azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Except that there IS NO EVIDENCE that it is actually dangerous in small doses. Opinions are nice, but not enough to validate you wanting to pass legislation that conflicts with people's civil liberties.This legislation would not conflict with people's civil liberties. It is a fact that second hand smoke DOES cause harm to people's lungs, among other things. How much? Doctor's don't know exactly how much, just that it does. Therefore, smokers are willingly and carelessly harming other people. Legislation should only be passed when the health impacts of second hand smoke are significant enough to pose a threat. Is it dangerous? They don't know. They only said it does cause harm, but they don't know how much...yet.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

This legislation would not conflict with people's civil liberties.Legislation that regulates or bans what people use is conflicting with civil liberties.It is a fact that second hand smoke DOES cause harm to people's lungs, among other things. How much? Doctor's don't know exactly how much, just that it doesI suppose driving cars in public ought to be banned because we know that the fumes CAN be harmful... just unknowable on how much it truly is harmful to someone's lungs. But by your logic, why take the risk? Just ban it until evidence shows that there is no way it can be that harmful.Your logic is basically ban anything that we don't know that much about.Therefore, smokers are willingly and carelessly harming other people. Legislation should only be passed when the health impacts of second hand smoke are significant enough to pose a threat.Which no evidence has shown so far.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Legislation that regulates or bans what people use is conflicting with civil liberties.There's one problem here. I never proposed legislation that would ban what people use. Only where they use it. Specifically, anywhere in public that could harm non smokers lungs. Non smokers rights supersede that of smokers rights because if smokers want to destroy their lungs they can go ahead and do that, but they are not allowed to destroy mine or any other non smokers lungs. I suppose driving cars in public ought to be banned because we know that the fumes CAN be harmful... just unknowable on how much it truly is harmful to someone's lungs. But by your logic, why take the risk? Just ban it until evidence shows that there is no way it can be that harmful.Your logic is basically ban anything that we don't know that much about.Driving cars in public ought to be banned? There's actually laws in place to minimize vehicle fume pollution, so work is already being sought in that area with the goal to eliminate the pollution caused by those vehicles. An example would be the electric vehicle. And you have a terrible understanding of my logic. You clearly haven't read what I wrote. And instead you change my responses to fit your argument instead of changing your arguments to fit my responses. You've also changed your criteria for the harmfulness of second hand smoke. First you said "where is the evidence that second hand smoke is harmful", I then provided you the evidence. Then you changed it to say "where is the evidence that second hand smoke is DANGEROUS". It's the moving goal post, and you know it. We know that second hand smoke is harmful, but we do not know the quantity of that harmfulness. I answered your original question with evidence, statements from the American Cancer Society, and two independent doctor statements who are subject matter experts in their field. And yet all you want to do is say "well, it's just the doctors testimony/opinion".
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Specifically, anywhere in public that could harm non smokers lungs. Non smokers rights supersede that of smokers rights because if smokers want to destroy their lungs they can go ahead and do that, but they are not allowed to destroy mine or any other non smokers lungs.Regardless, it inflicts with civil liberties.And it's unjustified when the evidence isn't there to back your claims.There's actually laws in place to minimize vehicle fume pollution, so work is already being sought in that area with the goal to eliminate the pollution caused by those vehicles. An example would be the electric vehicleNo laws exist forcing electric cars to be driven. any use of electric cars are from individual efforts. In fact, electronic cigarettes are being more widespread PURELY from an individual effort. Not by legislation.As for laws minimizing vehicle fumes, that varies by state. California mostly.Even so, there is MORE evidence saying that carbon monoxide causes pollution than there is for second hand smoke causing significant damage to a non-smoker's health.We know that second hand smoke is harmful, but we do not know the quantity of that harmfulness.I'm humoring your belief that harmfulness can be measured to the most minuscule of data. If you really want me to just flat out say that you're 100% wrong that second hand smoke is harmful, okay. But let's say that the little data you actually presented shows a risk... okay, it can be harmful. Harmful enough to suggest that second hand smoke ALWAYS causes damage? Nope. You didn't seem to read the data that you gave me, and I'm upset that you'd go through all of this without even looking at the science you gave. The best you could give was an expert testimony, which is easily political.Please give me data, not politically charged statements. Statements are cute, but no efficient in debate. I can easily pull out statements saying that cigarette use actually lowers your risk of cancer, given by two different experts at Congressional hearings under oath. Why won't I? Because expert testimony doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to any logician who is looking for SCIENCE, not politics.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Regardless, it inflicts with civil liberties.And it's unjustified when the evidence isn't there to back your claims.It does not violate smokers civil liberties. I didn't say legislation should be introduced right now to protect us, I said if it is verified that small amounts of second hand smoke can cause statistically significant harm to a persons health, then at that point public smoking needs to be legislated against. No laws exist forcing electric cars to be driven. any use of electric cars are from individual efforts. In fact, electronic cigarettes are being more widespread PURELY from an individual effort. Not by legislation.I didn't say there were laws forcing electric cars to be driven. As for laws minimizing vehicle fumes, that varies by state. California mostly.False. Laws dictating the minimization of vehicle pollution/fumes are enacted on a national level. States can enforce stricter regulations than the nation, but not less restrictions. By my count, at least 8 states have enacted stricter regulations. You need to do your research. Even so, there is MORE evidence saying that carbon monoxide causes pollution than there is for second hand smoke causing significant damage to a non-smoker's health.Perhaps there is, I don't know. What I do know is that second hand smoke does cause damage to people's health. By how much, doctors and scientists are uncertain of. This does not mean legislation must be passed immediately. It means we need to find out how much this second hand smoke causes damage, and if it is significant enough to pose a threat, then second hand smoke must be outlawed in public and only allowed on private residences or businesses. Harmful enough to suggest that second hand smoke ALWAYS causes damage? Nope.Any exposure always causes harm. How much harm is still under research by scientists/doctors. So you are wrong there. Please give me data, not politically charged statements. Statements are cute, but no efficient in debate. I can easily pull out statements saying that cigarette use actually lowers your risk of cancer, given by two different experts at Congressional hearings under oath.What makes you think these are politically charged statements? If you're talking about the tobacco companies hiring doctors and experts to say tobacco does not cause cancer, then obviously this is ridiculous. They were paid off by the tobacco companies in one giant conspiracy and everyone knows about it. The two statements I got, one was from PBS. Another was from CNN as a response to a letter that they got. How can either of these be politically charged statements? You are so concerned with legislation violating smokers rights, but all I am saying is that if the research comes out and says that even small amounts of second hand smoke are dangerous, then at that point is when we need to outlaw public smoking. I am not saying we need to create legislation right now simply because we don't know if second hand smoke causes a lot of harm or not.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Now, I agree with you that we should not make legislation to stop people from smoking. I just don't think smokers should be allowed to smoke in public where they are damaging other people's lungs.AndI meant public as in at a park, a playground, any place where people gather on public property. Outside will harm people's lungs if there's like a parade nearby, or some other local festivity.And you accuse me of changing what i'm saying...but i'm glad i got you to change your mind, even if you've altered your perception to truly believe that this is what you wanted this whole time.As for damage... carbon dioxide can cause damage to your lungs. The most you've proposed is regulating how much carbon dioxide cars can spit into the air. I suppose we're all safe as long as we're not outside at the same time as cars.As for car emission regulation, the most i'm aware of is Cap and Trade legislation, which is only to add incentives like tax breaks and credits for reducing your pollution. And this goes mainly to large businesses, not drivers.However, if there is stricter regulation I am unaware of, please tell me. I would love to be against more Fascist legislation.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Please tell me how I've changed what I'm saying?You said public as in public buildings. I meant public as in the second paragraph you just quoted, which also includes public buildings. I referenced parades and festivals as examples of where people would be exposed to significant amounts of second hand smoke, as those two are occasions where people smoke frequently. Please explain to me how you got me to change my mind...? You've lost me there...
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

I referenced parades and festivals as examples of where people would be exposed to significant amounts of second hand smoke, as those two are occasions where people smoke frequently.Saying that people SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to smoke in those situations because of the dangers of second hand smoke.when i challenged you, after so many posts, you eventually said "i never said legislation should be passed, but that we should do more research."Or is there ANOTHER opinion you're about to pull out that is THE TRUTH and will finally put me in my place?waiting...
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I just don't think smokers should be allowed to smoke in public where they are damaging other people's lungs.That is what I wrote. I didn't say we need to enact legislation to prohibit them immediately. You then replied with: (quotes are around my statement)"Outside will harm people's lungs if there's like a parade nearby, or some other local festivity." I assume there is scientific evidence validating your statement...I provided the evidence that second hand smoke harms people's lungs. You then became the moving goal post by changing it to "where is the evidence that shows that second hand smoke is dangerous?". The original criteria was harmful. I said legislation SHOULD be passed if it is concluded that any amount of second hand smoke can cause significant harm. Right now, we know that it causes harm, even small amounts. But we do not know HOW MUCH harm it does. That should be the basis for whether or not we form legislation against second hand smoke, or leave things the way they are.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

I said legislation SHOULD be passed if it is concluded that any amount of second hand smoke can cause significant harm.So then we can conclude:That should be the basis for whether or not we form legislation against second hand smoke, or leave things the way they are.Okay then. So no legislation shall be passed.Thank you.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

So no evidence shall be passed? I assume you meant legislation shall be passed. You should know from my other posts on here that I am very pro civil rights. I'm not interested in eliminating personal freedom, especially when evidence is lacking in terms of how dangerous second hand smoke is exactly. Like I said, if SHS causes significant damage in even small/trace amounts, then it needs to be outlawed. If evidence comes up saying that small or trace amounts of SHS pose no significant risk/threat, then things should be left the way they are.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

So no evidence shall be passed? I assume you meant legislation shall be passed.My apologies.I'm not interested in eliminating personal freedom, especially when evidence is lacking in terms of how dangerous second hand smoke is exactly.You mean "I'm not interested in eliminating personal freedom when evidence is lacking in terms of how dangerous second hand smoke is exactly."if SHS causes significant damage in even small/trace amounts, then it needs to be outlawed.Now you're REALLY playing around with the wording. But i'll just assume that "significant" means "permanent, life threatening, crippling, etc."If evidence comes up saying that small or trace amounts of SHS pose no significant risk/threat, then things should be left the way they are.No, when evidence comes up saying that SHS causes significant risk/threat, then we can debate the proper ways to deal with it.Till then, light up, do what you want. you're gonna die soon.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

You mean "I'm not interested in eliminating personal freedom when evidence is lacking in terms of how dangerous second hand smoke is exactly."Okay...? That's barely different than what I said. The meaning is the same. We know SHS causes harm, but we do not know how much harm. Now you're REALLY playing around with the wording. But i'll just assume that "significant" means "permanent, life threatening, crippling, etc."How am I playing around with the wording? By significant, I mean a statistically significant effect on possibility of getting heart disease, lung cancer, w/e else SHS causes. No, when evidence comes up saying that SHS causes significant risk/threat, then we can debate the proper ways to deal with it.Till then, light up, do what you want. you're gonna die soon.Um, isn't that exactly what I said? We know that when exposed to enough SHS, it DOES have significant risks associated with it. We just don't know exactly how much "enough" is.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Um, isn't that exactly what I said?No, that was pretty much the very first thing that I said that you conflicted.But I guess I got you to believe it's what you said... cool.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

No, when evidence comes up saying that SHS causes significant risk/threat, then we can debate the proper ways to deal with it.That's what I meant to quote. Not that last part.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Well, you said "ban it if it shows to be a risk," which I don't believe to be right in most cases. Prohibition and regulation has never worked for anything... I don't see why smoking would make any difference.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I don't agree with you at all, but I now have a HUGE amount of respect for you. Wow, haven't seen a debate this good in years.But, just on the side of evidence, demanding evidence for the second hand smoke seems like a kinda heavy thing to ask. There is no evidence that having unprotected sex with someone who has AIDS will guarantee the protraction of the virus. It's just what the studies have shown. And true, there is no immediate evidence to the harm of second hand smoke, but the long term studies have shown that it's harmful. Unless you have unprotected sex with AIDS carriers, then you have a point. ;)
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Well we've already agreed that any amount of second hand smoke causes harm. You just don't think the harm is worth worrying about. Ban it if it shows to be a risk? Ban it in public, yes. Ban it in private residences/business, no. I don't know why you try to defend people who are harming others through SHS.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

I don't know why you try to defend people who are harming others through SHS.As far as the evidence shows, they're no worse than farting in an elevator... should farting in an elevator be banned as well?
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

"should farting in an elevator be banned as well?"Yes, most definitely. LOL.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Actually, I think I've changed my mind. What you propose is ridiculous. Scientists and doctors have already agreed that SHS is harmful in any amount. Therefore it should be banned outright in public. If we go by what you said, then we all need to wear SHS meters to make sure we aren't exposed to too much SHS.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Actually, I think I've changed my mind.33rd time's a charm.Scientists and doctors have already agreed that SHS is harmful in any amount. Therefore it should be banned outright in public.Luckily, that's not how we make decisions in a free country. Well, we did ban drugs and heavily regulate tobacco and alcohol... but ban tobacco in the public... idk, we are pretty Fascist, so i guess your hopes and dreams may not be too far fetch'd.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

33rd time's a charm.lolLuckily, that's not how we make decisions in a free country. Well, we did ban drugs and heavily regulate tobacco and alcohol... but ban tobacco in the public... idk, we are pretty Fascist, so i guess your hopes and dreams may not be too far fetch'd.Luckily, we don't make decisions from scientists and doctors? How is that a "luckily" ? I think drugs should be legalized, most notably marijuana. Personal use of drugs should be legal I think. So long as it is not harming anyone else. In the case of SHS, it does harm other people.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Luckily, we don't make decisions from scientists and doctors? How is that a "luckily" ?Doctors during the Victorian error claimed that masturbation was unhealthy.Scientists in Germany (and in much of the Western world) advocated Eugenics.Most doctors used to believe that abortion was murder (hell, there are many still against it.)Scientists used to support Newtonian Physics (luckily you can't pass much liberty crippling legislation on that.)Scientists and Doctors believed that prostitution greatly contributed to the spread of disease, and there was actually ample evidence to say that this was absolutely true (unlike SHS causing any significant damage without hours of exposure at a time.)The point is that opinions, even from a LARGE group, should not justify granting government more power to remove our civil liberties. And you are talking about the opinions of a select few doctors who say "yeah, the evidence isn't there, but I'm SURE that any exposure has to be bad... I'm just sure of it." They weren't even bold enough to say "it's bad enough to kill or greatly harm others even if you're not a bartender or some shit like that."
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

The errors of scientists in the past don't mean that their current ideas and theories are just as invalid. This isn't opinions. This is backed by evidence that SHS does cause harm. You're concerned with what the threshold is for significant harm. If we were to go down your path, we would need to outfit everyone with SHS meters to monitor their exposure. This is impractical though.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

The errors of scientists in the past don't mean that their current ideas and theories are just as invalid.Never said it was. Just that it doesn't permit for us to create more legislation taking away more rights.This is backed by evidence that SHS does cause harm.At not known significant level. Just that there is something there, whenever smoke temporarily enters your lungs... there is something... no evidence to say that it's going to be long term or permanent. Hell, nothing to say that it's really all that bad... maybe it's good for you. And you want it banned... pfft.If we were to go down your path, we would need to outfit everyone with SHS meters to monitor their exposure. This is impractical though.As impractical as banning public smoking just because there MAY be something bad about it... based on the opinions of a few select doctors.Like, when prostitution was banned after doctors pointed out that prostitution was causing the spread of disease. and as stated, IT WAS TRUE. but as history has shown, big government never makes things better. And it's unjust.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Never said it was. Just that it doesn't permit for us to create more legislation taking away more rights.It's not taking away rights. It's preventing people who have a chemical dependency from carelessly harming others through SHS. They don't have the right to harm me or anyone else. SHS is bad, there is no safe amount of the stuff. This is not based on opinions. There is no safe amount of SHS. Avoid it whenever possible. This really is a violation of the non smoker, for the non smoker has made the responsible decision of not killing themselves through lung cancer or heart disease or whatever else cigarettes cause. But yet I have to suffer the potential health effects from smoking simply because a smoker wants to stand next to or near me? That's a complete violation of my rights. This is not an example of big government. It would prevent smokers from harming non smokers lungs, among the other negative health impacts of SHS. Smokers would then only be allowed to smoke in their house, or if a private business allows it. Smokers don't have the right to harm others with their smoke.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Except, as countlessly pointed out, the significance of that harm is not proven to be in any way permanent or damaging. Just that the smoke itself is a bad smoke. but no matter how much we all already know this... this is getting boring... it isn't knowledge that you sitting next to a smoker is going to do ANYTHING to you.. at all.Like, at all. You can spend an entire day with him, just constantly smoking... no evidence has been presented to say that you are, in anyway, being damaged. Temporarily harmed? Sure, but same goes for microwaves, cell phones, car exhaust, school bus exhaust, laptops on your lap, eating pork.Smokers don't have the right to harm others with their smoke.A screaming baby is probably harming my ear drums. Sure, no evidence says it's permanent or damaging, but there is no safe amount of baby screaming that you can tolerate, as most ear doctors will tell you. Still, I guess that's all the evidence you need... just the fact that there is no safe amount, or w/e.But yeah, boring. Is this all we're going to go back and fourth on?
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I agree, boring at this point. We have different ideas on this subject.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Smoking's fun. And it doesn't hurt anybody unless they are standing right next to you inhaling it. And if you're that fucking worried about accidentally inhaling a couple of carcinogens, I take it you walk everywhere with a gas mask on because car exhaust fumes are far more harmful. Not to mention the fact that any kind of smoke contains carcinogens. So unless you want to make cars, trains, planes, open fires, gas burners, stoves, fossil fuels, etc etc illegal, shut the fuck up about banning smoking.