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

... No offense but you can't honestly think, I'm arguing whether or not objects have a mind of their own.None taken, and of course not. What I am saying though is that dangerous is a state of mind, mindless objects can't have.What, at least, I think we have been arguing, is whether or not one can say objects are dangerous, not whether or not objects are dangerous on their own. That is it, and I am beginning to believe it's a moot point. My mind is set on the idea that if the object can't do harm without physical interaction then it's not dangerous. That is why I do believe unstable objects and thing set to detonate are dangerous.And I am arguing there is nothing illogical to say that they are, even if it is dangerous in the sense that they make others dangerous, I haven't heard a logic against that. The debate like I said before isn't "are guns dangerous on their own?"Although the object can be used as a dangerous one, anything can. The main reason I rest on this side is because I don't want to say everything is dangerous, but since anything can be used dangerously, everything must be.Dangerous is subjective meaning that you can argue anything is dangerousTrue, all too true. I feel that the simple fact that the object on it's own can't do harm, makes it not dangerous. You feel that if the object has potential to do harm it's dangerous, but not that everything is dangerous.Why only people and acts? That's what I've been waiting to hear. You make the argument that nothing on It's own can be dangerous, I make the argument back that things can be dangerous in the sense they make others dangerous.Actions are dangerous because that's where any harm can occur. I feel the things can't be dangerous just because they make others dangerous because anything can make someone more dangerous. In fact everything does, just in way varying degrees. A man with a teddy bear is more dangerous than a man without just as a man with a gun is more dangerous than a man with a teddy bear.I say no because it isn't dangerous enough for me to personally consider it dangerous.It seems that it's not whether or not they are dangerous is actually our argument, but instead it's a thresh hold for us.I set my thresh hold at 0% since I believe objects don't do harm alone.You set yours at death or serious injury, which is why you say a pencil isn't dangerous, but agree that a baby with a pencil is dangerous.And I'm being specific that things can be indirectly dangerous, or directly dangerous. It seems to you that things are only dangerous or not dangerous, there is no indirect.Yes, basically I'd rather not go into indirects again for all the possibilities like pencils with babies, or elderly with dry foods.As an end to this, I think what we can agree on is that danger comes in levels and what we would say for society is dangerous is death or injury and the definition of danger is set at 'normal' people, not babies or handicapped.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Also based on this threshold, that would make you correct. Guns can have people killed, elderly, normal, handicapped all the same. Pencils and pillows can not have most normal people killed. Just that I refuse to step to the norm.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Zephyr... There will always be dangerous people, who would you rather fight if you were dangerous? If I was dangerous I would pick someone without a gun. The gun doesn't make a person dangerous, the person makes the gun dangerous.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Was that the same Roosevelt who had two sons who shot a panda bear from a tree? Grenades are illegal as are torpedoes, so why not certain types of guns be made illegal too? Least of all those which can rip through human flesh? A simple handgun that holds 6 bullets at once is more than enough to defend one's home against an intruder. Some people have ADT or a dog, or neighborhood watch.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

And if the other guy has a faster firing semi auto hand gun with a 17 round mag. Advantage to you.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

put a gun on a table, tie a person to a chair and if the person is hurt in anyway by a gun somehow when you come back, then you will have your answer.The saying Guns don't kill people, people kill people is majorly prevelant here.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Majorly prevalent? That doesn't make sense. Guns owners are 4.2 times more likely to be killed by a gun. That's a statistic. Not a saying. Facts back up the fact that guns are dangerous.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Majorly prevalent as in it should be written all over this debate. What you said only reiterated my point, the person with the gun is dangerous, the guns it's self can do no harm what so ever, and if you want to dispute facts. Then I'll do you one better than a reading, or a statistic that neither i nor you can test.Go get a dangerous kitchen knife, put on the table, or if you want to really test boundaries lay it on your body in a non compromising position, and wait for that dangerous weapon to attack you.I'll pay your medical bills if it does.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Ok, then you tell me if you pissed me off. Would you rather I own a gun or a knife?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

I know a bit of martial arts, specifically for countering weapons like bats, crowbars, or any other medium range swinging tool, and a few moves for countering small jabbing weapons, so I'd rather you have a knife, but the debate is saying if they're dangerous. I am saying they aren't dangerous, you are dangerous. You as in the wielder of any weapon.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Guns are not dangerous. It is the negative intent of people that is dangerous. It is not guns that kill people, it is the person that is using the gun. If I shoot you in the head with an AK-47, would you say that I shot you or would you say that the AK-47 shot you? The negative perception that guns are dangerous has to change and the society has to understand that it is the malicious intent that makes people dangerous, whether they have a gun or not.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

So are you saying hand grenades and bombs aren't dangerous either?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Duh of course guns are dangerous
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Sorry I put this statement in the wrong category
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

not really if you use them for the right reasons e.g to hunt
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

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

How about I say shooting people, IS dangerous, the gun isn't.Sleeping on the pillow isn't dangerous, breathing into it while you sleep is.A hammer isn't dangerous, hitting someone with it is.I am officialy chaniging my argument instead to that of acts being dangerous, objects aren't.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

No. People are dangerous, not inanimate objects .
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

no more than cars, cigarettes, swimming pools, police, politicians, doctors, alcohol distributors, army recruiters....http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com/death-rates-cause-by-doctors-vs-gun-owners-a-satirical-look-at-the-subject/
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Guns arent dangerous, unless they fall into the wrong hands. Like how chemicals can be used to make good stuff, whereas in the wrong hands they kill.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

No! The gun itself is not dangerous. It is indeed the mind or function of the brain of the person in control of the gun. The gun doesn't kill, it needs something to fire it. The mechanisms in it can be dangerous but only if something triggers it
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Let's say that you find yourself surrounded by 4 homeless guys. And one of them says, "Watering this tree would benefit all of us. We need to collect a service fee in order to maintain this tree. You seem like you're able to afford a few dollars, so we'll collect it from you." Let's call this first guy the government. The second guy then reaches into your pocket and takes a few dollars. Call him the IRS. He's much bigger than you so trying to stop him is not an option. He then gives some of the money to the third guy, some to the fourth guy, some to the first guy and keeps the rest for himself.The third guy then waters the tree. Call him a public servant.The fourth guy just sits there. Call him a welfare recipient.Now, if you don't call that theft..., then I don't know the meaning of the word. ;)
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Who's doing the stealing?
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

The bums that took my money ;)
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

But if you are too selfish to help other people, you have to be coerced into doing so. If everybody was as selfish as you, we'd be back in Victorian Britain again.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Thats not being selfish, its called not wanting to give up your hard earned money for some who has done nothing for it. Now don't try and write me off as some un-caring asshole, I donate to charities and have volunteered at soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Some one asking for help isn't theft, but when they get the government to threaten you to make you give up your money, it is theft. It doesn't matter what the hell they do with the money either, theft is theft no matter what the stolen money is spent on.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Calling someone selfish, at least in this regard, is over simplifying the problem..., but in total harmony with the liberal mindset and style of arguing (which prefers name calling over critical analysis of the problem at hand) ;)I'm NOT against charity. I'm against FORCED charity. I believe that charity is better handled through churches and small organizations. Large organizations end up eating a lot of the charity money in administration costs. Government is the largest organization so it is the least efficient.Also, when you enter the work force (assuming you haven't yet) you will find that getting people to do something they don't want to do is counter productive because they'll mess it up because they won't pay attention to detail because they don't want to do the job. Same with coercion (i.e. forced charity)..., people are going to rebel.Another reason people rebel against forced charity is that the money sometimes goes towards things they would never support. For example, some of the money collected from people who are against abortions ends up indirectly supporting organizations that perform abortions.In order to get a personal feel of what that's like, get a divorce. Your money will be garnished and used in ways you don't approve of by a person you were unable to live with. Imagine having to get up early in the morning to go to work to support a person you want out of your life.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Than a a fifth man walks over, you can't see his face because its to dark but we'll just call him The Federal Reserve. He then loans the first guy some money and the first guy is now in debt, so he asks the second guy to take more of your money. Now between having your money stolen twice and the inflation, you are almost broke.I'm tired of high taxes, central banking and a government out of control, where the hell are Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson when you need them?
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

But what about that tree? I mean, can you benefit of it in a way or is it totally useless? If it isnt, well, i wouldnt call it theft. If certain type of people were abandoned and had to survive on their own, spending money to feed some plants instead of others, probably, today, they would die because of ignorance. Of course this mechanism led to theft among countries' heads of state. But the principle is absolutely fine.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Oh, sure..., the tree can clean the air but when you're rich you can just buy a big air filter for your house and car and a really nice gas mask I'm sure. ;)
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Lets say there is something you need, water in the ground. And by pumping it up to the surface it empties into a pool where all manner of people collect it quicker than you can, is it theft?
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

If I have a gun and they don't, then yes..., and I would shoot them. If they have a gun, and I don't, then no ;)
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Actually the word is very well defined in law. Theft isn't a moral concept, only a legal one.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

The word "theft" is very clearly defined in a dictionary. The only thing the law defines is which actions it will consider theft. ;)
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

The law defines which actions it will consider theft and so will the individual. Or is there an objective account of the rightful owner that everyone agrees with but the law wont take into account?
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

There IS an objective account of the rightful owner that everyone agrees with but the law won't take into account.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Any tax is theft. Doesn't matter if it is 100% or .01%, it belongs to the person who earned it, not the government.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

"Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer." Ludwig von MisesTherefore, taxes are theft.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

are you familiar with programming?int A =8;int B = 2; Redistribute(){A = A-2;B = B+2;}redistribute()if(b > 2){ console.writeline("B is richer"); }
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

If B broke into A's house and stole 2 would that be theft? Than why would B getting the government to steal 2 not be theft?
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Does stealing something make you richer ?
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

I'm not debating if it makes you richer or not, I'm debating if its theft or not.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Cool story bro, go debate that on another thread then .
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Cool story bro, look at the name of the debate then, alright.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Did, but it would serve you well to look at what is being contested.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

I could care less about programming.Overall, if A produces 8 and B produces 0, and B steals from A, production is lower, thus making everyone poorer except B.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Production is the same, A still produces 8 irregardless of how much is stolen.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

And B still produces less, money doesn't just sit around, it gets spent and used so eventually B will be back in the same spot.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Depends on if it is money being produced, or if B has a use which consumes money, but generally yes. What are you contesting?
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Sure, production is the same, but it doesn't change the fact that overall production is diminished due to the theft. If B would produce, everyone would be richer rather than poorer with the theft.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Not necessarily, depends on the environment, with decreasing marginal returns you could see less. The optimal number of producers may be less than the total possible producers.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

There is no such thing as optimal number of producers; that is purely arbitrary.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

The optimal number of producers is the number which produce the most, or the most per the least consumption. As I have defined it to prove a point that production may not be highest when everyone produces.Lets say A can produce 4, and consumes 2. B consumes 1 so long as B is not working, and 2 if they are. If 2 produces, he only adds 1 to what A produces. So if A steals, total production is 4+0-2-1=1, if B produces total production is 4+1-2-2 = 1, the same. Depending on what the marginal factors are of production, it may be most profitable to have unemployed and pay to take care of them.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Actually, production is the highest when everyone is most productive. Wealth only comes from production whether service or goods, not distribution.That stupid little equation is meaningless because it ignores human action and only pertains to present consumption. It doesn't factor A's or B's time preferences in savings or future consumption.If it is most profitable to be unemployed, why does anyone produce as long as you can feed off your someone else.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

... It does consider "time preferences in savings or future consumption", or do I really have to make up some model of capital accumulation and growth for you to understand the effects of marginalism on when production is the highest? I was typing about the aggregate, society as a whole. However, it is best to be unemployed and to employ others but sadly only so many people can hold those spots in society, which are ever shrinking due to various natural economic laws such as economy of scale, competition, and so on.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

It does consider "time preferences in savings or future consumptionActually, no, it doesn't. Distribution or stealing is not savings or future consumption, it is merely only present consumption that has been shifted.do I really have to make up some model of capital accumulation and growth for you to understand the effects of marginalism on when production is the highest? I could less about you making up another senseless and non comprehensible example.I was typing about the aggregate, society as a whole.Congratulations. There is no fixed "PIE" in economic growthHowever, it is best to be unemployed and to employ others but sadly only so many people can hold those spots in society, which are ever shrinking due to various natural economic laws such as economy of scale, competition, and so on.So, the current unemployment is actually helping the economy strive. Those are not natural economic laws, the only "natural law" to the study of economics is known as "the method of praxeology.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Apparently you don't realize that the example I gave was a complete little ecosystem only lacking in some dynamics, and had far more to do with production than merely distribution. Where can I find this PIE? I have no idea what your typing about. Nice straw man, I will say that unemployment helps to keep down the cost of labor, lowering inflation. Nice, instead of deriving natural laws from nature, you derive them from within your head.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Apparently you don't realize that the example I gave was a complete little ecosystem only lacking in some dynamics, and had far more to do with production than merely distribution. Actually, I understood the little ecosystem, but it had little to do with production and more about stealing and distribution, and my enthusiasm for the site is waning.Where can I find this PIE? I have no idea what your typing about. There is no fixed aggregate to what the size of an economy can grow.Nice straw man, I will say that unemployment helps to keep down the cost of labor, lowering inflation.This just may be the funniest thing that I read in some time, the idea that cost of labor is the reason for inflation. Inflation is from the expansion of the money supply while deflation is the contraction of the money supply.Nice, instead of deriving natural laws from nature, you derive them from within your head.There are natural laws that come from nature such as physics, but there is no valid economic laws
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

Theft from the common utility? On the contrary. Taxation is justified as enhancing the common utility. There are many states that have high taxes and a good standard of living.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Alright, for some reason half of my arguments are fr "No they are not theft" when they are supposed to be "Yes they are theft" so please ignore that.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Strictly speaking, all taxes are theft. Unless you like paying taxes.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

All taxes are theft. If you can't prevent them from taking it, it's theft, in my opinion.But is all theft bad? Or could it be the lesser of two evils?
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

The inequality in taxes (on a percentage basis) between different income earners is not a fair system when the deductions are not equal for all as well. I am in favor or either a flat tax, or a scaling tax, but either remove all deductions from the mix or allow them for all, but don't increase the tax rate and remove the deductions at the same time...plus adding penalties like AMT...that is just wrong!
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

WQewll, we need taxes, to fix roads, public buddings e.t.c. But at these rates, yes it is pure theft.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Ill say yes, but i think its more towards the middle then rather both. Look at it this way.If your a real rich man or woman, taxes will be higher, but it wont matter because you have money to waste, so it doesnt affect as much.If your an average person, and you are getting high taxes, its more of a theft, but the taxes are more based for average people, so it is a kind of theft, but it doesnt affect as much because they arent high taxes. :PIf your poor, you barely pay taxes, but your poor. so you need all the money you can get. So thats theft. but its not high taxes for poor people.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Regardless of if they're high or not, every tax is theft. The government doesn't ask for your permission to use your money, they take it. Therefore, theft.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

They are all theft not only high taxes! We would be fine without taxes.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Not just high taxes, ALL TAXES! Theft is taking somebody's property without permission from the owner of the property, which is exactly what taxes are.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

High taxes are taking away too much money from the populace especially the poor and middle class.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

High taxes in them self are not theft. What is theft, is when taxes are not used to benefit society as a whole, but when this money goes to a single entity. Examples for such: Pork money projects, bridge to no where.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Regarding the bridge to no where, I'v been to Ketchikan, Alaska. The bridge wasn't built for no reason, it was build because the only way out of the city was by helicopter or ferry, so it did serve a purpose.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: No they are not theft

The bridge was never built you moron, because it was deemed as pork money. What was built is a road to no where.
Debate: Are high taxes theft?
Side: Yes they are theft

Alright Mr.Democrat, if you think that having a bridge built so people can... well ya know, get off of a island without a long ferry ride is pork, why do't you do some research on the stimulus bills.