azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

different opinions than themI don't have to accept incredibly fucking stupid remarks, like the ones you presented previously.You want to quote me correctly on when I was acting superior?I'm sure I can quote you correctly on when you began acting like a spoiled child.Apparently I am the only one who thinks they are superior to children. Isn't calling someone a child demonstrating that they are acting superior? I learned something today, I should think twice before I properly quote sociopaths in the future.slanderDing, ding, ding, the new dumbest statement in the history of CreateDebate. What prize do we have for him Johnny? Describing my paragraph as slander is insane.That's the most correct statement you've made since you joined this site. You are misquoting me, by paraphrasing, when you actually don't have an understanding of what i'm saying. Here....is...what...I'm...saying!If their is a rule against guns in an area, there will be less guns in that area.If there is no rule about guns in an area, there ill be more guns in that area.Fuck you again. You are a fucking liar. You said there will be less gun death. If you misquote you, what do you expect from me?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

I don't have to accept incredibly fucking stupid remarks, like the ones you presented previously.Who says you have to accept it? When you become an adult you'll realize people have different views and you'll accept that realization.Apparently I am the only one who thinks they are superior to children. Isn't calling someone a child demonstrating that they are acting superior?It's a statement. If I call a white person white, my race does not matter, if they are white. Children, curse, and scream, and overact when faced with difficulty, like you are doing.Fuck you again. You are a fucking liar. You said there will be less gun death. If there is less gun usage there will be less gun death.You didn't take my new vantage point.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Hmm, interesting turn of events.Who says you have to accept it? When you become an adult you'll realize people have different views and you'll accept that realization.Not actually an argument.It's a statement. If I call a white person white, my race does not matter, if they are white. Children, curse, and scream, and overact when faced with difficulty, like you are doing.Not actually an argument. But, assholes release shit into the environment, so my assessment of you as an asshole is warranted apparently.If there is less gun usage there will be less gun death.You didn't take my new vantage point.Not actually addressing my comments. Not that it is clear that you ever did.It looks like this is winding down. Probably a good thing, I think I hurt you with my facts, and it appears you only act normal when the other person acts like a child. Also because it was basically the same thing, I would provide logic, facts, and common sense, and you would come back with exaggerations, false claims, idiotic fantasies, and worthless gut feelings.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

You haven't addressed any of my points, in I can't remember how long. I won't add anything I'll just start over.Gun zone areas equal less guns in those areas. Dispute.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

You haven't addressed any of my pointsFALSE. Every time I did you would get crazier. So then I had to stop.It doesn't accomplish anything to get rid of guns. No lives will be saved (in fact more lives will be lost), and no violence will be prevented. So, what is the point? Removing guns leads to pain and suffering.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

It doesn't accomplish anything to get rid of guns.Proof you are neglecting my point. I stated simply In gun free zones, guns will be used less.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Here is the problem we are having. You are saying there will be less guns available. Then you are specifically saying that guns will be used less. Those 2 things mean something totally different. I don't believe the USE of guns will be reduced just because it is a gun free zone. Example, school shootings.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

You are saying there will be less guns available.I am only saying, from a brand new topic, that in gun free zones guns will be used less. I don't believe the USE of guns will be reduced just because it is a gun free zone.Did you not agree that if shooting people was legal that more shootings would occur?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I am saying that having a gun free zone does not guarantee that guns will not be used. I realize that you are not saying it is guaranteed either. I don't think guns will be used less in a gun free zone either because of the examples of guns not being stopped in current gun free zones.A gun free zone does not ban shooting people. That is already banned. Shooting people is not any more or less banned in a gun free zone. The ONLY thing that is implied by a gun free zone is that it will have less guns. Any other implications that you suggest need to be supported for people to agree with your statement.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

I am saying that having a gun free zone does not guarantee that guns will not be used.True, but no preventive measure 100% guarantees anything. What they do is lower the chances that what they are preventing, will occur. I don't think guns will be used less in a gun free zone either because of the examples of guns not being stopped in current gun free zones.With no evidence either way I believe this is a moot point. My logic is from a standpoint that if there is no law preventing something it happens more often, so if there is a law preventing something it must slow it.A gun free zone does not ban shooting people.All I asked was did you not agree with me that if there was no law against shooting people, that more people would get shot.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

True, but no preventive measure 100% guarantees anything. What they do is lower the chances that what they are preventing, will occur.Gun free zones don't lead to guns being stopped. Guns wouldn't be used either way. The gun free zones create a target which then causes guns to actually be used.With no evidence either wayI said you have no evidence. Why are there gun shootings in gun free zones if gun free zones work? That is my evidence that guns will still be used.All I asked was did you not agree with me that if there was no law against shooting people, that more people would get shot.My stance was clear on this. I already agreed with you, then I pointed out that it doesn't matter because we are not talking about THAT law. You agreed that I was right that more people die because of gun free zones then are saved.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

You misquoted me. This is a blatant misquote and I demand an apology.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

I don't see a misquote, I went through and I see that i responded to every issue aptly.Yet if you feel it's a practice that should be taken up, maybe it should start with you, show me where I misquoted you.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

How do you not see the misquote? You did it deliberately. I thought it was your job to find it. Do you consider yourself a standard hypocrite or a mega hypocrite.I said: "Somehow banning guns is the thing that will finally do it."You said: "As I said before, no one is trying to take your guns."I clearly did not say or imply that you were talking about taking away all guns. Bam! Misquote
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Do you consider yourself a standard hypocrite or a mega hypocrite.*I don't consider myself a hypocrite. A hypocrite says one thing but does another thing. I have always been in favor of finding your own mistakes, while you have always been in favor of finding the mistakes in question and bringing them to the attention of the person making them. I searched for my mistakes found none, and am content, I made none. Now is your turn to do as you said you'd like to do, and find my mistakes to bring to my attention.I said: "Somehow banning guns is the thing that will finally do it."You said: "As I said before, no one is trying to take your guns."You literally said that you think guns should be banned.Where I responded that we are not trying to take your guns.I clearly did not say or imply that you were talking about taking away all guns. Bam! MisquoteBut you did, so not misquoted.Thanks for bringing it to my attention. i still disagree with the method but it appears to be effective.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

It is incredible that you can string together letters to make words you are so dumb. A gun free zone bans guns without taking them away. The debate is about gun free zones. I mentioned banning guns IN GUN FREE ZONES. A hypocrite says one thing but does another thing. I have always been in favor of finding your own mistakesYOU DON'T LOOK FOR YOUR OWN MISTAKES. So, I guess you are saying you are mega.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

The gun free zones are not taking your guns, you still have your legal right to them. Gun free zones just don't want them in their areas.That's like nude free zones. You can be nude as you want in your home but not when entering a nude free zone.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The gun free zones are not taking your guns, you still have your legal right to them. Gun free zones just don't want them in their areas.This is what a ban is (we are talking about just the gun free zone now). Guns are banned in gun free zones. Did I just now say that that means people who support gun free zones want to take away peoples guns? No, I am now and have always only been talking about gun free zones. You misquoted me by implying that I accused you of trying to take all guns.The whole point of this debate was to discuss whether gun free zones should be done away with. This has nothing to do with trying to get more gun rights. Gun owners are perfectly fine with gun free zones, and as can be seen currently, don't violate this rule because they think it is stupid. You said the only reason to keep gun free zones was because of peace of mind for the people who don't like guns. You also said that they should have their peace of mind even if it kills them and the pro gun people should leave them alone. I tried to point out to you that everything scary about guns is illegal, so adding on the ban is false peace of mind. The rest of your arguments were you blatantly misrepresenting the future if gun free zones are lifted, and misrepresenting that gun owners are carrying their guns illegally. You constantly mentioned how guns would be used if gun free zones are lifted, but couldn't describe why it doesn't happen now in the gun friendly zones. Then you started blatantly using the wrong words and jumping to conclusions with different words.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

This is not a ban, if the guns were never allowed there then nothing has changed.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Obviously it was allowed at some point. Once the area was declared a gun free zone guns became banned in that area.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Really? So schools, movie theatres, shopping malls, airports, etc, all used to allow guns before incidents like the Sandy Hook Shooting happened?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

"It's not about my personal peace that these laws are in place, they are in place because the government is there to protect us."Wrong, wrong wrong wrong. You have no idea what government is actually intended for do you? It's not to protect us, that's our own personal responsibility.Government is there to provide a stable structure to society, and provide for relations with foreign societies, be they friendly or hostile.Furthermore, it is there to protect a person's liberty, or in other words, the free exercise of their natural rights.Government is NOT intended to be a nanny, nor can it possibly accomplish that role with any efficiency anyway. Individuals are far more capable and effective at doing that. Perhaps you should learn a little bit about US history and government.'No ones trying to take your guns, why do gun lovers have to take the peace of mind from the people afraid of them?"Actually they are, and they're on record saying so, and they're not ashamed of it. So don't try to tell me otherwise. As for peace of mind, why do the anti-gun people have to take OUR Peace of Mind from us? I would sleep far more comfortably if I knew everyone in my nation owned and carried a loaded gun everywhere they went, including myself. Why can't the anti-gun people let me have MY Peace of Mind by arming themselves?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

So what your suggesting is that we need more gun free zones, since you think they work so well. Gun free zones only prevent honest law abiding citizens from taking their guns into them. When, in the history of mankind, has anyone ever trusted a criminal to obey laws? Signs, and more signs that create gun free zones do nothing. We can not expect criminals to obey the honor system.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

So what your suggesting is that we need more gun free zones, since you think they work so wellHow about let's just not abolish the ones we already have.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

How about we do, since they do not work. The theater in Aurora was a gun free zone, so were all of the schools. They prove not to work, if anything they do the opposite of what they were intended to do.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Let me offer you this scenario, though i already know your answer.A crazed gunman with no particular target starts shooting people up in a movie theatre, several armed civilians pull out their guns in an attempt to be a hero, no one knows where the 1st shot was fired from so everyone starts firing at anyone they see with a gun.Does that sound better than ducking and covering, while the madman looks for people, then the police arrive to take him away?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Although that scenario is extremely improbable and highly unlikely, lets assume that it is possible. We will say that 10 people with guns, which includes the original shooter, stand up and start shooting. They will all be shooting at people with guns. The amount of people shot will still be far less than the amount shot if only the original shooter had a gun. Now for the reality: People with concealed handgun permits have to go through training as well as a background check that is very extensive. They are extremely unlikely to pull out their gun and simply start shooting randomly.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Yes but their are people in the crossfire, and their is also the people the original shooter was shooting, there is also the fact that, just like police brutality, people often abuse their power.A racist that's carrying a gun legally could take a mass shooting as his opportunity to take out a few members of a group he never liked.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Your arguments are becoming very far-fetched. Remember that the percent of law-abiding concealed carry holders who end up committing crimes of violence are less than 1/10 of .1%.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

It's because I already went over all of this with Cartman.That .1% would be lower in areas where guns are already not allowed.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Strange then, that it's the places in America with the tightest gun control and most amount of gun free zones that have the highest gun criminal rate, whereas places with the least gun control have the lowest overall crime rate.Please explain this, the facts do not match up with your claims.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Then based off of this.Since gun control causes people to kill with guns more, murder being illegal makes people kill more.So we actually should eliminate gun free zones to cut down on the gun crimes, and also make murder no longer a crime to cut down on those too.We need to keep gun free zones, and make them more strict. The policy now is like telling people they can't have guns, with no method of ensuring that they won't. In fact that's literally what it is.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

"Since gun control causes people to kill with guns more, murder being illegal makes people kill more."Your argument is faulty, there is no correlation between the two premises, but I'm sure you knew that already.It's not the fact that Murder is illegal that deters it's practice, it's the likelihood of getting caught and the harsh penalties that will inevitably ensue because of getting caught that factors into the criminal's decision to act or not.This is precisely why looser/no gun control works as a crime deterrent while gun-free zones are an attractant to criminal activity.It works as a crime deterrent because the potential punishment for committing crime just rose up to the death penalty, and the potential for getting caught also increases dramatically, because there are more "police" (armed civilians) around that can catch the criminal in the act and stop him (it's easier to catch a fleeing target who's wounded by a gunshot than one who is unharmed).With gun control, a criminal has a better chance of getting away because there are fewer "police" around that could wound and catch him, and the penalty for getting caught is up to the courts, and most likely NOT the death penalty. Furthermore, in gun free zones, a criminal can wield considerable "force of arms" over the civilians with even the simplest of weapons (knife or pistol). Because the civilians have no method of defending themselves, and the police are way off somewhere else, a criminal can force compliance by threatening their life, and being able to back it up, whereas a place with armed citizens, the firepower is equal or favoring the citizen and the criminal runs the risk of injury or death by attempting to bring to bear his weapon in such an instance.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Hey, I could support that! So long as it's entirely voluntary for both zones, and no services are exclusive to either zone. I could totally support putting all the people offended by guns in special gun free zones, just for them.That way when one of the pro-gun people snaps, they can just walk into the no-gun zone, obviously hiding their gun, and have a blast shooting fish in a barrel. :3 Maybe then you guys would realize how utterly useless gun-free zones really are.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I understand your good intentions but, I see it would be safer to always keep one handy.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

It's come to my attention that this debate is virtually the same as the "abortion" or "Gay rights" topic.More the gay rights oen here's why.Heterosexual couples can marry, they are not being prevented in any way, yet they want it to be illegal for gays to marry even though I would not affect them in any way.People that want guns, can still own their guns, they just can't own them in the gun free areas. yet they want the gun free areas gone, even though it would not affect them in any way.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Actually it dose affect us of we should happen to find our selves in one of these "gun free zones" and a shooting occurs while we are unarmed and vulnerable well idd say that would effect us quite a bit.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Leave! You don't have to live in those areas.It's like this. Owning a gun is a responsibility right? Well part of that responsibility is finding where you can own a gun. Once you know it, just remember it and don't go into their places.Let them be idiots and restrict gun control in their places, while you're safe with your guns in your places.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I'm talking about gun free zones such as schools, malls, movie theaters, ect places that you will inevitably enter at some point in your life. Gun free zones are usually buildings in which fire arms are not permitted not entire housing developments or whatever you where thinking of.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Well those places should have a check of people as soon as they enter, to maintain the gun free zone-ness.I don't mean a full on body cavity search or whatever the airport does but a simple pat down by whatever security they have their.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

If those were in place then that would make the gun free zone more effective but I see 2 problems with your idea. 1. Do you really want to be patted down just so you can go to class, go to a movie, or go shopping? Yeah that would make the policy enforceable at least but doesn't that seem slightly... Orwellian?2 will there be armed security on scene to prevent the shooter from pulling his gun and firing on the people doing the patdowns? Or just firing in the line as there will certainly be a line if you must wait while the people ahead of you in the ticket line or the kid who got off the bus before you gets patted down and we all know how busy malls are now consider that you must wait in line to enter to ensure that everyone is safe to enter (make that three problems) and in the cases of the privetly owned properties that chose to be "gun free zones"(movie theaters, malls, restaurants, office buildings, etc) will the armed security work for the owner or the government or a privet security contractor company I mean in the schools they will be government employees obviously but what about in other places? And how will you ensure that every "gun free zone" has these measures in place? (tie in to my last question)
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Do you really want to be patted down just so you can go to class, go to a movie, or go shopping?As I said, I wouldn't want that, but if it's be patted down or potentially shot by a hero with a gun, I'll take the light pats anyday.will there be armed security on scene to prevent the shooter from pulling his gun and firing on the people doing the patdowns?Most security for places already have weapons. The local high school near where I live have two armed officers.I'd copy paste the rest but you know it allThe malls would present a problem, but what's to say the people that wanted to shoot up the place will be capped by any of the gun toting civilians that pop up. What if the first person gunned down is the only person with a gun that could have saved the people, now the law of it being a gun free zone or not doesn't matter, but the people never got that peace of mind that gun free zones should exist, and they are now vying to get all guns banned rather than some areas gun free.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

what if the first person to get capped is the only one with a gun well first off if you want to play the "what if" game than what if its the shooter that gets shot first?. And second think of all the people in a mall or movie theater or school, restaurant, office building, etc what are the odds given how many gun owners there are in America and how Many of them have concealed carry licenses and practice concealed carry that only one man would be armed. Besides you never answered my question about security in privately owned facility's. as to your point about the security in your local high school it's good to know that there are armed personnel standing by but as I've said idd rather the teachers be armed and trained so the officers can go back out on the streets where they are most needed.And as to your first point. You may be fine with being patted down god knows how many different times while running errands or any time you want to take your girl or kid to a movie. But it would ware thin on me. And your more likely to get shot by the man firing indiscriminately than you are to be shot by the man aiming specifically at the man who is firing indiscriminately potentially getting shot by a hero with a gun don't think you got that clever remark past me. Or where you calling mass shooters heroes? I hope not.