azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Also, I’m not sure why we are supposed to trust Politico of a peer reviewed scientific journal. Specifically, an article that never even mentions Gleck or Kertz.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

You don’t have to trust anyone or anything that’s why I asked to research the findings yourself , also why do you assume if it’s peer reviewed it must be 100 percent accurate Actually the article did mention them , did you ever read it ? In 1997, David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered the first of many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

also why do you assume if it’s peer reviewed it must be 100 percent accurateThat’s a weird assertion. To claim that a peer reviewed scientific journal may be more credible than a news article is reasonable, though it does not imply 100% trust in either.Actually the article did mention them , did you ever read it ?No, I hadn’t. I just used the ctrl f function and didn’t find it. Perhaps my page wasn’t expanded.many decisive rebukes of Kleck and Getz’s methodology, citing several overarching biases in their study.According to your article, Kleck and Getz failed to account for respondents lying. They further failed to account for bad memories. While telescoping can be accounted for, respondents lying cannot. It’s not a very appropriate critique to look at a study whose results you don’t like and claim simply that they probably lied.You would think inflated results produced by such short comings as liars with bad memories would prompt researchers to do follow up studies. The journal article is from 1992.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I provided a piece which I now believe you didn’t even read as a link is provided in the piece called Decisive Rebukes which destroys the claims made ; also if you study it and the journal it’s in I would hardly call it a “ news article “You need to actually read the piece I mentioned above
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I refer to Winston’s source as a journal article. I refer to your politico source as a news article.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Ah so you didn’t read it , as the link in the piece ( Decisive Rebukes ) is printed up in the self same peer reviewed journal as Winston’s , I think you’re just trolling now
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I told you I hadn’t read even your politico source at first, and I told you why I thought they didn’t mention Winston’s journal authors. I then read the article, the the links within it.Don’t assume trolling as a means of avoidance. Once I read the politico article I addressed it. My final thought remains, that the lack of follow up studies is curious.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

But it’s a peer reviewed paper just like Winston’s , would you not say the lack of follow up studies regarding Winston’s piece was curious
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Winston’s study is the study I was referring to. His was the only study in question. Your countering article was a summary of a peer reviewed critique, not a study. It is in light of the critique that a lack of follow up studies is curious.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

My article was a peer reviewed critique of Winston’s piece titled .....Research and Self-Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme OverestimatesIn light of this critique its curious that a lack of follow up studies regarding Gleck and Kertzs dubious claims has not been presented by them as a valid defence
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

505 total deaths in all age groups caused by gun related accidents in 2013. 124 were under the age of 19.Now tell me the CDC is an invalid source and I’ll be glad to ignore you.https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore as you ignore most points made and seem to be having a different debate entirely ; ignore away , I’ve already decided to take this option as you’re making no sense at all
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Your going on about a comment I made concerning Winston’s cited study. It’s somewhat irrelevant I provided a link the CDC data up to 2015. Its in a user friendly format that allows you to sort caused of death. Now just tell me if the CDC is a valid source
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Your going on about Winston’s piece non stop , I provided a peer reviewed paper destroying the dubious claims made by Gleck and Kertzs “ assertions “ so why you want me to read something else is beyond me , maybe you should work on defending Gleck and kertzs flawed “ study “ ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Incidentally, I haven’t read that source he provided. I just don’t know on what grounds you were discounting it.Did I even read your article? No, I hadn’t. I just used the ctrl f function and didn’t find it. Perhaps my page wasn’t expandedThen I read it.According to your article, Kleck and Getz failed to account for respondents lying. They further failed to account for bad memories.the point? You would think inflated results produced by such short comings as liars with bad memories would prompt researchers to do follow up studies. The journal article is from 1992All the rest has been responding to your posts and correcting your misrepresentations.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Regarding Winston’s piece you stated .......If you are going to discount a source on the basis that it has been “rubbished by experts in a field”, you should at least provide your own source so we can see what is rubbish........I did provide my own source which destroyed the dubious claims made so why are are you still going on about it ?Why would researchers do follow ups to claims that they proved to be incorrect , maybe to show them even more incorrect? The misrepresentations have all been on your part I’m afraid as I’ve just pointed out and yet I continue to correct you Why have these “ experts “ not produced a paper defending their nonsense ?Is the answer not glaringly obvious ?The new year has only started in the U S and 70 gun deaths already 114 injuries , 5 children under the age of 11 killed or injured ,12 to 17 year olds killed or injured , I mass shooting and these from all over the country , well on your way to the next 30, 000 odd deathsAlso the latest gun accidents have a four month old baby injured , a 7 , 6 , and 9 year old total of injuries 8 so far and all kids , but hey it’s not a problem is it ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I did provide my own source which destroyed the dubious claims made so why are are you still going on about it ?I'm not going on about it. The above post is all I've ever really said about it. The rest is in response to you, just like now. My point about followup is that the question of the study is one of interest to many people. The article that shows the results to be dubious points to respondents lying and having bad memories. There should be followup studies to get more accurate results, but there having been any that I know of. It doesn't matter who does the study, but someone should. I don't think anyone wants to get into the mess. Whatever the results end up being, someone will say the respondents lied. I don't know where you already got data from the last 3 days, but I'm going to address firearm deaths in the other thread.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

It sure seems that way to me as if you clearly read the rebuttal of the assertions made by Gleck and Kertz you would plainly see the ball was left in their court and as yet they’ve offered no defence , maybe you need to read the conclusion of the rebuttal and offer an opinion based on that Yes there should be follow up studies by Gleck and Kertz in an attempt to at least defend themselves, as yet nothingI’m getting my information from the highly reputable G V A
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I don't know the methodology of the GVA. But if it is accurate, there are between 1,500 and 2,000 instances of defensive use of a firearm in a year(2,020 in 2017). That mean's that a gun owner is more likely to use his gun defensively than he is to die from it accidentally.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

The methodology used is they take their stats from 2, 000 different sources and sites ; accidental gun injuries and deaths far out number defensive use so what’s your point ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

There were 489 unintentional gun deaths in 2015 according to the CDC. There were 1,372 defensive uses according to GVA.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

According to data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded, there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870.There were 70; 000 non fatal shootings involving guns in the U S in 2015 so your point remains that yous do not have a gun problem ?Let’s also post a piece from the piece I supplied and you claimed you read but obviously didn’t it destroys the myth you and Winston seem to think is somehow fact ......In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, a pounding at the door startled Theodore Wafer from his slumber. Unable to find his cell phone to call the police, he grabbed the shotgun he kept loaded in his closet. Wafer opened the door and, spotting a dark figure behind the screen, fired a single blast at the supposed intruder. The shot killed a 19-year-old girl who was knocking to ask for help after a car accident.Shortly after midnight on June 5, 2014, two friends left a party briefly. Upon returning they accidently knocked on the wrong door. Believing burglars were breaking in, the frightened homeowner called the police, grabbed his gun and fired a single round, hitting one of the confused party-goers in the chest.On Sept. 21, 2014, Eusebio Christian was awakened by a noise. Assuming a break-in, he rushed to the kitchen with his gun and began firing. All his shots missed but one, which struck his wife in the face.What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I address the mass shooting stuff in another post to you.Let’s also post a piece from the piece I supplied and you claimed you read but obviously didn’t it destroys the myth you and Winston seem to think is somehow factYou should know that supplying 3 anecdotal situations does nothing for a debate concerned with statistics. Especially when 2 of those 3 present an illegal use of a firearm. And to eliminate the straw man you keep setting up, I haven't supported the data presented in Winston's source, I supported the idea of having followup studies. Nothing I have argued is based on that study.The only data I used to make an argument concerning defensive firearm use came from your source, the GVA. According to data in your source, a homeowner with a gun is more likely to use their gun defensively than they are to die from it accidentally. (That's being generous. The GVA estimates are very low, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, apparently indicates 108,000 defensive gun uses per year. Maybe they include law enforcement.)
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

I didn’t supply any anecdotal situations , I provided a peer reviewed paper that destroys the assertions made by Gleck and Kertz so the straw man you ridiculously accuse me of using is the very thing you are using to salve your obvious frustration at being proven incorrect yet again You keep stubbornly ignoring the fact as to why would the writer of a peer reviewed paper that destroys the assertions of Gleck and Kertz need follow up studies ? I’ve asked you this several times and you still cannot answer Constantly ignoring what I ask only make your already very weak position even more so
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I didn’t supply any anecdotal situations“In the early hours of Nov. 2, 2013, in Dearborn Heights…”, “Shortly after midnight on June 5, 2014…”, “On Sept. 21, 2014…”. You gave three examples. That’s anecdotal.the straw man you ridiculously accuse me of using is the very thing you are using to salve your obvious frustrationI'm actually enjoying crunching these numbers quite a bit (almost entirely from the CDC, though I will start to look at NCVS as well). I don't care about the Gleck and Kertz study. I haven't referenced their study. I have said all I have to say about it (kind of a long time ago now). You keep trying to connect me to it, and that’s what I am calling a strawman. To clarify, I haven't suggested there needs to be followup on the critique of Gleck and Kertz's study. What I have said, several times now, is that there should be followup studies of the kind Gleck and Kertz were attempting. Just now I searched defensive gun use. According to Wikipedia, studies with low end estimates put defensive gun use at 55,000 to 80,000 incidents per year. Prior to just this moment, the only estimate I used was the roughly 2,000 presented in GVA. (and a mention of the NCVS estimate)
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

But if you read the follow up study I posted you would have gained some insight into the myth of defensive gun use but I guess you just plodded on ignoring what’s uncomfortable Gleck and Kertz were found out thus no follow up story as how can one back up nonsense ? Your enjoyment of crunching numbers is obvious as it aids in misrepresentating them as in your sadly weak swimming pool “ argument “ , I’m delighted you favour the CDC as maybe you can accept the corrections on your swimming pool argument Ah your onto wiki now , good to see you and Winston are down from the yearly 2 million figures for defensive gun use , so sorry to destroy yet another of your arguments read below , https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

But if you read the follow up study I posted you would have gained some insight into the myth of defensive gun use but I guess you just plodded on ignoring what’s uncomfortableActually, I accepted your data from the GVA (which is far below the estimates of the Bureau of Justice Statistics). Even using those ridiculously low estimates, a gun owner is more likely to use his gun defensively than he is to die from it accidentally. I have stated this a few times now. You keep mentioning Gleck and Kertz, I don't.I’m delighted you favour the CDC as maybe you can accept the corrections on your swimming pool argumentYou should read my post again. There are way more guns than swimming pools. That makes the likelihood of death from any given swimming pool much higher. Ah your onto wiki now , good to see you and Winston are down from the yearly 2 million figures for defensive gun useI know you know that I never claimed this. It’s getting pretty overt.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Because you claim the stats are ridiculously low means you don’t agree with them so you just call them ridiculous as they don’t support your claims , your point seems to be defensive use is more likely than accidental gun death , so what ?If you’re defending yourself it’s from other gun carriers , guns are not a problem gangs are according to you I mentioned the counter to Gleck and Kertzs “ paper “ as it addresses the myth of defensive gun use which you wish to ignore I’ve no need to read your post again as you keep changing your position as in your latest re - stating of the your much loved swimming pool argument which dealt with the death of minors in swimming pools now you’re changing that yet again to fit your broader narrative .......That makes the likehood of death by swimming much higher ......Amongst who minors , or everyone ? No , but you jumped the gun and said I shouldn’t rubbish the work of peer reviewed authors which would seem to be a fair indicator of agreement with Winston’s position as it fitted your agenda , I’m pointing out your bias regarding the matter which again seems to upset you
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Because you claim the stats are ridiculously low means you don’t agree with them so you just call them ridiculous as they don’t support your claimsI’m sure the number is accurate for what it is, instances listed in the news. But the Bureau of Justice Statistics is obviously more accurate. Even so, using only instances in the news, my position is still supported by the numbers.your point seems to be defensive use is more likely than accidental gun death , so what ?Well, since I’m not homicidal or suicidal, then a gun is more likely to save me than to kill me. That means there is no justification to take it from me.I mentioned the counter to Gleck and Kertzs “ paper “ as it addresses the myth of defensive gun use which you wish to ignoreIt addresses bad data presented by Gleck and Kertz. I am using data from the GVA. And that’s being generous. 2000 is a far cry smaller than 108,000. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics seals up my argument completely. Keep attacking Gleck and Kertz, it’s got nothing to do with what I have said. I’ve no need to read your post again as you keep changing your position as in your latestI haven’t changed my position. You wanted to talk about death, so I showed you the numbers on death. Then you wanted to talk about injury, so I showed you the numbers on injury. I got the idea to look into swimming pools from Levitt, but the numbers are mine, and the analysis is different.Amongst who minors , or everyone ?This is why I suggested you read my post again. I stated clearly what data I was presenting. When you wanted to talk about specific age groups, I talked about those age groups. Though I initially referred to all age groups in 2015, you wanted to talk about people 14 and under in 2013 for some reason. In the demographic you choose, there were only 69 unintentional firearm deaths. For ages 15 to 24 in 2013 there were only 107 unintentional firearm deaths. When you include intentional firearm deaths, for ages 15 to 24 in 2013, the number goes to 6,181, which you would expect from the age group most associated with gang violence and criminality. I really did say all this before. You can literally scroll up.which would seem to be a fair indicator of agreement with Winston’s position as it fitted your agenda , I’m pointing out your biasYes, I am biased toward the position that I have been promoting throughout this entire debate. Go figure. What’s interesting about bias is that your seems to make you incapable of being happy that guns are not the problem you thought they were. That’s good news.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

........................................................................
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

"Half the story ? It’s enough of a story for most rational people 30, 000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries are living proof of how bad the problem is ; so again are you saying guns do more good than damage ?"Yes, the cited study suggests that over 2 million crimes are prevented yearly by civilian gun use. This is before going into my main point of personal power and the balance of power between citizen and government."It appears from your piece that not alone are citizens of the U S terrified of break in’s and hostile government take overs , but now it seems sexual abuse attacks are yet another significant threat the average citizen faces daily , personally I would emigrate ☺️"200k attempted sexual assaults in a year is less than a tenth of a percent of the population of 320 million."Regards the study you cite the findings have been rubbished by experts in the field"I read the link you gave to Amarel and honestly I too believe that the figures are likely to be exaggerated for the reasons given. Practically every interview/questionnaire/self-report study shares these same flaws, though (apart from telescoping). The NVCS estimate of 108k is far too low because they only took reports from people who reported themselves as "victimized" by a crime. People who have successfully defended themselves from a crime aren't likely to report themselves as victims of crime in a questionnaire.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

But the study has was seriously flawed so it’s findings are not to be taken seriously. I link I provided to Amarel destroys the assertions made if you read the conclusion at the finish you will se the actual stats
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

As I say, the flaws of the study are mostly inherent to questionnaire/interview/survey study designs (apart from telescoping, though it is a common issue in such designs). Kleck did a good job defending his work, particularly against the claims of telescoping, external validity and over-representation (Source 1, pg21-27). I also went into the most major flaw of the study cited in your link; it's guaranteed to give a number lower than reality because those who successfully defend themselves from crime are unlikely to consider themselves as victims of the crime. Lott performed several studies which all found similar (2 million/yr) estimates (Source 2). By asking about whether the participant had been present when threats, criminal activity, etc. had happened before asking about defensive gun use, they eliminated the possibility that people would lie for either ideological or social reasons (2 of the major criticisms from your link). Sources:(1) https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/journals/JFPP11.pdf (2) www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Thank you Winston , what do you conclude from these findings on the study ?