azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

I stand in this position because it can send a message to all the young kids and as stated in some articles "The walls are speaking to me" some of the younger kids have stated... It reaches out to them and says something to them and it can help when you are trying to spread the word about something important...
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

If it's on the side of an old building that noone uses,(which in my area it usually is), then it's art. It's youth expressing themselves to the world. Some may argue, "It's just angry teens", but, so what? THat's a good thing. If teenagers can relieve themselves of anger by spraypaint, instead of hurting people, or drugs ; then I say we encourage it!~
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

Why can't they relieve themselves by masturbating like all the other teens ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

Some people (like me) like to express themselves in more appropriate ways. When i'm angry i go to the studio and vent in a microphone, put a beat behind it, and it becomes music. When im happy i play and write pieces of music for my saxophone. I never "just say me' that's against all i believe in.
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

Because sometimes it is art and contains and idea that is better expressed by graffiti than masturbating. See for yourself on the the link below
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

If it was trully art then they should be able to find someone to commission it and put it on an appropriate place. If it's on my property and I did not ask for it, it is vandelism, regardless of how artistic the idiot who painted it thinks he is.I can call myself a brain surgeon and cut someone's skull open..., it doesn't make me a doctor.
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

Ok, your definition of what art is remains completely unclear (CAN anything be art at all in your view and if yes - what's your definition of art?) but let's forget those instances when someone painted on private (such as your) property but painted on public property? Or the case where the artist got permission of the owner? Considered the last case you cannot declare graffiti as vandalism PER SE. Thus, if you consider graffiti as a possible art-form (just as paintings on canvas, sculptures, dance performances are) you must admit graffiti is art in certain instances.
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

Graffiti, by definition is vandalism. Graffiti by definition is defacing of property by someone other than the owner.Now, as far art style. Graffiti can be considered an art style when it can not be called vandalism. For example, when it applied to a canvas or when the owner gives permission.
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

By definition graffiti means “Writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place.” I understand where you are coming from, some graffiti is just 'tagging' from little kids who just want to fit in. But look at true artists like Banksy and Shepard Fairey, their work deserves to be appreciated. Banksy really makes you stop in your tracks and go 'thats so true'. Their art makes up for all the other rubbish on buildings. They are just expressing themselves but in the wrong place, keep in mind tho that mosst owners dont mind so much anymore :) hope you change your opinion
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

If Banksy drew on the side of my house and I couldn't get a substantial amount of money for it, I would have his ass thrown in jail for vandalism. ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

That is if you could identify him!! Why would he paint on your house? He wants more than just your family and neighbours to witness it. Have you ever wondered how many other artists are out there just like banksy was at 16, blessed with so much talent but got no where to put it for the whole world to see. There are good street artists gangs that do an excellent job of beautifying a dump, a dump that no one cares about anymore,
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

I have cameras around my property. I think I can give the cops an accurate description. He's already on notice.If they can't put it on canvas and sell it, it ain't worth much. "Beautifying" is a subjective term. If it's in a dump, it will mostly be seen by the dump's denizens. ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

Albeit alot of it is crapbut check out Banksyhttp://images.google.is/images?q=banksy&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=SVSxS_-tI4H20wSPuLi3BA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQsAQwAA I think he is one of the greatest visual artist today
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

I've been following his, or at least i think its a he, for several months now. I love 'his' work. I really wish we knew who the person was, not who they think he is. But then again he would be arrested for art terrorism if we knew who he was. Art terrorism? Hmmm..... that's a weird reason for a warrant. lolz
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

Talented artists should use a proper medium for the art so budding junior artists could follow their lead. Their talent puts them in a position of leadership whether they like it or not, and they should use this position to influence others for good. What's wrong with hiring out a gallery and setting it up to look just like the ghetto walls on the street?
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

well for some that works just fine but I think if Banksy did that it would all look a bit to preppy and boring. Context matters, and sometimes doing art in the street has that extra context that gives the work edge.Dont get me wrong. I dont like 90% of graffiti. (come to think of it, I dont like 90% of art gallery art either)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

The "context" and "edge" you're referring to is called the thrill of defying authority, of rebellion, of eating the forbidden apple... it's nice to get yourself a rush, but if I catch those bastards, they'll end up hating art for the rest of their potentially happy lives... :)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

the thrill of defying authority, of rebellion, of eating the forbidden apple.Well you could call it that, but I would call it "making ugly places more beautiful" and if authority represents ugly and the rebel represents beauty (as it clearly does in this case) then I am all for the rebel.Society needs a rebel to a certain degree or else it risks becoming stale.
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder my friend, so if you use my property for your purposes, you better make sure that I think it's beautiful, not you or anyone else!
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

"Stale," my friend, is NOT bad...., if you know what to do with it. ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

If he were to put this crap on the side of my house, I would have him arrested and hopefully sent to Guantanamo Bay for vandalism and then have him water boarded ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

If he would put his "crap" on the side of my house I would sell it for twice the money it was worth before.I guess you are not a buisness man
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

Interesting. Does a graffiti vandal forfeit any and all rights to his work once it is on private property? What if he sued you for his "share?" I guess you would call it, "Poetic Justice!" ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

He doesnt have any rights on the work if it is on your house and he hasnt made a deal with you before hand - so the money would be all yours.So in fact when Banksy does it, it is more like a gift than vandalism. You could sell the wall, get a new wall, and then keep the change.
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

If his crap can be sold as art, then why give it away for free? ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

That still wouldnt be the sillyest reason someone has been waterboarded by the American Government.
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

My only wish now is that we can water board people who see vandalism as art ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

I would expect nothing less from Ann Coulter´s biggest fan
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Vandalism

Well..., I would need someone to hold these people down. It's not like they're going to let themselves be water boarded ;)
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

99.9% of it is absolute garbage and the perpetrators should be put in prison.However the sheer beauty of the .1% more than makes up for the rest. I wouldn't wish for a world without graffiti if it meant losing that.Still, most of it does suck.
Debate: Graffiti - art or vandalism?
Side: Art

I agree. I love when a train passes by and you see a few really wonderful designs people have come yup with, and even colours. Or like, I remember this on place where a person graffiti`d a really amazing picture of a wolf. The colours and composition was so awesome. Definitely makes up for the tons of crappy ones.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

Why would any single individual forfeit their right and neglect self preservation against those who would initiate the use of force against them?
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

Guns should be legal Yup. If you illegalize guns, those in power won't be disarming. Wonder why that is? 🙄
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

If you illegalize guns, those in power won't be disarming. Wonder why that is?People in power haven't needed guns to control populations since at least the early 20th century. It is simply incredibly naive to purport to believe that modern governments have no better methods of persuasion and control than brute force.The fallacious premise on which your argument is based is that any government is going to enter into power whilst being out-armed by its own citizenry. If the government does not have more power than the citizenry then its purpose is nullified as a societal organiser and/or enforcer. There is no point in its existence if people can just say no. How would that work for the police? You're going to jail. No I'm not. OK fair enough?
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

The premise on which your argument is based is that any government is going to enter into power whilst being out-armed by its own citizenryAnd there it is...Right out of the donkey's mouth.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

Right out of the donkey's mouth.That's me. The donkey.That's you. The fascist with no rebuttal.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

I've rebutted you. You can't explain why Mussolini had a medallion of Marx's head that he kept in his pocket...
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

All I see are rebuttals because your logic is poorer than dirt.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

There is no point in its existence if people can just say no.Sure there is.How would that work for the police? You're going to jail. No I'm not. OK fair enough?The same way it does now, seeing people have guns now, and still get arrested.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.NHTSA ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving): :) 10,874 people died in alcohol-impaired crashes in 2017 Gun Violence Archive ( https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)::) , https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls): :) 15,656 people deaths from gun violence in 2017, and we already have 2,125 deaths this year.So honey, if you're going to talk numbers, you better look up all the numbers before you open your mouth
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

My numbers are as accurate as anything you can cherry pick.As always, gun control fanatics ignore the OBVIOUS truth when it comes to the double standards from the Left, and their conditional outrage concerning loss of life.The only lives the Left supposedly cares for are those killed with guns.Innocent life means NOTHING to those on the Left. They support NO RESTRICTION ABORTIONS!Spew your crocodile tears to people who can't see through your inhumanity.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

Makes literally no sense to say I'm cherry picking. I gave a more recent update on your numbers, and then gave more info that you left out while cherry picking. You had originally asked why anti-gun people are so obsessed with gun control when there are other things, I was simply giving the response that clarified why. The numbers speak for themselves.Plus, I'm not even someone who thinks no guns should ever be allowed to touch a person's hands, as I'm guessing you assume I am. I think they are unnecessary, just because I know lots of numbers that show how often guns actually end up being helpful in the "defending myself and my house" argument ("In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident." https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf): :) ) We can easily get those numbers of deaths and incidents down by making it so that guns are only given to people who know how to use them, and no matter what, semi-automatic weapons or really anything more than a pistol and maybe a hunting rifle for those who love to hunt so badly should be allowed. If everyone who had access to a gun was trained in how to use one, as in had to pass a test of some sort, then there would be much less cases of accidents. And if there were only pistols and hunting rifles, then there wouldn't be regular mass shootings like we have now.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

Did you see what you just did? You totally ignored my entire argument speaking to back ground checks for people before they buy alcohol and kill people with cars. Why would you ignore this IF YOU TRULY CARED ABOUT SAVING LIVES!Do you see how loss of life is acceptable when possible alcohol regulations effect your enjoyments in life?Your desire to drink alcohol in public places, and not be bothered with back ground checks, etc. supersedes the chance of people dying from drunk drivers.Look in the mirror the next time you start preaching about more gun control while ignoring your vices in life.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

You totally ignored my entire argument I did read it, I didn't want to write a shit ton about it because it is not relevant to this topic. It most definitely is a horrible problem, and I have plenty of opinions and sources for that too, but it has exactly zero to do with guns. Look in the mirror the next time you start preaching about more gun control while ignoring your vices in life.I don't even drink alcohol, so don't make it sound like it has anything to do with my personal life or morality.Did you see what you just did? You totally ignored my entire argument speaking to back ground checks for people before they buy alcohol and kill people with cars. Why would you ignore this IF YOU TRULY CARED ABOUT SAVING LIVES!Did you read what I posted? THERE ARE MUCH MORE GUN DEATHS THAN ALCOHOL RELATED DRIVING ONES. So if you're going to pretend to care about what kills people, actually pay attention to statistics. And I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic.Why don't you study up on logical fallacies and question your own morals. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listoffallacies#Informal_fallacies, you should specifically check out "false equivalence," "incomplete comparison," "Onus probandi," and "Thought-terminating cliché").Hypocritical dumb-ass.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

IGNORE YOU TOTAL HYPOCRITICAL WASTE OF TIME!Life only means something to you when it has to do with your political stances against guns.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

I find it genuinely impressive that you managed to write 4 "arguments" that only included 4 sentences that at all actually talked about guns.If you want to know my opinion on other subjects like abortion and drunk driving as you so fallaciously brought up in this debate, I'll meet you in the relevant topic. Otherwise, there's no purpose in trying to debate a topic that you refuse to actually talk about.Translation: I can't have logical discussions with morons (I can't fight stupid), so I'll be here when you wanna actually talk about the subject at hand. Which is whether guns should be legal, btw, in case you forgot.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

You are correct, there is no logical discussion with a moron who refuses to admit his hypocrisy!This is why I ban them whenever possible.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

supersedes the chance of people dying from drunk drivers.Yet if drunkenness is also another huge American problem why would you wish guns to remain legal if American drunks presumably also own them?
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

Another hypocrite heard from? So innocent life only means something to you when it involves the gun?When it comes to alcohol, you have no problem with people dying. You say, NO BACK GROUND CHECKS WHEN YOU BUY ALCOHOL, but when it comes to me buying guns you want back ground checks.HYPOCRITE!
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

Another hypocrite heard from? But you totally agree with abortion when god commands it in the Bible you raging hypocrite So innocent life only means something to you when it involves the gun?Well I am worried to be honest about rabid Christian Bible thumping gun nuts like you , so I guess that’s a yes When it comes to alcohol, you have no problem with people dying.Your alcohol problem is yours buddy and I’m sorry I can’t help you on that  You say, NO BACK GROUND CHECKS WHEN YOU BUY ALCOHOL, but when it comes to me buying guns you want back ground checks.HYPOCRITE!I agree totally .....HYPOCRITE......SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ON ALCOHOL BACKGROUND CHECKS AS AMERICA IS MADE UP OF 70 PER CENT CHRISTIANS ........THEY’RE OUT OF HAND AND MUST BE STOPPED ......BACKGROUND CHECKS ON GUNS THOSE 70 PER CENT DRUNKEN CHRISTIANS CANNOT HAVE GUNS ITS INSANE .........FOOL ......HYPOCRITE.......IGNORE
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

Legalize ALL guns.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

Well they are in the U S they love their guns that’s not going to change. How does carrying a gun make a society better? I guess those in the U S are so terrified of all the daily threats they have in their country a gun is the only way they feel truly safe , what a way to live
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

Well they are in the U S they love their guns that’s not going to change. How does carrying a gun make a society better?Yeah, one thing you and I do certainly agree on is guns. Probably the only thing, but there you go.
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

I prefer a life where people disagree a lot it’s far more interesting and amusing
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Pro-Gun

It is clear that you have no idea why Guns are important to the peaceful members of society who want them to remain legal and available. The main reason for the 2nd Amendment is politicians are historically corrupt, our forefathers understood this. Millions of people with guns are the only thing that keeps a government from totally oppressing it's citizens.Another reason for unrestricted gun ownership for peaceful people is to keep the crime rate low. Criminals will always choose a soft target over a hard target, give them less soft targets.Last is the freedom as a peaceful citizen to own what you desire since you have not harmed anyone
Debate: Guns should be legal
Side: Anti-Gun

It is clear that you have no idea why Guns are important to the peaceful members of society It’s clear that you have no idea why guns are unimportant to the peaceful members of society one in fact I live in , thank you for admitting by implication your society is so dysfunctional you need a gun to feel safe who want them to remain legal and available.Yes , to feel safe The main reason for the 2nd Amendment is politicians are historically corrupt, our forefathers understood this. Millions of people with guns are the only thing that keeps a government from totally oppressing it's citizens.Not this nonsense again , yous are possibly the most patriotic country in the world with every second house sporting an American flag yet you’re terrified of an oppressive government?What the hell chance do the untrained farmers , bankers and labourers of the U S have against the might of the American military who we keep getting told have no equal?Another reason for unrestricted gun ownership for peaceful people is to keep the crime rate low.How’s that working for yous? Criminals will always choose a soft target over a hard target, give them less soft targets.Right , so criminals are now holding up people on the streets and making house calls to rob granny’s and pensioners , that’s great that they’ve giving up all the hard stuff in favour of the soft stuffLast is the freedom as a peaceful citizen to own what you desire since you have not harmed anyoneSo why can you not own an atomic bomb .......wait you can’t can you?