azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

Even if some still get in, it will significantly reduce the amt of people coming in illegally that has been and is currently coming in to our country through that way.Fences have been working really well and cost much much less.And that is worth every penny, where lots of other Government spending needs to be altered significantly!How would you know it is worth every penny if you won't put a price tag on it?It comes down to cost vs value, and we as a government and a people need to make some priority choices in spending.You won't discuss the cost.And this one IS a priority.It will not keep out or slow down the people that we should prioritize keeping out.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

I put a price tag on it. Estimated cost 5 to 12 billion, I rounded up to 30 billion, give it the worst case scenario.Illegal immigration cost 113 billion annually.Cost vs value of a wall, priceless!A fence is easy to cut into, they have been cutting and mending existing fences for years. It obvously didn't do much to curb illegal immigration.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

You have already admitted that we won't be preventing all immigration costs. We won't save 113 billion by putting up a wall. Is 30 billion your max cost allowed?And, the fences are working.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

The wall will keep them out.Nothing is failproof. But, doing nothing guarentees failure. We have had extreme failure in this area.No it won't, and doing something wrong isn't itself a solution. It just makes things worse.Some illegals may climb over, its doubtful that a signicant amt of people could climb the wall easily, without being caught, and thrown back.Its ridiculous to allow the massive number of illegals to enter, year after year after year, the way it has.There are many ways of getting over/under/around a wall, and you are trying to shoot your face to spite your foot, to use a common phrase.If you want to fix a problem, it's important to find an ACTUAL solution, instead of one that just makes you feel better whilst costing the country tens of trillions of dollars.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: Yes, because...

"There's no way to get down from there! Well, I guess maybe a rope". I laughed quite hard at that. Watching a candidate realize the shortfalls of their policies mid speech is quite fun.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

It is so much harder to see that with the real candidates because they have actual policies.
Debate: The Practicality of "The Wall"
Side: No, because...

That is unfortunately true. I'd pay good money to see Clinton have the same sort of experience though.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Controlled not prohibited. There are many private uses for guns, farmers, professional feral animal hunters, sports events etc etc where the use of guns could be allowed under strict conditions. The less weapons in society the less opportunity to use them for the wrong purpose
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

Firearm regulation only affects those willing to comply with the laws; I.E. those who are least likely to "use them for the wrong purpose" in the first place.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

There are good, law abiding people who, nonetheless, should not own a gun. Certain regulations will reduce guns in the hands of innocent, though incapable would-be gun buyers.Having strict prohibitions against certain people owning firearms (such as violent felons), and a requirement for professional sellers to check, allows society to add longer sentences to criminals who acquire guns through illegal means while regular citizens are relatively unaffected.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

"There are good, law abiding people who, nonetheless, should not own a gun."Based on what? Personal opinion?"Having strict prohibitions against certain people owning firearms (such as violent felons), and a requirement for professional sellers to check, allows society to add longer sentences to criminals who acquire guns through illegal means while regular citizens are relatively unaffected."That's an entirely reactive measure, which will affect absolutely nothing. An already violent felon with a history of criminal activity will receive an astronomical sentence for committing an armed crime anyway, regardless of extra years tacked on by your proposed regulations.Furthermore, in the U.S., it's already illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm. To what other groups would "certain people" apply?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Based on what? Personal opinion?Some people are so developmentally delayed that they can never drive a car. They can't fully take care of themselves. Would you give a mentally handicapped person a gun? Should you be in some kind of trouble if you do?That's an entirely reactive measure, which will affect absolutely nothingLonger sentences are reactive sure, but they absolutely have an effect. When someone commits a crime, they can plead down. Gun laws can make that more difficult. For the law that is simply against the felon having a gun, he can be locked up just for having it, without having to commit some other crime as well.in the U.S., it's already illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearmYeah, that's a regulation. It doesn't affect none felon law abiding people, which was my point in response to your original post in this thread.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

"Some people are so developmentally delayed that they can never drive a car. They can't fully take care of themselves. Would you give a mentally handicapped person a gun? Should you be in some kind of trouble if you do?"So, in your opinion, at what point of mental incapability should one's right to own a firearm be abolished? The APA has a long, disturbing history of disregarding evidence in favor of political orthodoxy when determining what constitutes a mental disorder. If, as you propose, "mentally handicapped" persons were to be unable to own a firearm, who's to stop the APA from deciding that following a particular religion or political party is a mental disorder?" When someone commits a crime, they can plead down. Gun laws can make that more difficult."You're talking about a previously convicted felon who's charged with another crime and found to have a firearm; first of all, "pleading down" would be nigh impossible without your proposed firearm laws (the specifics of which you have yet to provide), and second, the scope of these laws would be so narrow (I.E. increasing sentence times for multiple-convict felons) as to be pointless.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

So, in your opinion, at what point of mental incapability should one's right to own a firearm be abolished?The point is that there is a level of mental capability below which one should not have a firearm. My opinion on where that level should be does not impact the assertion that there should be a level. Would you give a .45 to a 5 year old? Probably not. Would you give a .45 to a man with the mind of a 5 year old? Maybe, but you shouldn't. There are already laws relating to this. I am not proposing anything new. If, as you propose, "mentally handicapped" persons were to be unable to own a firearm, who's to stop the APA from deciding that following a particular religion or political party is a mental disorder?There are many important (non-firearm) aspects in life that are affected by having the label of mental disorder. What's to stop the APA from carrying out your fear right now?You're talking about a previously convicted felon who's charged with another crime and found to have a firearm; first of all, "pleading down" would be nigh impossible without your proposed firearm laws (the specifics of which you have yet to provide), and second, the scope of these laws would be so narrow (I.E. increasing sentence times for multiple-convict felons) as to be pointless.People (currently) plead down all the time, with all manner of crime. Gun laws (currently) assist prosecutors in seeking longer sentences than would otherwise result. Again, I am not proposing anything. I am pointing out the flaw in your position that regulation only affects those willing to comply. A regulation that adds to punishment clearly affects only criminals. And it is not only criminals who should be prohibited from owning a firearm.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Double post. .
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

It's ridiculous to blame an object with no cognitive thought. People kill people, plain and simple.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

People will still use guns, even if they were banned. Criminals can illegally use guns, because criminals break laws.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Okay Irish, let's take states and cities who have banned guns, California and Chicago. No guns allowed, violence is through the roof and worse than when guns were legal.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

Ok American let's look at some real facts as opposed to your own personal mantra ......But advocates for tougher restrictions say Trump’s and Christie’s arguments do not take into account two key features of the Chicago's gun landscape. The first is that, though it’s hard to get a gun in Chicago, it’s much easier to get one in the city’s immediate vicinity. The second feature is the city’s high level of gang activity, and that gangs are both adept at procuring guns illegally and prone to involvement in shooting incidents.“I think that it’s more likely that if Chicago did not have tough gun laws they would have higher rates of gun violence than they do have,” said Philip Cook, a Duke public policy professor and economist who works with the University of Chicago Crime Lab, leading its multi-city underground gun market study. Cook recently studied the origins of guns recovered in Chicago between 2009 and 2013 using data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. Of the more than 7,000 guns he studied, “the great majority came from the people who were members of gangs,” Cook said, adding that "the gang conflict in Chicago has been particularly lethal over the decades and part of the reason is those organizations are skilled at accessing guns."A lot of that access comes from outside Illinois. Cook said he found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state. Twenty-four percent of the total pool of guns came from Indiana, which is "not regulated at all," he said. Chicago gangs often have connections to gangs in Gary, Indiana, and the two cities almost butt up against each other.The study also found that 22 percent of the recovered guns came from parts of Cook County outside the city, where gun dealers and gun shows are legal.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

This post makes the pro-gun argument pretty well. How could any guns possibly cross state borders if it is illegal to transport weapons across state borders? Isn't that activity banned?The idea of banning guns in the US always ignores the number of guns in the US (and the world) as well as the strength of a black market when it has the support of so many people (as it would here).Also, the idea that any state is "not regulated at all" is laughable in it's inaccuracy. Sort of calls into question the professors other statements.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Guns don't kill people by their selves but people uses guns to kill people.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

............................................... and what country are you from ??
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

Don’t put useless comments in an argument statement. It’s a waste of time for you, and the people who read it.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Republic of Ireland ................,...............................................
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Yes of course they should be banned is America so more violent than other societies that's it's people need the right to carry guns ? I ask these question many times of pro gun people ........Are guns good for societies as if so how do they improve society ?If guns do indeed improve societies why don't countries worldwide introduce guns into society ? How come even the police force in my country do not carry guns guns and yet the country functions perfectly ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

What you say Dermot will banning guns keep guns out of the hands of criminals ?I ask you this question so what you got to say ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Criminals will always get guns legally or not and so what as they use them mostly on each other ?Do you honestly think making the carrying of guns legal will in some improve society ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

So Dermot admits that banning guns will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. What is the purpose of banning guns then Dermot ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

So the question that was asked was ....Should the use of guns be prohibited in AmericaNow it's changed to .....Does banning guns keep guns out of criminal hands So instead of hi -jacking the original question with your own re phrasing of the question why not post it up as a separate question?You constantly seem to fixate on it it for some bizzare reason known only to yourself
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

I thought that was what you were doing when you rephrased the debate as "is the introduction of guns beneficial to society" rather than "Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?"
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Well maybe you shouldn't think so much :) as obviously it's leading you to false conclusions
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

What's false about it. ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Work it out and the penny may eventually drop .....................
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

My conclusion isn't false, it is correct. Your failure to address my correct position is typical and increasingly expected.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Your conclusion is false, it is incorrect . Your failure to comptrehend what I stated and the way it was stated is lamentably predictable and seems to be the dying gasp of a sore loser .
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

The moron has confused himself Lol. Spinning like a dizzy cockroach hit with a mob(question) still trying to survive and looking for an escape hole.You are contradicting your own opinions and yet you attempt to spell my name. Try spelling dimwit first
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

The moron has confused himself Lol. Spinning like a dizzy cockroach hit with a mop(question) still trying to survive and looking for an escape hole.You are contradicting your own opinions and yet you attempt to spell my name. Try spelling dimwit first
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Oh dear , if it's not the Ghanaian ape with another ill formulated pile of gibberish .... what's a cocroach ? what's a mop question ? You're an ape faced Ghanaian who's the recipient of aid money if you keep up your tantrums I will stop feeding your family ... ape
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

I didn't wanna reply but just a few words. Lol stop feeding my what? Have you ever followed up on your donations(which i doubt). Anyway my family will be more satisfied if you used your insignificant pennies on fixing your brain(medical care) than giving it to us for just belly satisfaction.And try to answer your questions well. Stop spinning like a dizzy cockroach hit with a mop(question).....
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Again you make no sense you Nigerian ape this is why your country is a shithole and needs your superiors to run it ... that's us BTW :)
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Have you seen Westworld on HBO? You would be first generation I guess.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

Should people not have the right to protect their family , their property and their self from someone wanting to do them harm ? Being a typical Leftist as you are will Government protect anyone from a criminal with a firearm ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Why is America so incredibly violent as a society that it's citizens need guns to protect themselves ? Ah so now now you say I'm a typical leftist and this strengthens your argument how ? Is it really that bad over there that criminals are attacking citizens at home and on the streets ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

Answer the question as asked - Do Americans have to right to protect their family ,their property and their self from armed criminals ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Do Americans have the right to defend themselves from foreign invasion by buying rocket launchers and military aircraft and if not why not , why stop at armed criminals which again is a gross exaggeration ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

The Republic of Ireland is the deadliest place to live in the Irish and British isles - startling new figures have confirmed.An Independent.ie analysis of homicide rates over the last decade reveals that you are almost six times more likely to be shot and killed in the 26 counties as you are in England/Wales.And, contrary to popular belief, the gun homicide rate in the Irish Republic was more than double that of Northern Ireland for the ten years from 2005 to 2015.A top criminologist has now claimed "Ireland stands at the abyss" when it comes to violent murderous crimes generally and "specifically involving guns".John O'Keeffe, Head of the School of Psychology & Criminology, City Colleges' Dublin, said An Garda Siochana has not been given the necessary tools to face dangerous crime gangs."Gang members know that if they are confronted by gardai they will almost certainly have the upper hand when it comes to firearms."Irish police have extendable batons and pepper spray - Irish criminals have Glochs and AK47's - there can only be one winner."Modern Irish criminals regard An Garda Siochana and their tools as play things - in the meantime, people get eviscerated in the cross fire generated by these gun toting savages."Your ignorance has been exposed you Anti Gun NUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

I know we all live in a constant state of fear over here as gun crime takes a grip on society :) Gun crime in the republic is carried out by criminals and ex paramilitaries who hold firearms illegally , and I like fellow citizens could not give a fuck if theses scumbags illiminate each other in their turf wars .......Ireland’s homicide rate is broadly similar to its EU neighbours. It stands at about 1.1 per 100,000 citizens on an annual basis. This is slightly higher than the UK, with a homicide rate of 0.96 per 100,000. France is slightly higher again at 1.2 persons per 100,000. Ireland’s central statistics office states that a total of 1,068 Irish people died by homicide between 2004 and 2014.Dublin boxing weigh-in shooting death linked to gangland feud Read moreWithin that statistic, however, there is a disturbing trend. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), approximately 38% of Ireland’s homicides are gun killings. In the UK, only 7% of homicides are by firearms. Ireland’s gun killings, on a per-capita basis, are around five times higher than most member states within the EU.In an otherwise relatively peaceful society, it appears from these figures that a violent gun culture, associated with drug trafficking, has taken hold in disadvantaged areas in a number of Ireland’s cities....... So if I'm anti gun how does that make me a nut ?Also as I asked if guns improve society why are you making a case against them as in citing gun crime ?You're a pro gun nut aren't you :)
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

The Republic of Ireland is the deadliest place to live in the Irish and British Isles ! You avoid that reality !
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Hilarious , you truly should not give commentary on something you don't comprehend :) as the UK is 47 on the list making a mockery of your statement . You obviously didn't know I live in the 12 th safest country in the world did you ? Maybe you're the one avoiding reality :) Country Global Peace Index1 Iceland 1.1922 Denmark 1.2463 Austria 1.2784 New Zealand 1.2875 Portugal 1.3566 Czech Republic 1.3607 Switzerland 1.3708 Canada 1.3889 Japan 1.39510 Slovenia 1.40811 Finland 1.42912 Ireland 1.43313 Bhutan 1.44514 Sweden 1.61015 Australia 1.46516 Germany 1.86017 Norway 1.50018 Belgium 1.52819 Hungary 1.53420 Singapore 1.53521 Netherlands 1.54122 Poland 1.55723 Mauritius 1.55924 Slovakia 1.60325 Spain 1.604
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

Hilarious , you truly should not give commentary on something you don't comprehend so back to the question - Do Americans have the right to protect their family , their property and their self from armed criminals ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Nice evasive tactics :) unfortunately for you I comprehend only to well as I yet another of your ' theories ' is well and truly debunked . So let's get this straight American families are under constant threat from armed criminals in their own homes ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

You put up numbers that prove gun crime exists so how does banning guns prevent gun crimes ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

So allowing guns in our society would improve it ? How ? No citizen here would dare carry a gun as they are banned , only criminals obtain guns illegally , therefore gun crime over here involves criminals who destroy mostly each other which I could not give a fuck about as the ordinary citizens live in a mostly peaceful society .
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

You posted numbers that are directly related to gun crimes. Banning guns works in what ways ? Does not work for criminals so what is exactly the purpose for banning guns ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Banning guns works because arming the citizens of any country is clearly a bad idea , I also stated that guns held by criminals are held illegally , ordinary citizens understand what a ban means and therefore do not buy firearms illegally , so the purpose is exactly what it says says and indeed does .
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

Banning guns clearly does not work for criminals and you proudly stated that with numbers you produced. So what does a gun ban accomplish ?
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: YES

Makes obtaining a gun harder and more of a hassle...? I agree that reducing crime is more than just banning guns. But we cannot deny that banning guns would reduce gun homicides.
Debate: Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?
Side: NO

Banning guns will not reduce gun homicides and if you believe that you live in a fantasy land.