azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Apples and oranges.A gun is a deadly weapon designed with the express purpose of injuring or killing living things. A swimming pool is designed to swim in. Not comparable at all.The right to own a gun is an arbitrarily created principle, established in a time of tremendous political upheaval, ostensibly to protect the free state from foreign interference, most notably from the British Empire, and also from government tyranny.No such statute is now either necessary in the former context (there is no British Empire) nor effective in the latter (the US has an armed force funded with more cash than the next ten largest armed forces combined: a public militia stands no chance of victory over it).But more to the point, if the second amendment provides legal justification to own a gun on the basis of establishing and maintaining "a well regulated public militia" to protect the free state, then it is in defeat of the amendment's purpose to allow everyone to have a gun, because not everyone is mentally capable to act in accordance with the will of the populace which constitute the "free state".A well regulated public militia must, by definition, be regulated. In order to be " well regulated", the armed militia must fulfil its purpose without being a danger to the free state itself. And since psychos, felons, the mentally ill, and children, owning guns are clear dangers to the citizens of the free state (as evidenced by the plethora of school shootings and fatal accidents involving children) provision must be made to ensure that such citizens are unable to procure guns.Thus you maintain a well regulated public militia for the security of the free state, and fulfil the second amendment on its own terms.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Apples and orangesNot in the context of his argument, that owning x increases the chances of death. A gun is a deadly weapon designed with the express purpose of injuring or killing living things.Lets not pretend there is never a good reason for a private citizen to injure or kill a living thing.The right to own a gun is an arbitrarily created principleNot at all. Natural Rights philosophy, on which western liberal societies are built, is not derived arbitrarily. The Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness carry with them, necessary supporting rights, such as the right to self-defense. In a world where guns exist, the right to own one follows from the right to defend oneself in a world where other people own them. It’s not arbitrary.the US has an armed force funded with more cash than the next ten largest armed forces combined: a public militia stands no chance of victory over itI see. So that’s how we stamped out the Viet Cong, squashed international terrorism, and of course made short work of ISIS. That’s sarcasm. Historically, armed people have done well against our military might.If there were ever another Civil War, members of the military would join the opposition (that’s how those things work). The United States is too massive for an armed populace to be ineffective. This well armed population would entrench and fight an effective guerilla war with officers and enlisted members of the military joining them. Conventional warfare methods against its own population would eliminate that very funding that makes the military so powerful. This precarious potential only exists because of the 2nd Amendment.if the second amendment provides legal justification to own a gun on the basis of establishing and maintaining "a well regulated public militia" to protect the free state, then it is in defeat of the amendment's purpose to allow everyone to have a gun, because not everyone is mentally capable to act in accordance with the will of the populace which constitute the "free state"“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”The word “public” is not in the 2nd Amendment. Nor does the 2nd necessitate giving guns to the mentally handicapped. Furthermore, there are several ways to interpret the 2nd Amendment. Since a well regulated militia is necessary, those who would fill it’s ranks (the people) must be armed, or since a well regulated militia is necessary, those who would oppose it (the people) must be armed. But strictly speaking, the 2nd Amendment says two things; that a well regulated militia is necessary, and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.And since psychos, felons, the mentally ill, and children, owning guns are clear dangers to the citizens of the free state (as evidenced by the plethora of school shootings and fatal accidents involving children) provision must be made to ensure that such citizens are unable to procure gunsIt looks like you made a list of reasons guns should be allowed on campus.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Only a yank could possibly think that Thomas Jefferson is responsible for the genesis of Western liberal values. The French were famous for liberté, égalité et fraternité fifty years before America even abolished slavery. The Netherlands were republicans thirty years before the first documented settlement in America, long before Thomas Jefferson's father was even around and old enough to be able to produce the sperm that would eventually become the man himself. The Athenians were writing treatises on the principles of inalienable rights, forming systems of vote and working in Democracies a thousand years previous to any of this. Democracy, liberty, equal rights, the right to life -- "Western liberal society" -- are European ideals. Guns and the solutions to violence in a nation are just one more aspect in which cultured and civilised countries have adopted a "radical" view that you Americans have yet to see the value of. Give it a century or two and maybe you might be smart enough to realize that getting rid of guns en masse is the first step to getting rid of gun crimes en masse.Hard to grasp, I know.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Not much for reading comprehension are you. I never mentioned Jefferson you fucking retard. I referred to natural rights philosophy.Other than focusing on one thing I posted, getting it wrong, and then utilizing massive Ad Hominem against a whole country. Try making a valid point. As long winded as you are, you are likely to stumble across a correct argument someday. But I am still waiting.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", is a quote from the Declaration of Independence, which was drafted by ..... dum dum dum .... Thomas Jefferson.You fucking retard.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Yeah, he was a proponent of Natural Rights theory, on which our western liberal society is built. He wrote that in the Declaration of Independence, but he didn't invent the idea. He got it from John Locke. I also didn't claim it was the sum total of Natural Rights philosophy, but it is a relevant portion. How much time do you spend writing long diatribes against non-existent positions of your own invention? Never mind, I don't care.If you're going to call someone a fucking retard, you should make sure the reason you say it is right. Though being right isn't your habit. Now I hope you are tired of losing this way to me, you're starting to bore.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

That is a false equivalency, swimming pools weren't specifically designed to kill people...
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

That makes it worse. A swimming pool, which isn't even meant to kill people, is statistically more dangerous in the home than the most lethal of weapons.If owning a firearm is automatically dangerous and should be beamed on those grounds, should pools not be banned?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

The swimming pool argument in a slightly different guise a favourite of the NRA and not very convincing.......From an article by FJC Schildbach, LMHC claims .....all stats from CDC ....  Now, if you want to say that more U.S. children, age 14 and under, die from drowning than die from being shot, that is actually true. Of course, this is something like saying more U.S. children, age 14 and under, die from drowning than from heroin overdoses. More nine-year-olds go swimming than are shooting up or packing heat.However, once you add in the next age-based demographic group, which is 15- to 24-year-olds, the total number of deaths by drowning is easily eclipsed by the total number of deaths by firearm.For a quick comparison of the 2013 CDC statistics:Age 14 and under, deaths by drowning: 625Age 14 and under, deaths by firearm (intentional and otherwise): 408Age 15 to 24, deaths by drowning: 501Age 15 to 24, deaths by firearm (intentional and otherwise): 6085So, by including those people over the age of 14 in the statistics, the numbers skew undeniably toward guns being much more dangerous than swimming pools. Including all age groups in the U.S., there is a total of 3,391 drowning deaths to a total of 33,169 deaths by firearm.Also, keep in mind that drowning does not only include swimming pools. It includes all drowning that is non-boating-related. Anybody who drowns in a bathtub, a lake, a river, an ocean, or any other body of water is included in the statistics. So, really, swimming pools would appreciate it if you would quit blaming them for all of the drowning deaths.But, even if the statistics weren’t so blatantly obvious in spelling out the relative danger of guns versus drowning, the assertion of the relative danger of swimming pools versus guns is, on its face, rather stupid.For instance, I could not pick up a swimming pool and walk into a school, a movie theater, or a church, and start drowning people with it.Similarly, when a woman asks her estranged husband for a divorce, there’s something of a greater threat that he will get a gun, shoot her, all their children, and himself, than there is that he is going to drug any of them and pitch them into the backyard swimming pool. And, in case you hadn’t thought about it, a big chunk of those homicide-by-firearm statistics for the 14-and-under crowd involve fathers murdering their families.We can even use the pro-gun folks’ favorite (albeit highly unlikely) scenario of a home invasion to show the ridiculousness of weighing the threat level of swimming pools versus guns. Your front door is kicked in, and three men storm in—shoot them (with the gun you keep at your side at all times in your home, just in case anybody kicks in your front door), or try to lure them into the swimming pool?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

There’s a reason that I said “Owning a swimming pool is statistically a far greater risk to your house hold than a gun”. Many people own guns and not that many own pools. What you are forgetting about your raw statistics is the relatively few number of swimming pools there are. If you only count the number of deaths, A-bombs appear statistically less devastating in warfare than conventional bombs since they have killed way less people. So long as you forget they were only used twice.I am drawing my information from Dr. Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago. According to him, a given swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than a given gun. The methodology for this is straight forward. He said “So what we did is we looked at the number of child deaths that were due to swimming pools, the number of child deaths that were due to guns, and then we put it in terms of how often will a given swimming pool kill a child versus how often will a particular gun kill a child.”So yeah, guns kill a lot more kids than swimming pools. There aren’t near as many swimming pools. Any given swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a kid in the home than a gun is. I should mention that Levitt is a Liberal. One of his more famous analysis was explaining the precipitous drop in crime rate over recent decades to the increase in abortion rates from the time of it becoming legal. This drop in crime comes at the same time as a significant increase in gun purchases. I won’t claim that the correlation between increased gun ownership and decreased crime is causal, but it does show that guns are not the problem. The vast majority of gun deaths come from suicide by a margin of almost 2 to 1. While suicide is tragic, it isn’t homicide. Much of the rest of your argument is based on what-if scenarios. This is the wrong way to approach it. What if someone gets some guns and shoots up a school? It happens but it is very rare. Same with fathers shooting his family. What if a Muslim blows some innocent people up? It happens less rarely than mass shootings. We have already banned the explosives they use. Would you maybe suggest a Muslim ban?I’ll finish with two questions you are sure to avoid:Why has crime decreased while gun ownership has increased in the US?Why is there far less violent crime now, after guns were invented, than before?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

I'm familiar with levitt and freakonimics and I've heard most the arguments for and against regards guns ; you and I are from totally different cultures and I doubt would ever agree on the issue regards gun ownership but I'm very interested in whole topic and the totally different viewpoints . I've read most of Levitts freakonomics pieces and find them credible and thought provoking , the bottom line remains for me that guns kill an awful of people across the US yearly and recently I read that over 1 million deaths have occurred in the US from guns since the 1960's that's quiet staggering .I don't know why you would assume I would not attempt to answer your two questions   This is from Time magazine ...... The 30 largest U.S. cities saw a double-digit increase in their murder rate in 2016, according to a new year-end report, even as crime nationwide remains near all-time lows.A new study released Tuesday by New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice projects that the 2016 murder rate for the largest U.S. cities is up 14% from 2015 while the violent crime rate rose by 3.3%. The overall crime rate, however, increased by just 0.3%, thanks in large part to historically low levels of property crime, according to the study's authors.Read more: Murders Are Up in Many U.S. Cities Again This YearThe trend lines in the report run counter to some of the most dire warnings aired during the presidential election. As a candidate, Donald Trump spoke out against what he characterized as record levels of crime in urban areas. While the murder rate has increased, overall crime across the U.S. is near all-time lows. The report’s authors note that “concerns about a national crime wave are still premature, but these trends suggest a need to understand how and why murder is increasing in some cities.”Two cities are largely driving the spike in violent crime: Chicago and Charlotte. Violent crime in Chicago is up 17.7% increase this year, and the city accounts for almost 44% of the total increase in murders, according to the report. Charlotte has experienced a number of drug-related murders as well as homicides related to domestic violence and is projected to see a 13.4% increase in violent crime this year.Read more: Chicago is Responsible for Almost Half of the Increase in U.S. HomicidesOf the 30 cities studied, just eight showed an increase in their crime rates from 2015. But the study found that 13 cities, including Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia and San Antonio, had increases in their violent crime rates while 21 were projected to see jumps in their murder rates.So if gun ownership leads to decreased crime rates why has the murder rate doubled ?Second question do you mean less violent crime in the US or worldwide ?Two questions for you .....Would the introduction of guns for the majority of citizens in Europe improve our societies ? Why are guns necessary in American society ?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Crime rates of all kinds will eb and flow. Your own sources indicate that overall crime is at long run lows while urban murders have seen short run increases. This is likely due to what is known as the Ferguson Effect. Police who fear loosing their jobs for doing it right, following a string of cases targeting police officers, have decreased their pro-active policing tactics in inner cities. The Ferguson Effect would be a more likely explanation since gun ownership in rural areas, where murder is lower, is extremely high, as is general gun ownership overall. I don't know why you would assume I would not attempt to answer your two questionsWell, you haven’t really answered my question yet, but rather, misunderstood it. You asked “So if gun ownership leads to decreased crime rates why has the murder rate doubled ?”. First, your own source doesn’t say the murder rate doubled, it said it is up 14% with Chicago accounting for 44% of the increase. I didn’t say that gun ownership leads to decreased crime, I said that crime has decreased while gun ownership has increased. Correlation does not equal causation. However, it can disprove causation. Since, higher rates of legal gun ownership have correlated with lower rates of crime, you cannot conclude that legal gun ownership leads to higher crime. It’s important to note the areas where murder rates have increased. In Chicago, as in most cities, it is more difficult to legally have a firearm than it is elsewhere, such as in rural areas, where murder rates remain low. I would also like to refer you to the excessive increase in heroin overdose. I bring it up only because heroin is 100% illegal in the entire US, and yet people still have it.Second question do you mean less violent crime in the US or worldwide ?I mean the world. We live in the most peaceful time, per capita, in human history.  Would the introduction of guns for the majority of citizens in Europe improve our societies ?Why are guns necessary in American society ?I cannot speak for European society. They seem to do fine with a lot of things that are not applicable to the US. For example, European countries spend little on military expenses. This works fine so long as the US spends a lot and continues to be an ally. So, would guns improve things? I don’t know, ask Switzerland, they seem to be ok. Why are guns necessary? For the same reason that Nukes are necessary. Because they exist. If no one had nukes, then anyone having them would be unnecessary. Pandora’s Box is open. Bad people have guns, so good people need guns. Not entirely unrelated is the functional aspect of firearms. The US is vast and mostly rural. There are still sizeable portion of the population that relies on guns for food and to protect their livestock from predators.Just to reiterate my two questions which remain:Why has crime decreased while gun ownership has increased in the US?Why is there far less violent crime now, after guns were invented, than before?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Ok , that's good enough and you've addressed my questions fairly ; regarding your two questions : I remember reading a piece once again by Levitt which talked about higher abortion rates being a cause for lower crime rates , I have the article somewhere if I find it I will post it up .Question 2 I don't honestly know and various theories have been put forward I like Steven Pinkers thoughts on the subject .....violence is irrational ...: PINKER: There are a lot of individual whys because the decline of war, decline of homicide, decline of capital punishment, and so on take place over different time scales. If there's a common denominator - in the long run, violence really is irrational. I might get an advantage if I harm someone else for my benefit, but on the other hand, he feels the same way. And if we both are constantly trying to kill each other, we're both worse off. And certainly the police and government have had a huge role in reducing violence.In the international arena, of course, we don't have a global police force. And there it is partly dependent on institutions of cooperation that make it more profitable to trade with other countries than to invade them. You don't kill your customers. The rise of democracy has probably made a difference. Democracies are less likely to wage war against each other. And there's also been a change in norms, just what decent countries do or don't do.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Whether or not it should be, that is not currently the law. An open carry license does not legally permit a person to bring a firearm into any public space. There are consistent and regular exceptions for certain public held or operated properties, such as prisons, educational buildings, hospitals, etc. (e.g. even in TX). Also, not all colleges are public colleges.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Hello:If guns are GOOD, then they're GOOD everywhere. Why is carrying it on the street FINE, but you need to put it in your glove compartment when you go into a bar?? Makes no sense to me.excon
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

I think an important distinction here is whether it's a state school or a private school. State schools are funded by taxpayers, which means their property is tax funded, which means if they can legally carry guns in almost every other state property or in the public in general then they should get to do so at school. Granted, even states with permissive gun laws may still restrict them from places like court rooms, so whether or not allowed may vary.Private schools, on the other hand, are private property, even though they may have tens of thousands of students and be open to the general public. On private property they can pretty much do whatever they want. And you can't say that violates your gun rights because it's no different from you at your home saying someone with a gun better get off your front porch or you'll call the police for trespassing.Overall I voted on this side because the quantity of state schools and the size of their populations makes the first paragraph more commonly true than the second one.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Dem guns will be needed whens those Muslims decides to go all Red Dawn on we.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Providing guns with non lethal rounds is more advisable, I feel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubberbullet#Self-defenseuse
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

I think sidearms and light automatic weapons should be permitted on campus but not heavy machine guns nor R.P.Gs.Revolvers and pistols could be used for target shooting at break times, providing lecturers were not used as targets, although there is an argument that they would be ideal for 'moving target' practice. The one statutory proviso which would have to be applied is that all such lethal weaponry should be surrendered, properly logged and securely stored during lecture classes.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Of course they should be allowed. How else will cops do their job?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Obviously cops are allowed to carry guns on college campus's, I'm surprised I had to point this out...what the hell are you talking about?