any type was illegal.And your definition of freedom is almost as sad as your knowledge of history. If you are so scared for yourself that you are against all gun control no matter how many kids and innocent people gun control could save, you are a pussy.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

wow type A yankee ignorence the confederate constitution out lawed the slave traid but not ownership that was expected to go away on its own in time. and my deffiniton of freedom is the very same as our nation's founders thank you very much. their is a reason why they said our rights to keep and bare arms must not be infringed so stop infringing them.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

1. You are still incorrect. The timing of limits to slave trade were precisely when it became evident the their loss was inevitable. It was part of their strategy to re-shift their reasoning away from slavery (which was the true purpose of their rebellion) which they found had become somewhat less popular in the South, being as only around 30% of households still owned slaves at that point--as fucking barbaric and backwards as even that was.2. The right to bear arms never included nor was intended to include unregulated arms or even unlimited arms. Regulation was and always was a key element of the amendment.3. And most importantly their reasoning was a "trained militia" because at that time the U.S. ability to quickly put together a militia was limited. It's purpose was not to encourage a paranoid psychosis about rogue governments or hordes of bandits at the doorstep.That you actually believe that but for a bunch of hillbillies ability to buy military style weapons the U.S. would fall to some invisible tyranny, would be comical if it were not so prevalent. Seriously, I don't know when so much of the country went nuts but it's this type of reasoning that makes rational people start to think gun control proposed doesn't go far enough. I'm beginning to think that a litmus test for any gun ownership should be how much one foams and rants when logical people suggest only limiting them. If you are that into guns, I'm uncomfortable with you having any type of gun at all honestly. It's just a matter of time before a cat at your window scares your delicate ass and you shoot your kids or something--which is more common than fending off bandits at the door by the way.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

You are warped dude. Let me tell you something A your very bad at history. And B the term shall not be infringed means shall not be fucking infringed so hands off gun grabber. And I am very responsible with my fire arms no one in my house is in any danger. And it's undeniable the government is gaining new power because of there clever use of this AlQuida boogy man (which they funded and trained back it the 80s) wake up little lamb this was their plan all along do you get it now?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Let me tell you somethingYou can just tell me. You don't have to tell me you're going to tell me... or ask permission if that is what you are trying to do.A your very bad at historyI gave you the link did I not? You've not supplied anything to the contrary. You cannot in fact because this is correct, there were some laws limiting some slave trade in the South late in the war, after they realized they were going to lose. That's a fact. Now you can pretend the timing is coincidence, and you can pretend it was about state's rights, but you are living in a fantasy. Those with power in the South were the ones with slaves, the only right they were afraid for was their right to own other humans. That's it. There was no other issue bothering them, least not to the extent of going to war over it.the term shall not be infringed means shall not be fucking infringed so hands off gun grabberDid that sound clever in your head? Anyway, its the right of a "regulated" "state" "militia" if you are not in a state militia and are not regulated the amendment does not apply to you. The Supreme Court later ruled individuals do have a right to firearms, but they upheld that regulation was still perfectly legal. So quit arguing strawmen, the issue is regulation not taking all guns away, and regulation is legal by every definition of the amendment and more importantly smart, because smart regulation means less dead innocent people.And I am very responsible with my fire arms no one in my house is in any dangerThat's what they all say.And it's undeniable the government is gaining new power because of there clever use of this AlQuida boogy manSure, the Patriot Act, which I'm 90% against. Nothing to do with guns though, it's a separate issue entirely and I have no idea why you are bringing it up.(which they funded and trained back it the 80s)I know. Regan funded Al Qaeda, then Bush started a war in Iraq saying it was Al Qaeda (and nukes), then Obama killed the leader of Al Qaeda who was like a thousand miles away from Iraq. My question is why you southern hillbillies hate Obama so much, he kicks ass when it comes to getting terrorists, something like 5x as many in 4 years than Bush in 8. Again though, this has nothing to do with guns.wake up little lamb this was their plan all along do you get it now?Do I get that you are making vague connections in between foreign policy and your right to bear arms? I think so. Do I get why you are making that slightly schizophrenic connection? I must admit I do not.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

First of al there was no link but to the topic at hand. The Last part of my argument had admitibly nothing to do with gun control I was showing you how our government creates these terrorist boogie men they uses them to scare us so bad we will gladly give any right away just to feel safe Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave right now. And I hate Obama because he's a socialist who is playing ball with that un american bitch polosie. The Supreme Court ruled that the people are the militia therefore it dose apply to me and following a strict interpretation of the constitution there is no way anyone can say restrictions are legal. More restrictions result in more confident criminals ONLY.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I don't think we need a ban on automatic weapons. Banning guns will just esclate the problem. Just leave it as it is and maybe have guards in schools at risk.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

But do you need an automatic weapon in order to defend yourself or to go hunting?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Automatic weapons are already illegal. Military style weapons have been used for hunting and defense. I believe there was a man who stood atop his house while racial riots were going down in LA. He defended his family and home from the mob with an AR-15.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

yes but a gun would have done the same, also the fact is because there are 300 million guns in america now, its too easy for maniacs and criminals to get hold of them, its a downward spirral of guns and violence. the trick is to get as many off our streets , tighten gun controls, ban automatics and military style guns and pay more tax so the government can seriously find and treat the tens of millions of untreated mentally ill people in this country. the issue is to go after guns and mental health. those who have legitimate gun licenses can of course carry on as normal. but not with the military style guns. they must also keep their guns locked away safer unlike the mother of the latest mass murderer
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Banning automatics has already been done unless you have a license (I feel like a parrot). The military weapons are used in a fraction of a percent of gun crimes. Mental health needs to be looked at. Banning these guns did not work previously, so why are we doing the exact same experiment expecting different results? We don't need to tighten gun controls. We need to enforce the ones we have. Not much is being done in that area. Paying more taxes to the government isn't a good idea. They need to fix the debt first and stop wasting the taxes they get already. Reforms on taxes is a good idea. Getting guns off the street is a good idea. Studies by the FBI show that most of them are in areas of high poverty. Lets help those out and crime will be reduced, especially in Chicago and other big cities. We can not carry military style guns, that is already into law. Only pistols. Keeping guns locked away won't be solved by a law, but by training and ad campaigns.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

The second amendment dose not apply to hunting so that's an invalid argument. And when it comes to self defense it depends on what your attacker has many criminals have automatic weapons both illegal models (full automatic) and legal models (semi automatic) and will even if they are banned.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

no, but its fun to have one. my dad collects weapons as a hobby, he has old muskets to a thompson. My point of view is bias but i don't see the need to get rid of automatic guns.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

For hunting, no. For defense absolutely. If crooks and the government (pretty much one in the same anymore) have them, then you better believe that I want the same to defend myself.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that automatic guns are already banned. So, we're cool on that one.Handguns are used in 89% of the murders in this country. Assault rifles are used in less than 3%.If you had to choose only one type of gun to ban, and the goal was to stop gun violence, assault rifles are a poor choice.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

of course not...we have too many evil people roaming the earth...those gun laws dont mean jack to them...and lets not forget about the tyrants that fake terrorist attacks and school shootings in order to further their hidden agendas
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Gun crime has gone down in the US. The media pumps it up. You should not ban automatic guns and tighten gun laws unless you are going to subject your armies and police force to the same ends. It's bad enough they power trip over everyone lets not add the fact that they will be incredibly over powered if there ever needs to be a revolt in your country due to tyrannical governments. Keep your guns for fuck sakes. People are so concerned with safety that your willing to give up something that keeps you safe. Where's the logic in that!
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

No, you need a licence to get a automatic gun today. The only problem is some moron stealing it. Then your screwed. Thats why OTHER people have guns.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. Plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

If you don’t save the bottled water for an emergency you are not thinking about later you are thinking about now. You are drinking bottled water when you don’t even need to. Bottle water and tap water is the same thing. Bottled water-has more waste and you have to pay for it. Tap water-has all the same things as bottled except no price and no waste
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

The other side is only posting song lyrics! That has nothing to do with water!
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Water bottles are bad. Water bottles are bad because it causes pollution. Also some people sell water battles that have bacteria in it depending on were they get the water. Water bottles also cost more than tap water. Water systems are aging and remains hundreds of chemical contaminants in the water.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

By: James Belbin Plastic Water bottles are made from crude oil that contains toxic chemicals once that is drawing some concern is BPA. BPA is a chemical that is produced from oil and used in bottle water companies to create the polycarbonate bottle. This chemical in repetitive studies has shown to alter the hormones in the bodies of many animals, humans and rats a like. BPA when it alters the hormones in your body many things can happen, your hormones control how your body works, and reacts to new situations. The BPA Chemical in these studies has shown studies to increase obesity in young children and teens by slowing down their metabolism, in many occurrences BPA has been the cause of cancer tumors in lab experiments on rats and mice. In recent years the number of children that have contracted diabetes has increased, similar enough the bottle water out is has increased too, combined with water scares that say the tap water is bad, many mother are feeding their children with bottle water instead of tap water. In a study in 1995 done by a British research team, found that children who had been diagnosed with Diabetes had high levels of BPA in their blood around the time they were diagnosed. The researchers had concluded that the BPA chemical was to blame for the children’s contraction of this disease.  Another point to add is not all plastics are made with the use of BPA, Plastics are classified in different levels 1-7. Plastics objects made with recycle-ability of 1-5 are made with very very small amounts of BPA, nothing to be worried about, but water bottles are made with 6 and 7 levels. When a bottle is made with 6 and 7 the BPA chemicals are not removed from the plastics during the processing unlike 1-5 which the chemicals are burned off. The bottles are safe for a small period of time after processing, but after a few weeks the BPA chemicals start to seep into the water, which is then drank by consumers. In conclusion BPA is being consumed by many people world wide everyday from drinking water from a bottle, predicted by researchers: in the next 10-15 years the world will be suffering from numerous health problems. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9136(199708)14:8<693::AID-DIA412>3.0.CO;2-T/abstract 1096-9136(199708)14:8<693::AID-DIA412>3.0.CO;2-T/abstract) http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/stories/5-reasons-not-to-drink-bottled-water  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Health_effects  (for research studies and statistics)
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

A drop of water is worth more than a sack of gold to a thirsty man
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Plastic can kill many types of fish species. There have been 26 pieces of fish found in one single fish. Fish are extremly vital to the environment as a food source for birds which eat bugs therfore the cycle of life.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Bottled water is not strictly regulated while tap water is, so you have no idea what you are drinking when you drink bottled water.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Water bottle usage, although maybe a leading corporate industry, is not worth making the environment worse than it already is. These bottles will not start to decompose for another 700 years.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

In this day and age, people drink water from plastic bottles. This action arouses much conflict because people of many concerns. Where do these bottles go? How is it different from regular tap water? The answers to these questions are what stir up the arguments. In 2008 alone, almost 2.5 million tons of plastic bottles and jars were disposed of. Where does this all go? Over ten percent of that winds up in the ocean. Tap water compared to bottled water very controversial. The fact of the matter is that tap water is cleaner, cheaper, and healthier than bottled water, making it senseless to drink bottled water. Lastly, over 90% of the cost of a bottle of water is the bottle itself.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Ok so in real life bottled water is just purified tap water now people know that but still bye bottled water when they could be saving money and convert to purified tap water. But do these people really know where they are getting there water from, yah a store but before that. It comes from a pond or lake and just transformed to purified water and made into something you already have at home. Bottled water can cost up to 10,000 times more per gallon than tap water. Nearly 90 percent of water bottles are not recycled and wind up in landfills where it takes thousands of years for the plastic to decompose. But the worst part is the fact that all the leading brands and others use lake or tap water that ends up drying lakes and drying up the earth and most people don't notice this and the others have usually tried and failed but if we all work together we can all Ban Water unless there is a reason too. Like if there is no clean water left, etc. So next time you drink a bottle of Fiji water or Dasani water just remember that is coming from either tap or a lake.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Yes I do feel that the consumption of water bottles should not be allowed anywhere unless in the case of emergency. Plastic bottles can leak chemicals after a period of time. Water bottles also are almost never recycled, and end up in landfills which lead to pollution of our environment. They take 700 years to start to decompose. 90% of the cost is the bottle itself... The water is usually tap water, and is not regulated. Even if tap water is dirty, you can easily clean it out with leaves, moss, and some water cleanser. Nearly one in five tested water bottles have bacteria anyway.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Water bottles should be banned except for times of an emergency because they can be harmful to peoples health as. Tap water is actually cleaner, cheaper and healthier than store-bought water. Tap, unlike Bottled water, is tested and regulated to make sure it is clean for people to use and drink. Bottled water is not regulated in this way and does not get tested as often. Because of this, bottled water is not as clean and healthy as people seem to believe. Also, the products used to make the plastic bottles can cause cancer. The chemicals in the plastic can leach into the water over time, and they pose a serious health risk to those who drink it. Water bottles should only be used in times when no other clean water is available. Why buy water bottles with so many health risks when you could have healthy and clean (tap) water for free?
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Bottled water should be only used for emergencies weather it be natural or human disaster. To help people in need and not pollute in the environment and harm habitats by dumping in the ocean or in landfills. Plastic doesn’t decompose so in that case do not use on for emergencies.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Yeah I have a bottle of water next to me its no bid deal!
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: No Bad For the Economy

Your the BIGGEST Hippocratic i have EVER seen yeh i said it
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Estimates variously place worldwide bottled water sales at between $50 and $100 billion each year, with the market expanding at the startling annual rate of 7 percent. Bottled water is big business. But in terms of sustainability, bottled water is a dry well.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Plastic water bottles also are the most prevalent source of pollution found on beaches. The plastic can harm animals and disrupt sea life. 38 million plastic bottles go to the dump per year in America from bottled water alone, causing much of the plastic pollution problems in the world. It takes 700 years for a bottle to begin composting, so these bottles we use will be around our entire lives and even for the lives of our children and grand children. Because of all these problems that can last many years into the future, we should stop using water bottles and switch to tap water. Instead of buying a new bottle each time, people should get a washable bottle that you can refill and that doesn’t have any of the harmful chemical plastic water bottles do.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Water bottles can easily be made into long term fiber materials, like clothing or carpet. It is easy to just fill cup with water and re use it.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

FISH ARE DROWNING, THE FISH ARE DROWNING.Don’t worryz potato U is not alone
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: No Bad For the Economy

This is a serious subject, if you are not going to take this seriously get out of the debate.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

Over 1.5 million barrels of oil were used to make the plastic bottles consumed in the US last year–and that doesn’t include the petroleum used to transport them. That’s enough petroleum to power 100,000 automobiles for a year.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

There are direct links to drinking bottled water and certain types of disease, even cancer.
Debate: Ban Plastic Water Bottles
Side: Yes Emergencies Only

The growth in bottled water production has increased water extraction in areas near bottling plants, leading to water shortages that affect nearby consumers and farmers. In addition to the millions of gallons of water used in the plastic-making process, two gallons of water are wasted in the purification process for every gallon that goes into the bottles.