azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

also, i would point out that you have still failed to identify what policy choices you would favor in order to address the problem of mentally unstable ppl having access to firearms.we are all waiting with baited breath.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

As you seem to lack a solution to a clearly defined problem, let me begin on a more simply stated level.(Nuts + Guns = Trouble)The solution centers around control of one or more factors in the equation.We are more likely to control hundreds of nuts, than hundreds of millions of guns.Current inability to control nuts must be increased.Laws can change our ability to identify and intervene in the lives of nuts, before they slaughter innocent people.There are always mentioned after the fact, that flags, signs, signals, were there, but no one was willing to or able to intervene. If a judge could listen to a complaint about a nut, determine if intervention is necessary, order a mental evaluation, and act on the the results. Would this not be more able to prevent nuts from getting to the point of getting a gun and murdering innocents.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

We are more likely to control hundreds of nuts, than hundreds of millions of guns.why not do BOTH, for maximum effect.Current inability to control nuts must be increased.as does our ability to control guns.and as you so clearly point out, there are MORE guns than nuts, so it deserves more resources... all things being equal.but lets not pretend that nuts and guns are equal...unlike the firearms corporations, nuts are ppl too you know.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

It is ridiculous to single out specific forms of violence. I don't see a reason to consider gun violence inherently worse than poison violence. Is gun violence inherently worse than knife violence? If you take a portion of violence and don't correct the problem that caused the violence, it doesn't matter what object is used to commit the violence.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

guns make it FAR easier to commit violence.every try to rob a someone with a pointed stick?every try to commit suicide by by jamming a knife into your head?some small percent of all violence may still have been committed if there were no gun available, but we will never know until we get a handle on the gun violence.which is entirely possible to do.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

guns make it FAR easier to commit violence.So? The victim is just as dead. The amount of overall violence doesn't change.every try to rob a someone with a pointed stick?9/11every try to commit suicide by by jamming a knife into your head?Poisonsome small percent of all violence may still have been committed if there were no gun available, but we will never know until we get a handle on the gun violence.False. Look at other countries that have the same violence without guns.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

In other developed countries with more gun laws, they often have more mass shootings than the US. Its a fact.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Haha, you mentioned facts, and no one cares. You need over the top craziness if you want responses.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Right, like the corrupt news stations that only cover school shootings for a year and then ISIS for another year and in between talking mainly about murder. Nothing can compete with those ratings like the 2016 election though, but that's about it. Lol.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Yep, apparently an election that is over a year away will generate ratings.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Yup, I don't even know if I should be watching the election yet at this point. I guess, if that's what corrupt news stations put out, why the fuck not? I'm a hypocrite lol.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

That's the attitude that gets their ratings up, hehe.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Liberals only want to confiscate guns, they have no desire to prevent or stop gun violence
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

Liberals only want to confiscate guns, they have no desire to prevent or stop gun violenceI'll keep asking it until you start providing information: How so? What suggests that?
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

My favorite ignorant little troll. Go get an education first. The founders had you in mind when they wrote the 2nd, people like you are the threats to liberty and freedom
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

as usual you answer no questions.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

Beyond ironic.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

They are just misguided , like you.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

What are you trying to say libby, come on be honest. Why is it you liberals are so misguided in your beliefs
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

I was clear with my message.The number of times you have been told that I am not a liberal while failing to understand that incredibly simple concept is staggering, however.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

The present gun laws don't work today because they are not serious. If a State or City were to implement a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for anyone leaving his/her residence carrying a gun, a person would think twice about carrying one.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Now you're starting to sound like Bill O'Reilly in his Talking Points on 06/19/15. Great show. It shows that you are coming along.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Oh come now. Phx may sound like a walking Democratic talking points machine, but the O'Reilly factor is FAR from a great show. O'Reilly is an over the top ideologue who spews more than his fair share of ignorance, much like Phx.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

OK Give me an example where he is wrong about gun control or the disintegration of the Black families or their high illegitimacy rate, their lack of education and skills due to dropping out of school. It goes on and on and he is right but liberals call such observations racist.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Before I oblige you, it makes no sense to limit the parameters to that which you have mentioned. I called him an over the top ideologue who spouts ignorance, and you demand examples from an incredibly limited field of topics? It's silly.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

Limited in number but not in scope. The effects from these incredibly limited field of topics have a profound affect on criminality and why it exists, outside of the NRA or the number of guns sold, 2nd Amendment style.I could get into his examples of ObamaCare, taxes, executive actions, etc. but that is outside of the poll question.The only one more correct on these subjects id Rush.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

Just like drugs.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Doesn't matter if it will stop gun violence. It's not for protecting your house from burglars its for protecting yourself from the state. It's not for hunting its for protecting yourself from foreign threats.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

Legislation alone will not stop anything. The execution or enforcement of the law is just as important.@Astac: Perhaps this is too nuanced for you.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

It is now 2015 and America needs real strict gun laws. The gun situation is getting way out of hand. Too many gun nuts in America.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

especially the ones who only know what the NRA tells them.whatever the NRA used to be, they are not that any longer.the NRA is nothing more than a lobby shop for the gun manufacturers and firearms dealers, who's sole mission is to SELL MORE GUNS.PROFIT is more important to their industry than PEOPLE are.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

I've found that the grocery stores and car manufacturers are nothing more than a lobby shop for the car manufacturers and food dealers, who's sole mission is to SELL MORE FOOD AND CARS. In fact, I can't think of any group (other than the feds) whose purpose is otherwise.PROFIT is more important to these industries than PEOPLE are. Don't think so? Try to walk into a food store or a car dealership and walk out with free groceries or a free car. When you do, you will find out which is more important...you or their profits. (You will lose.)Do you really think the NRA would legislate against the industry which provides the necessity of the 2nd Amendment?
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

PROFIT is more important to these industries than PEOPLE are. Don't think so? Try to walk into a food store or a car dealership and walk out with free groceries or a free car. When you do, you will find out which is more important...you or their profits. (You will lose.)Are you saying that people who do not condone stealing do so because they only care about profit?
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Who said anything about condoning stealing. I am saying that those businesses are for PROFIT, as any business would be. What's wrong with gun manufacturers looking for a profit and the NRA supporting them because they believe in the 2nd Amendment?If those businesses were NOT for PROFIT, then they wouldn't mind people coming in and walking/driving away with free stuff.The NRA keeps the 2nd Amendment alive and I see no direct connection between them and gun manufacturing profits.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

How do your examples show the importance of profit for a business?Taking stuff without paying is stealing. Just because a business does not allow stealing does not show that it is focused on profit. It could just as well be focused on civic responsibility.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Previously, you stated:{the NRA is nothing more than a lobby shop for the gun manufacturers and firearms dealers, who's sole mission is to SELL MORE GUNS.}You seem to have a hard time with businesses making a profit.{Taking stuff without paying is stealing.}I never said anything about stealing. I was referring to businesses that were not interested in profits would or should be willing to give stuff away. If a gun's market price was $750.00 and they sold it for, say, $200.00, they would avoid making a profit and therefore go out of business. That's not the way the world works. Or they could simply give their wares away and make even less of a profit. Every business is out for profit. Why should gun manufacturers be any different. You seem to find fault with that.{It could just as well be focused on civic responsibility.}And just what 'civic responsibility' would that be? They provide a service and a product to the market place. Beyond that, nothing else is their responsibility. They do not provide weapons to criminals and gangs. They come by those weapons illegally to support their criminality, not the gun manufacturers nor the NRA.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

You seem to have a hard time with businesses making a profit.You should probably read the comments again. You seem to have confused me with another user.I never said anything about stealing.Your scenario was about a person walking out away without paying. That is theft or charity. Since you said the business was interested in profits, the former made more sense.And just what 'civic responsibility' would that be? They provide a service and a product to the market place. Beyond that, nothing else is their responsibility. They do not provide weapons to criminals and gangs. They come by those weapons illegally to support their criminality, not the gun manufacturers nor the NRA.I am not saying all businesses must be one thing or another like you are. I am saying an entity, even a for-profit business, can have several priorities. Only someone simple-minded would assume that profit is the only reason for any business decision.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

{How do your examples show the importance of profit for a business?}It's self-evident. Without profits, a business would not survive. Simple as that. They need a profit for themselves, future investments in their own business, a responsibility to stock holders, bank debt repayment, etc. I don't understand why you don't get it. Obviously, you don't own a business.{It could just as well be focused on civic responsibility.}They need PROFITS to provide civic responsibility. How can they donate without profits.True, they could provide 'civic responsibility' such as donating to the NRA, anti-Obamacare groups, anti-gay marriage groups, etc. I have no objection to that BUT they need profits first.If businesses want to provide a civic responsibility, that is their volition, not something for your wish list.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

You still have not shown how your original examples show the importance of profit.They were completely irrelevant or were so poorly constructed that they appeared irrelevant.In terms of civic responsibility, that was a suggestion I made to explain your examples. We are not talking about civic responsibility in general, but about civic responsibility in your examples.You should read my comments again. I was critiquing your ramblings, not your point of view.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Science and morality can co-exist, but science doesn't need to explain morality. This question isn't asking if science can say what is and isn't moral, but if these two things can co-exist.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I would argue that science can very much explain morality, and thus part is wrong. But, science does not decide what is moral and not moral. Morality is a subjective retaliative choice over what behaviors are considered better, worse, and to what degree they are better or worse, and as groups of more than one individual decide this, it becomes a social agreement within a group over this. Because of this, science can explain it, but the decision making is subjective and relative to those making the decisions. What science can help with is to provide as objective as possible arguments towards choosing one moral over another, which does not dictate the outcome of the decision, but can influence it in positive manners.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Science cannot explain morality. Morality is a God thing, meaning it isn't natural.Also, I said science doesn't need to explain morality, which it doesn't and couldn't.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Morality can be said to have stemmed from our sentience and our ability to sense and care for others and oneself, which in turn could have gradually turned into more complex thinking on ethical choices.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Morality, comes from, God. God is the Moral Lawgiver...........................................................................................................
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Morality, comes from, God.No it doesn't you raving loony. Morality differs extensively between cultures and over time. If morality came from your invisible fairy friend then it would be ubiquitous and universally agreed upon.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Yes it does. If morality doesn't come from God, morality doesn't, exist......................................................................................
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Yes it does. If morality doesn't come from God, morality doesn't, existNo it doesn't. If you don't admit I'm king of the universe then you don't exist.There. That was easy.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Yes morality does come from God, and there is nothing you can do, about, it. Go, cry, some more.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Yes morality does come from God, and there is nothing you can do, about, it. Go, cry, some more.No, morality doesn't come from God. You have no facts to support what you are saying so I don't need to do anything about it because you are just one dangerously mad bitch with a stupid opinion.And if morality did come from God, I doubt very much he would approve of you trying to upset me by telling me to go cry. Please get some psychiatric help you lunatic.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Yes it does.Prove any person, place, or thing could exist, without Yahweh Creator God.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

To do that, he would have to prove the existence of God, something even the religious can't do.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Says who, and if Christians have to prove God, you have to prove Charles Darwin.............................................................
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Says whoJust about everyone of reasonable intelligence.if Christians have to prove GodIf you want to claim nothing could exist without a God, then you need to prove God exists. Otherwise the evidence would be that things could exist without a God.you have to prove Charles DarwinHistory has shown a man by the name Charles Darwin existed. We have photographic evidence, we have his own writing, we have biographies. Do we worship Darwin as we do God? No. Can you refuse to believe Darwin existed? Yes. Would you be right? Absolutely not.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

No darlin' I have no problem providing evidence, but only the Holy Spirit can prove God, after I provide, the evidence. Please tell me what evidence you need, and Holy Spirit willing, I will find it, my dear.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

You would need to provide it to those who don't already believe in Him so you would need to ask them. And it would need to be sufficient enough to hold up to scrutiny.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

I can do, that..........................................................................................................................................................
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

No darlin' I have no problem providing evidence, but only the Holy Spirit can prove GodAhahahahaha! So only your second imaginary friend can prove your first imaginary friend? Looks like you've got it all figured out there. Good one!!! 😆
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

If you cannot respect the Holy Spirit, this conversation, is over. I will pray, for you....................................................
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

If you cannot respect the Holy SpiritYou can't show me any evidence the holy spirit even exists you raving lunatic. Show me evidence he exists and show me evidence he is worthy of my respect.I'm quite sorry Dana, but normal people don't believe things they can't support with some form of evidence.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

If I have to prove God exists, you have to prove evolution, is true.............................................................................
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

If you want to claim nothing could exist without a God, then you need to prove God exists.Absolutely on the mark.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Obviously, this argument would be true if literally, all other explanations don't exist. It seems to me that an objective morality from a deity that can't be questioned seems a bit off.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Obviously, this argument would be true if literally, all other explanations don't existLol. That's about the size of it. You can't reason with Dana. She just sticks her fingers in her ears and refuses to listen to or acknowledge anything she doesn't like the sound of. Trust me, explaining biological altruism to her will just make her mad and then she'll accuse you of raping her.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Oh, the indignity! But, on a serious note, it was rather obvious ever since I kept seeing their arguments/claims on this platform. The periods, the wording, the repeating, it's rather redundant.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Oh, the indignity! But, on a serious note, it was rather obvious ever since I kept seeing their arguments/claims on this platform. The periods, the wording, the repeating, it's rather redundant.There's a 50 character minimum limit for arguments, and most of Dana's posts are just one sentence versions of "I'm always the victim and I'm going to sue you" or "Liar, God is real", so she pads them out with the period key.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Huh. Interesting. (ignore this: jhefjahaiosdjfksadfjklashfkjkdfhjksahfdjkhsafkajshfjkashdfkjsahfjkhsafkhjashdfjkshdklfjhkljsahdfklaskdfl)
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Yes it does come from God and science also has it's limits. For example, if you experiment on people, is it right? No! Just look at the failure of john money, a mad psychologist who thought it was good to mutilate children, believing in a delusional theory that gender can be altered. You see? Gender/sex can't be changed, that is simply scientific fact with morality to it.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

God created us all and created science, therefore God and science both have something to do with morality. Ever heard of mad science? Or pseudoscience? Yeah. That is called the wrong side of science of course, where experiments are conducted due to theories or assumptions instead of basing off of facts. Mutilation and "sex reassignment" is also an immorality that involves science and radicals reject scientific facts yet claim to be of scientific minds. They claim to be progressive, yet they are not.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

Yes of course morality and science are two independent fields which do not overlap at all hence both can coexist.
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

I fully agree with your assessment.*
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

What in the world are you doing, bronto? You ok?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: No way.

Why you on an old ancient debate mint? Bored?
Debate: Can Science and Morality co-exist?
Side: Yes, of course.

It's my debate, so it gave me a notification that someone commented. Are you bored?