azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

I guess it depends on where you live. When I'm walking around outside, I assume that no one has a gun. If I found out that any significant percentage of people around here were packing heat, I'd definitely want a gun of my own, and I'd be ready to shoot first.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

I didn't realize you were a criminal. Imagine that you want to harm another individual. Let's also imagine you would like to survive that encounter. Let's say Bob has his NRA hat on and has his gun in his holster openly out legally, and you have Tom who doesn't seem to be armed. Your hungry and you need to attack one of those people, who do you attack Bob or Tom?You are probably ok, there are probably not a lot of people packing heat near you. I'd be ready to shoot first We don't need crazies like you armed.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

I'm not a criminal. Not yet anyway, because I don't own a gun.In that scenario, where I was looking for a target, I would attack Tom. But if I were paranoid about someone shooting me, I would consider Tom the bigger threat, and take him out first.What's wrong with being ready to shoot first? Is it better to wait to be shot? And why don't you want me armed? Isn't your plan for everyone to have a gun, to make us all safer?
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

And why don't you want me armed?Hmm, maybe because I'm not a criminal. Not yet anyway, because I don't own a gun. I don't want criminals to be armed, the difference between you and me is that you want victims to be disarmed.What's wrong with being ready to shoot first?A good person doesn't word it that way, and from your first sentence I pegged you perfectly as a possible criminal. Isn't your plan for everyone to have a gun, to make us all safer? If you read my post earlier I said that the idea that anyone could have a gun is enough to sway criminals, as seen in America. That's why we see so many shootings in gun free zones.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Well your analogy works. Hands and feet kill people in the same way guns can kill people. Both someone attacking another with a gun and someone attacking another with hands and feet are equally as culpable. However, if you removed someones hands and feet or their gun the opportunity for someone to kill on the spur of the moment. The difference is we need hands and feet but do not need guns.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Guns kill people but they are just the instrument, someone could kill, not as easily, with a knife, frying pan, or their hands. The person kills the person, not the gun. The gun is just the gateway, it makes the choice easy.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

They are instruments dedicated to killing and nothing else. .
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Right. Like knives and cars are instruments dedicated to killing and nothing else.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Knives are dedicated to cutting. Cars are dedicated to driving. Guns are dedicated to killing.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

By that logic guns are dedicated to shooting, not killing. To kill requires you focus the point of the gun (shooting) or any of the other objects at a person: Like knives are dedicated to cutting; to kill with a knife you cut someone. Cars are dedicated to driving; to kill with a car you drive over someone.Guns are dedicated to shooting; to kill with a gun you shoot someone.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Guns are dedicated to shooting people or animals, with the intent of killing them. What else would you use them for?Knives and cars can be used to kill, but they mainly serve constructive purposes.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

What else would you use them for?
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Do they really need to shoot inanimate objects? Can't they just play Hogan's Alley instead? What they're really doing is training to kill people.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Before Hogan's Alley was invented, whatever that was, they could not go do that, all they could do to experience firing a gun was to go and do it.Shooting inanimate objects counts as using the tool for another purpose, it doesn't matter if it's a constructive other purpose it just is one.If that doesn't do you how about these...?
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

I say this because I own and regularly use guns but I rarely kill things with them. It's certainly not their sole dedicated purpose if it's not what I (and almost every gun user I know) use them for 99% of the time.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

What are these "things" you sometimes kill? I'll assume you don't mean people. But then why do you need a gun?
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Primary purpose of car is transportation, knifes are actual tools.What can you do with gun apart of killing?
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Knives are not just used as instruments dedicated for killing, they can also be used to cut meant and other foods /packaging etc. plus cars also have the use of transport...clearly.There is no other purpose for a gun to exist other than to kill. Be it hunting or an American maniac shooting up public places. The same goes for any weapon of war...
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

If you say guns kill people, than so do hammers, sickles, scythes, hammers, screwdrivers, sticks, cars, oxygen, etc..
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Those tools all have a constructive, peaceful purpose. They are not weapons by design. And you listed hammers twice.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

But you can kill with anything, and literally they are tools, the guns that is.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Hammers don't magnify your killing power nearly as much as guns do. You can't even compare them.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

You can compare them, it's just not a close comparison. It is however a comparison none the less.Just because it's a tool with a higher death rate, relatively, does not mean that they kill people or cause people to want to murder people.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

I agree, but you are mistaken. Hammers have a higher death rate. More children are killed by hammers and clubs than are killed by assault rifles each year. Guns are easier to use, but not more likely to be used.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Apparently I reached the end of my thinking capacity.Anyway, guns can also have peaceful purposes, such as training, hunting, and target capacity.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Training to kill is not a peaceful purpose.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

since when has training to use a gun not involved training to kill?are you going to train to shoot objects by shooting objects? training to use a gun is not peaceful.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

The American people need to defend themselves from the Gangs of New York!
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

C'mon really. How can a gun literally kill someone on it's own. Of course it's a tool!
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Did you read the debate description?
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Yea, it specifically said what I made my comment out to be, was not the case. It's a comical approach to saying that even though the gun is used by people, it's still just a tool.Even if it makes it easier that doesn't mean anyone with access to a gun will go and cause mass murder.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Let's give Iran some nukes. After all, they're just tools.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

You, are absolutely correct, and i'm not being sarcastic. They are also tools, I feel if they had them, they wouldn't do anything with them they'd just boast that they have them.Plus, we might as well, we have them. Why not make it a fair fight?
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

no they dont kill people, when you set a gun down on the table will it miraculously get up and go kill someone on its own, no, but when you put a dumbass behind a gun, then you have some problems
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Why is no one reading the debate description? We're not talking about whether they kill people on their own. BTW, do you think that smoking kills?
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Generally, commentators thought that liberals were attracted to more densely settled areas, where sidewalks make sense. Here liberals found a communitarian, let’s-share-our-space approach that jibed with their values. Conservatives, on the other hand, put higher value on personal independence and property rights, and so tended to embrace a ”get-off-my-lawn,” go-it-alone worldview. They settled in areas where homes were farther apart and unconnected by sidewalks, and where personal space was less likely to be trampled by trespasser. And just to make sure that their personal space was less likely to be trampled by trespasser, they embraced gun ownership ;)
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Guns do not shoot at their own will. It's like how knives are inanimate objects. They can help us accomplish chores, or they can also be used as a tool for killing. bleah.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

You could argue that intention kills people, and guns are only a facilitator. But you can accidentally shoot someone/yourself with a gun, i.e. if you were a young child, and didn't know much about the dangers.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Of course. Guns loads themselves with bullets, point, and pull the trigger all by themselves. Rolls eyes.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

No one thinks that guns do that. As the description says, we're not talking about guns coming to life.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Hold the Mayo!She was only being sarcastic.
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Thank you. .
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

Satire, honey, satire. Plus you cannot bring up guns to a libertarian and not expect a speech. Muah. ;)
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Oh, OK then. But it's well hidden sarcasm, so it might not be seen as such. When I voted for George W. Bush both times, I thought they'd know I was being sarcastic, but they counted my votes anyway!
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: Yes, Captain Obvious

I should have added a winking smiley. .
Debate: Do guns kill people?
Side: No, they're just tools

Guns seldom kill people. It's the darn holes put into peoples' bodies that kill them.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Objective morality exists indisputably in the mind of atheists like Richard Dawkins as societies rational evaluation of values and consequences.For any action, what will be the result?Is free sex moral? See what the result will be and decide. A night of bliss, disease, unwanted pregnancies, one parent families burdened off on the state.An easier option: Is it moral not to eat? Obviously not because we will die.Atheists will tell us that Christian morality is subjective - but, from the Creators point of view, God knows and wants the best for His creation - perfect values, perfect actions, perfect results; knowing the effects His actions will have indisputably - surely objectivity.If we are to judge morality by human rational evaluation we should watch the news and read the newspapers and consider whether we are in moral decline.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Utilitarianism in practice tends to be more subjective than not. "Greater good" according to whom? Who's to decide which results are desirable and which not? In order for utilitarianism to hold any value as an objective practice, objective moral values must first be established independently of it. And then what need have we of utilitarianism?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

There are universal human values. The desire for food and shelter, etc.The fact that some people prefer some things over things doesn't change the fact that in an ideal world, everybody's preferences would be satisfied.It's true that morality is rooted in subjective notions of good and bad, but certain notions are so universal that it's safe to treat them as if they are objective truths.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

I challenge you to find even a single universal constant. Many refuse food and shelter on religious grounds. And if moral values were to be equated with those related to basic physiological survival, wouldn't that create different sets of moral principles for different life-forms?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Even if one refuses food for religious reasons, that doesn't change the fact that they desire it.There's some terminological difficulty that comes up when talking about morality. I like to say that morals are values traditionally held by a population whereas ethics are values which are derived logically.The ethic that "food is good when you're very hungry" is universally true because (arguably) all humans desire food.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

There are universal human values. The desire for food and shelter, etc.Variation within a population guarantees that there can never be a totally homogeneous distribution of a trait.So, what you're really saying is that a majority of the population can agree on some things. However, because these are ideas that could just have easily evolved to be different, it means that even if a majority shares them they are not objective.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Variation within a population guarantees that there can never be a totally homogeneous distribution of a trait.Does having a brain count as a trait? Some characteristics are homogeneous. I think it's safe to say 100% of humans desire food.what you're really saying is that a majority of the population can agree on some thingsAn extremely large majority -- possibly 99 or even 100% of people, depending on which value we're talking about.because these are ideas that could just have easily evolved to be different, it means that even if a majority shares them they are not objectiveDid you not read the part where I said:"It's true that morality is rooted in subjective notions of good and bad, but certain notions are so universal that it's safe to treat them as if they are objective truths."I'm not saying universal values are objective. I'm saying that for us as humans, universal values work the same way as objective truths. "It's good to eat when you're very hungry" is not objectively true, but it might as well be.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Does having a brain count as a trait? Some characteristics are homogeneous. I think it's safe to say 100% of humans desire food.No, the brain is an amalgamation of many traits. Also, anencephaly is a disorder that causes a person to be born without a large portion of the brain.I know of no homogeneous traits shared or guaranteed to be shared amongst all members of our population. For any trait you can imagine, there is an opposite defect or permutation. Even hunger."It's true that morality is rooted in subjective notions of good and bad, but certain notions are so universal that it's safe to treat them as if they are objective truths."I'm not saying universal values are objective. I'm saying that for us as humans, universal values work the same way as objective truths. "It's good to eat when you're very hungry" is not objectively true, but it might as well be.It may be the case that you can treat these as nearly universal, but because the debate is about objectivity we cannot defend an argument that amounts to "good enough." It either is or it is not.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Objective morality exists indisputably in the mind of atheists like Richard Dawkins as societies rational evaluation of values and consequences.For any action, what will be the result?You're just redefining morality to be "consequences."Morality has always been about more than consequences, it deals with cultural beliefs.Atheists will tell us that Christian morality is subjective - but, from the Creators point of view, God knows and wants the best for His creation - perfect values, perfect actions, perfect results; knowing the effects His actions will have indisputably - surely objectivity.Just saying "god makes X objective" is irrelevant to the question. Insisting that god makes morality objective is like insisting that the president makes laws objective. It's a deferral of your subjective judgment to another subjective authority.Even if there were a god and he made a moral code, it would not be an objective moral code, but a moral code based on that god's whims.If we are to judge morality by human rational evaluation we should watch the news and read the newspapers and consider whether we are in moral decline.Morality being what it is, subjective, anyone will tell you that we're in a decline, and anyone else will say that we are in an improvement, and both will be no more correct than the other.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Objective morals exist, although in a different sense of the word morals. When morals, devoid of the compulsion implied by religion, is defined, the word is nearly synonymous with ethics. Now ethics, a more proper word, is defined as such: a branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct. Objective morals (otherwise known as objective ethics) consist not of a "moral responsibility" to the life of others, but a responsibility to the preservation of one's own values based on objective, and earthy, substance.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Merriam-Webster Objective definition 3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> Morals definition 1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical It maybe extremely hard for one to be objective, but it is the job of all judges. They are not suppose to let any belief or prejudice influence the court. Does this really happen? I doubt it, but I'm trying to be objective about morals.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

It maybe extremely hard for one to be objective, but it is the job of all judges. They are not suppose to let any belief or prejudice influence the court. Does this really happen? I doubt it, but I'm trying to be objective about morals.Objectivity doesn't exist for living beings.Further, all morals are enforced by us alone, and have no natural backing. A natural law is objective, our laws are not.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Objectivity doesn't exist for living beings.I don't think I quite understand what you mean. Are you saying that, when I say that 2 + 2 = 4 or that for me to walk off a sky-scraper and remain unmoved in mid-air would be impossible, there's no objective value to these statements because I'm a living being?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

I don't think I quite understand what you mean. Are you saying that, when I say that 2 + 2 = 4 or that for me to walk off a sky-scraper and remain unmoved in mid-air would be impossible, there's no objective value to these statements because I'm a living being?I am saying that as a living, thinking being you are incapable of having objective feelings. It's because you only experience a small perspective of the greater whole that is reality, so you will always have bias and limited information.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

you are incapable of having objective feelingsWho's talking about feelings?you will always have bias and limited information.Then 2 + 2 isn't 4?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

Who's talking about feelings?That's what this debate is about. Morality is based on feelings.Then 2 + 2 isn't 4?That is logic, based on reasoning, not feeling, but it could be wrong and that is why we justify it with logical axioms.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

Morality is based on feelings.Again, you're begging the question. You're not providing any reason why morality is based on feelings, just supposing it is.That is logic, based on reasoning, not feelingEthicists determine morality in the same way. Is it still subjective?
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

we are here because He gave us objectivity and Free will as His favorite creations...yes, He stated what we hold true on earth He will hold true in Heaven....but our morals are guided by Him..
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

we are here because He gave us objectivity and Free will as His favorite creationsThis is a bald assertion. It also flies in the face of the very likely case that we do not have free will, but only imagine that we do.He stated what we hold true on earth He will hold true in Heaven....but our morals are guided by Him..Our morals are based on personal feelings and intuition. That is why there is little agreement on them amongst people.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true? To make an argument, especially on this issue, proves that objective (external to you, the subject, in reality) morals exist.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: No.

No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true?We can believe in objective things that also reside in our minds.To make an argument, especially on this issue, proves that objective (external to you, the subject, in reality) morals exist.The debate isn't about things being objectively true, but morality being objectively true. Arguing on here doesn't rely on objective morality or belief in objective morality.
Debate: Do objective morals exist?
Side: Yes.

No one would make an argument here, either side, if they didn't believe there is an "ought" or a "right" answer to argue for. Why argue anything if YOU didn't believe something was objectively true?We can believe in objective things that also reside in our minds.It sounds like you only believe in physical objects, "things." My question is, WHY does anyone ARGUE, make value judgments...invoke a scoring system... where does the evaluation come from if there are only things, but no "right" or "wrong." If you say, it's my "subjective" valuation, then why argue? You sort of disqualify your self from commenting on whether morals are objective or not if you don't invoke "right" and "wrong" in an objective sense. If you say the subjective things could be actually true, you mean objectively true without intending to prove my point; objective truth, right and wrong, and hence "ethics" or "morality" are objectively grounded.