azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

The question is are Guns dangerous that's it it says nothing beyond that. Are guns dangerous and what I'm saying is a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it if no one is holding it if its just the gun then no. However if a gun is being held by a mad man then that man is quite dangerous the gun is just a tool. You argument can also be maid for hammers by the way. Neither guns nor hammers will hurt you unless someone hurts you using them.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

I don't think we are going to get each others points, and neither of us are going to convince each we're right so I am going to leave it at that. It was fun debating with you :).
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Same. I'm going to go find an actual gun control debate. Or make a debate about something I don't know what yet but oh well bie.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

By that logical, anyone who is stronger than anyone else is dangerous. I mean if (s)he has the potential to do harm to anyone at all that makes him/her dangerous, by your logic right?Regardless of the fact that a gun is just a mix of metals that on their own don't constitute as dangerous.In fact, by your logic, I can assume everything is dangerous. A cup of untainted soda, with not enough liquid in it to drown is dangerous. If thrown out of a car window to a car moving towards you it can shatter the class.The list of potentially dangerous things are too high to name them all.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Also, if it's the person wielding the gun that's dangerous then that point you are making is a strong argument for gun control. If it's WHO is wielding the gun that makes it dangerous shouldn't we regulate WHO can legally have one? If the deciding factor in assessing danger is who has a gun then it makes sense to regulate who has one. A convicted violent felon or paranoid schizophrenic can go to a gun show and buy a gun right now with no questions asked. You're right, it is WHO is wielding the gun that makes it dangerous so we should try to prevent violent and mentally disturbed people from having them right?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Of course, guns are dangerous, but driving a car is as well. More people die in accidents than killed by guns. Should we ban cars too?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Only about 1000 more die in accidents every year. Thats nothing considering both are in the 30,000. And guns are projected to surpass accidents in 2015. And there are a lot more cars then guns. Therefor cars are safer than guns.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Most of those numbers are skewed from those killed by guns because most involve gang violence.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

How is that skewed? You can't decide what gun deaths matter and don't b
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

It is skewed because of other government intervention in drugs causes violence in gangs over territory and markets.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

I could just as easily argue that car accident statistics are skewed by drunk drivers, does that change that they are dangerous and cause a lot of deaths? No.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

No we should not ban cars nor should we ban guns but we should regulate them. To legally drive a car one must take a test or two and in some states you must have a permit first or be 18. You must also register your car. You must also insure your car so that if you accidentally cause damage and/or harm to someone while driving. So, BY LAW, you have to get licensed, registered, and insured to drive a car. Cars are made for transportation and accidents happen that result in damage, injury, and death and we do a lot to try to prevent that and mitigate losses for it. Guns are made for causing damage, injury, and death plus sometimes they cause that by accident yet we do nothing to prevent that or mitigate losses. My paranoid schizophrenic uncle can go to a gun show right now and buy a gun, no questions asked. A convicted violent felon can go to a gun show and buy a gun no questions asked as well. It just doesn't make any sense.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

I didn't notice anything in this debate about the politics of gun ownership it was a simple yes or no do you think guns are dangerous
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Yes, but so is an unhealthy diet. Lots of things in life are dangerous, it doesn't mean the goverement has the right or authority to try to wrap us up in bubble wrap.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

So should we take away regulation on all things that are dangerous? With your logic drunk driving should be legal. Same with speeding. Or for that matter owning a tank or a nuke. I mean if the government shouldn't step in and regulate dangerous things that should go for all dangerous things, right? Or just guns?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Objects themselves are not dangerous. But in the wrong hands almost every object can be dangerous. A pencial isnt't usually but I am sure almost everyone has heard stories of them being used to stab someone.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Yes, but the people opposing guns don't seem to understand the nature of people. i guess they can only see the potential of said weapon.This is an agreeing statement, if it sounds like it doesn't my apologies.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

If the gun and pencil are the same as your point suggests then let me ask you this... Which would you rather your child be playing with? A gun? Or a pencil? A gun right? Why? Because it is more dangerous? You see things in if themselves can be more dangerous than others. A gun is more dangerous than a pencil. To argue otherwise seems illogical to me. Who are you more afraid of? A man with a pencil or a man with a gun? A man with a gun right? Because the gun is more dangerous than a pencil right? I'd like to see someone commit mass murder at a school, mall, or movie theater with a pencil. Shit if like to see someone kill a man with a pencil. I'm sorry but there's no way I'm gonna feel threatened by a man wielding a pencil attacking me. I can shove my hand into the pencil tip and break the lead without breaking skin then break the pencil to pieces and crush it into splinters with my shoe. Your argument is flawed man. You can't compare guns to pencils lol
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

I see what you mean.The danger level might be like this analogy.The man = 1The gun = 9the pencil = 2The man with the gun obviously equals more than the others.What we, or at least I, mean is that the object has potential numbers instead of full numbers. They stand at neutral, until added to something.Almost like this. They are infinitely dangerous before their infiniteness is quantified by a person that's not infinite.Jokingly I heard a joke where a comedian said something along the lines of "I know 7 ways to kill a man...with my pinky no less' and yea, he was kidding but it makes me think also, a pinky is such a useless finger but it can sill have it's dangerous properties.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Sairbaby is correct, and going on what I said as well. Guns are not toys, they are weapons.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous. Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.Words are dangerous.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

As Theodor Roosevelt once said "the rifle is like a vote. It's usefulness depends solely on the character of the user" simply put a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Guns make dangerous people more dangerous. Who would you rather fight? Someone with a gun or without a gun?I actually didn't realize it was you warrior lol, pic took me by surprise lol.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Those kinds of people will find a way to get a gun regardless of the law. I wouldn't care if he has a gun or not because as long as guns are legal I will have a gun as well.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

But if you wake up in the middle of the night to a stranger standing over your bed with a gun, owning a gun yourself wont do you any good.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

This debate is about guns being dangerous, not the politics necessarily.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

On. Well a gun is a tool it's only dangerous if the person handling it is dangerous. Otherwise it's just a peace of meatl.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Well it makes the dangerous person more dangerous, thus they are dangerous. If guns didn't exist therefore dangerous people couldn't get guns at all, dangerous people would be less dangerous. Of course I'm not saying we could wipe them out of existence of course.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Murder predates guns dangerous people will always find a way to kill.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Agreed. I understand murder has existed before gun, however guns do make murder easier of a task.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

To say that criminals are gonna break the law to argue that a law shouldn't exist isn't a strong point. Here's the flaw: then why have any laws at all. Every law is broken. Criminals do more than wield guns. Should we legalize rape because some criminals still raped someone even though it was against the law? No. Do laws deter people from doing bad things? Yes. It is illegal to drink and drive and people still do it; Does that mean it should be legal? No.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

im saying its pointless to out law guns and it wont make us safer becouse in addition to not disarming the criminals it disarms the people they prey on its a one two punch of fuck you John Q Pubic
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse by saying this, but the gun isn't necessarily more dangerous because it made a dangerous person more dangerous. A hammer would make a dangerous person more dangerous, and so would a boxing glove. It's not the tool that's dangerous it's the users.Though I see the point of everyone saying it is. It has dangerous properties, like the ability to be fired and kill, a knife has sharp edges, a hammer has blunt edges, but I stick to the belief that without a user it's just a harmless object.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

I don't see why someone need to specify how something is dangerous to call it dangerous. Nothing is dangerous with out an explanation to how it is. Name things you consider to be dangerous and I can argue its not because its dangerous due to X, Y, Z. poisonous insects aren't dangerous, they are only dangerous if they bite. Otherwise you are saying that one explanation to how something is dangerous isn't valid where every other one is with no logic as to why. The only way to specify something as dangerous with this logic without performing a double standard would to specify a thing and what it is doing or being used for. Do you agree that an atom bomb sitting in the middle of a city that will only detonate when touched isn't dangerous? After all it won't just blow up on their own.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

I would say nothing is dangerous without intention. If the gun is left alone it wont and can't do any harm, it has dangerous properties because if it's used to do harm it can. Someone refereed to me a teddy bear. It also had dangerous potential but it also won't and can't do harm. An insect that can move on it's own is more dangerous than a gun that can't but just how the gun has to be used the bee has to attack, but I wouldn't necessarily go that deep to say bee's aren't dangerous.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

So you agree that nukes aren't dangerous then?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Not by their self. It's because a nuke won't do any harm on it's own.However you do have me thinking, I see flaws in my explanation. I don't have an answer I can agree with for if a bomb is set to detonate. Obviously the bomb that is about to explode is dangerous, but it was caused by someone. So I say that the bomb is now dangerous because it can do harm with out an influence at the time of doing harm.But, and don't get upset, I also think things aren't as black and white as 'is dangerous' or 'isn't dangerous'.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Not by their self. It's because a nuke won't do any harm on it's own.When people ask "are nukes dangerous?" People will say yes because they can potentially cause people a lot of damage, they can put people in danger. We don't start thinking whether or not nukes are dangerous on their own. Obviously they are not dangerous on their own... Nobody is claiming guns walk around and shoot themselves at people. I feel as though this "guns don't kill people, people kill people", "guns aren't dangerous", etc, etc, etc... Is all really just an excuse that anti-gun regulation and pro gun people use to twisting things in their favor... The statement "guns are dangerous" is a general statement, the question of this debate is a general question therefore deserves a general answer. The question being "are guns dangerous?" Is just that, nothing beyond that. It isn't asking "are guns dangerous on their own?" Therefore ANY reason as to why guns are dangerous is a reason to how they are dangerous, even if they are dangerous because they make people more dangerous. By this logic that was started by pro gun, anti gun regulation/control there is no such thing as a dangerous tool... No tool can ever be seen as dangerous... Yet anything else can... This gives off a twisted perception on things in my honest opinion. However you do have me thinking, I see flaws in my explanation. I don't have an answer I can agree with for if a bomb is set to detonate. Obviously the bomb that is about to explode is dangerous, but it was caused by someone. So I say that the bomb is now dangerous because it can do harm with out an influence at the time of doing harm.The bomb in my hypothetical situation hasn't been detonated but for some reason it is incredibly unstable. I would merely just say bombs whether unstable or not but that hypothetical situation doesn't present as much as a problem for your logic. But, and don't get upset, I also think things aren't as black and white as 'is dangerous' or 'isn't dangerous'.I agree... Heck dangerous is subjective, anything subjective at the most we can be critical about... But never 100% right. Though I haven't heard the logic as to why things that are only dangerous in the wrong hands can't be considered generally dangerous. I don't see how that is so illogical, is it illogical for me to see bombs, and grenades as dangerous? Is it illogicAL for me to see bazookas as dangerous? How? What is so illogical about that?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

For the 1st part, my main debate was that, things on their own aren't dangerous, so what you said was agreeing with me but also telling me that any danger level at all qualifies danger. i recently changed my opinion to not only keep my own idea in mind but to take some reasonable arguments into consideration. I changed it to this, the weapon isn't dangerous because it can't do harm but the act of using the weapon is because that's really the only place anything can be done. in an act.For the second part, based off of my initial argument, any unstable material is dangerous, it can do harm at anytime. For the third part, it's not that I don't see them as logically it's that i see them as obviously stated by society which got me to thinking. "Is it really the object or is it the person using the object" as i said above though, I now have a new way of thinking. The age old "Is a pencil dangerous" comparison being used, we could say logically it's not. Then again, it's dangerous for a baby to hold it, I use pencils everyday, but i don't want a baby playing with anything that it could hurt itself on. Obviously the baby could hurt it's self on anything in the house, but that doesn't make anything in the house dangerous do you think, I ask honestly?Though due to my changing opinion I would now say, the bay isn't dangerous, the pencil isn't dangerous, the baby playing with the pencil is dangerous. And that is an act, not an object or or person.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

For the 1st part, my main debate was that, things on their own aren't dangerous, so what you said was agreeing with me but also telling me that any danger level at all qualifies danger. i recently changed my opinion to not only keep my own idea in mind but to take some reasonable arguments into consideration. I changed it to this, the weapon isn't dangerous because it can't do harm but the act of using the weapon is because that's really the only place anything can be done. in an act.For the second part, based off of my initial argument, any unstable material is dangerous, it can do harm at anytime I'm saying that any reasoning to why something is dangerous can be good reasoning, of course there is bot only how something is dangerous but how dangerous something is a pencil can be a dangerous thing, but not nearly as dangerous as a gun. You can redefign your opinion of dangerous as simply anything that has the intent to hurt you, or simply acts themselves. All you are doing is excluding one qualifier of dangerous for absolutely no reason. I don't lack a reason to consider guns dangerous since they make others dangerous makes themselves dangerous. That qualifier of dangerous is a reason in itself, and I haven't heard a good reason for it to not be considered a good reason. The only opposing reason you have given me is reason enough to say that guns by themselves aren't dangerous, which I agreed with all along.  For the third part, it's not that I don't see them as logically it's that i see them as obviously stated by society which got me to thinking. "Is it really the object or is it the person using the object" as i said above though, I now have a new way of thinking. The age old "Is a pencil dangerous" comparison being used, we could say logically it's not. Then again, it's dangerous for a baby to hold it, I use pencils everyday, but i don't want a baby playing with anything that it could hurt itself on. Obviously the baby could hurt it's self on anything in the house, but that doesn't make anything in the house dangerous do you think, I ask honestly?It can sometimes be the person, object, and the act. Sometimes just one, or just two, you can measure danger by how much. A pencil isn't very dangerous, as the amount of deaths by pencils isn't nearly as much deaths by guns, which compared to the gun the pencil isn't dangerous, however everything and anything is "dangerous". Drawing with a pencil isn't dangerous, unless its a baby drawing, however your opinion that a baby is dangerous may radically change if it lacks possession of a pencil. A person isn't necessarily dangerous without a weapon. So does that mean I can say no being is ever dangerous and only objects are dangerous? Since the amount of dangerous a criminal is changes when he lacks or possesses a gun, however the criminal is still dangerous. See how being so nitpicky about what can be considered dangerous can be?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

The only opposing reason you have given me is reason enough to say that guns by themselves aren't dangerous, which I agreed with all along.I laughed, that was my starting argument all along.I don't lack a reason to consider guns dangerous since they make others dangerous makes themselves dangerous. That qualifier of dangerous is a reason in itself, and I haven't heard a good reason for it to not be considered a good reason.I remain that a thing that can't act on it's own isn't dangerous. if it can't influence without being influenced, i also remain that it's instead the influence itself that is dangerous, no the object that was influenced. Which is where I move back up to my starting argument of objects not being dangerous on their own.however everything and anything is "dangerous".maybe taken out of context but it seems like you say that everything is dangerous, I say nothing is dangerous it's the way things are used that makes them dangerous, this is because the so called dangerous things, which could be anything as we both agree, isn't doing harm on it's own. The person using them to, or the force making them is.A person isn't necessarily dangerous without a weapon. So does that mean I can say no being is ever dangerous and only objects are dangerous?I think that is a false statement, there's enough martial arts on the planet to qualify people as dangerous based on your principles of what is dangerous, but would you personally say martial arts is dangerous? I wouldn't, I'd say that using it is.See how being so nit picky about what can be considered dangerous can be?That comes back to the gray area, but yes I do. that is why i soundly believe in no object, I will count people as an object for the purpose of drawing a line, no object as dangerous. Just the actions these objects take, though not every action is dangerous the dangerous ones used to harm are.It gets down to a point where eventually I'd be saying people aren't dangerous, the body isn't dangerous the mind isn't dangerous it's the act of having the thought to harm that's dangerous, and sure it's tedious but I like to put specifics on things like that. A gun isn't a dangerous thing since it won't pull it's own trigger, the person isn't the dangerous one. it all comes back to actions that is the only one i can firmly believe can be dangerous because it's the only one actually doing anything.