azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I feel I can jump into a debate two people are having and respond to any given point without also being obligated to address everything said before that point. That just sounds incredibly arderous, so I have no intent to start now. A strawman argument is a misrepresentation of someone elses argument that then presumably goes on to get attacked. You're entire explanation of why my post was a straw man is essentially that it is off topic ("was not addressing the same subject as me or what joe originally said."); being off topic doesn't make an argument a strawman, it makes it off topic. As for it not being on topic, well, it addressed the point you made, referenced the point joe made, and then explained why joe's argument worked and why yours didn't. If that's not on topic I don't know what is. His premise was the pursuit of happiness and only the pursuit of happiness. My reply used the exact same logic.Yes, but his example didn't infringe on the happiness of others and yours did, which is why it was an unfair comparison and that's why I felt compelled to say something along those lines. He's talking about property he can own that would make him happy; you are talking about destroying the property of other people to make you happy. A.) those are not the same thing at all and a completely pointless comparison and b.) using the premise of the pursuit of happiness your example also fails because it relies on impacting the happiness of others for your own happiness while joes example only impacts joes happiness. So yes, you used the same logic, but that logic your argument holds no water and his does.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I know, right? Funny how that works. One up vote for you ;)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Your right to pursue happiness ends where my rights begin ;)Me owning assault weapons does not impact you in any way shape or form.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Me owning assault weapons does not impact you in any way shape or form.I don't know that. You might be a psycho and you might shoot me. Obviously all of the recent shootings, their right to own a gun didn't affect anyone, until it did. My question would be, if your happiness is dependent on having all of that fire power, are you mentally stable enough to own all of that fire power? The longer this gun debate drags on the more I'm finding that gun nuts really are nuts. It could almost be a litmus test: "Do you believe that your happiness depends on having an assault rifle and/or that any regulation at all is a plot by the government to punish you for some reason?"If they answer anything but "that's fucking stupid" they shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

So..., you're saying that I should give up my rights in the event that I may one day, perhaps, maybe, violate yours? And you consider that rational ;)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

No more or less rational than laws against stocking biological weapons, creating nuclear bombs, building meth labs, etc. No more or less rationale than wanting to do any of that.We draw lines all of the time. Why stop the right to arm oneself at semi-automatics? Why not let people build nuclear bombs joe?It's the same thing. Some people just have a hard-on for these particular weapons for some reason.There is nothing any law abiding citizen could ever need a gun that fires that many bullets that fast. At the same time we see almost every month it seems now, that you gun nuts are incapable of keeping your guns out of the hands of even nuttier individuals.So too bad. You're all in time out. No guns for you until you learn how to play responsibly.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

If your out setting homes on fire, then you are intentionally harming others, and your point is invalid. You obviously do not have the mental acuity to handle fire, therefore should we make all fires illegal?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Okay. I want to build a nuclear bomb in my basement. For protection. And say I'm a nuclear scientist.It's the same argument. As this debate clearly shows, anti gun regulation is based on imagination. Well I imagine I need a nuclear bomb to defend myself. Never mind that as with guns, you are more likely to hurt yourself of a loved on on accident, you are in fact more likely to have it stolen and used by a psycho in some kind of crime, then ever using it to defend yourself. I imagine I'm Rambo and it makes me feel like a tough guy or whatever.Better gun control including limiting fire power and doing real background checks means less innocent people, and innocent kids, being shot. That's a fact.But you don't care. You are in imagination land and think you're Rambo.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

The 2nd amendment wasn't designed to protect the rights of hunters, it was enacted so that people could protect themselves from a tyrannical government. It was created to ensure that the people would be able to maintain the freedoms represented by the constitution. Simply put, the rights of the constitution are those deemed inalienable, and the second amendment is there to insure they remain such. How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

How is a gun more useful.than knives? I've never seen people cut up vegetables properly with a machine gun. The difference is knives are a tool, a domestic neccesity, along with tools such as screwdrivers and domestic appliances such as toasters all of which can kill under accidental circumstances, however their benefit outweights the possible issues.A firearm is not useful like this, the only use for a firearm outside hunting or recreation is security, which a simple handgun would do. You don't need 100 automatic weapons to fend off a likely unarmed intruder, often a bat or long armed weapon would be a much more appropriate weapon. You don't stop a fire by throwing fuel onto it. If its for recreation then keep it at the range and if its hunting a simple bolt action rifle is sufficient, you don't need military grade weapons.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

100% correct, very accurate assessment, great post, keep it up!
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Handguns are used in 89% of gun related murders in this country. Assault rifles - 3%.Handguns are much easier to kill with, and assault rifles serve the purpose, a well-regulated militia, which is outlined in the constitution.You're after the wrong weapons.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Handguns should be limited as well, just as they are here, and we no longer need a militia as we have an army and a reserve force which is the modern equivalent. That law was for a fledgling nation still trying to sort itself out.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Yes, we have an illegal standing army, and this is your reason for not needing assault weapons - weapons which cause a miniscule portion of the death in our society.The law was created to stop tyranny - The founding fathers feared 2 things more than anything else - large financial institutions and standing armies.We have one controlling our government and the other defending it, and your solution is to remove the possibility of a state controlled, citizen militia.Genius. Read Federalist #45 when you have a moment. Madison makes fun of you in it, and I'd hate for you to miss that.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

There is no state militia, and against the US army, airforce and navy you have zero chance of winning, plus simple militias are not acceptable for defending the juicy pig that is the US. Every time the US got into hot water it had to recruit a standing army and basically go through the process of rearmament which would not work in todays society where wars can be over quickly or cause huge loss of life easily.Also to humor the prospect of the NEED for assault rifles simply because of tryanny lets put it this way, they say assault rifles make up only 2-3% of homocides, now between 1960 and 2011 there were approximately 908,000 homicides, which means that about 18,100 people were killed by those assault rifles, almost 1 per day. So each day a person must die for the paranoia of tyranny. To me there is nothing more tyrranous than that.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

The Korean nationals who used assault weapons to defend themselves and their places of business during the L.A. Riots would disagree with you. Many of the looters had small arms, and the only reason that the livelihoods of the Koreans were not destroyed, their businesses turned into burning ruins, like so many others during this time, was because they had the means to defend themselves and their property.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

And once again why did the looters have small arms? - because there are many in circulation. Plus those riots were between citizens, it wasnt the government trying to attack, it was citizens on other citizens. Given any opportunity people will group with their people and not help anyone else, as seen in those riots where the attacks on the koreans were mainly by african americans. Next, alot of the weapons the koreans used were improvised, shotguns or small arms, only a few had heavier weaponry.Thirdly that riot was not quelled by civilians valiantly using their weapons weapons in vigilante justice, but rather by the National Guard and the Marines.Fourthly if the koreans were so amazing at defending themselves then why did they account for almost half of the property damage?Finally, when you line this up with other countries that have significant laws you see a huge difference, in the L.A riots over 2000 were injured and 56 killed, in for example the Australian race riots there were less than 50 injuries
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Automatic guns have no purpose in a civilised society. They were made for war and killing. People outside of war should'nt have access to guns that can shoot 30 bullets in a few seconds and kill so many people. The ammendment was written when a gun was a musket that took 5 minutes to reload and was created in case England tried to invade. USA is one of the most powerful countries in modern age so i doubt that will happen soon. Automatic guns asre wrong in this kind of society. Sure not everyone will kill someone, but one person who decides they wll can kill 30 school children in seconds. Is it worth the risk? No.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Strict gun laws are needed because the atrocious gun violence in America is horrible.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.The gun violence in America is an American Shame!http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Guns should be banned. Guns are meant to protect not kill but in the last few days we are seeing people killing each other
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Actually, the United States is not as bad as you think. The World Health Organization did a recent study on gun murder per 100,000 people. The US is at 4.3. Though this is higher than other countries, there are many civilized countries with higher ones. Russia, 10.2; N. Korea 15.2 (they have the most restrictive laws period); Greenland, 19.2; Puerto Rico, 26.2; Jamaica, 52.2; and Honduras with the highest at 91.6. All of these countries are considered civilized and not 3rd World, and every single one of them (other than the US) have banned weapons. Coincidence? I think not. Also, Automatics and Assault Weapons are already banned. The reason many are giving for banning these weapons is because of stupid exterior options, like grips and larger mags. Like a hand grip under the forearm is going to make it more deadly. And banning larger clips won't help anything. The criminal will be obliged to bring more mags. The only reason people are attacking it is because they have been for many years and have used this tragedy to their advantage. They want to give the government even more power, which it has too much already. There is no evidence to support banning extended mags and grips. The only reason they are being banned is because of them being "scary looking".
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

in fairness the last 4 or 5 mass killings of children and adults have been carried out with thesde military style assault weapons that fire multiple bullets (up to 100 per minute)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Which ones, Sandy Hook is the only one which comes to mind.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Actually, the guy in Sandy Hook used 4 pistols. An AR-15 was in his car, but never used, and even that has some controversy on whether it actually was an AR-15.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

And the mass media has made a point of pushing that, even going as far as linking these weapons to events were they weren't used. So now we have crazies out there, who, thanks to exploitation by the media, intend on committing these types of acts. And since they saw that these weapons are being used successfully by others that have similar motives, as sensationalized by the media, What kind of weapon do you think their going to try to get their hands on to use?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Which ones? The only one I know of that used one was Aurora Colorado.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Nothing in the constitution discusses what types of arms citizens are permitted to own. Would the NRA argue that private citizens can ride to work in tanks, carry grenade launchers and flame throwers, or patrol their neighborhoods with weaponized drones? Take this to its illogical extreme- does the second amendment guarantee our citizens the right to own nuclear devices? We have to draw the line somewhere to prevent civilian ownership of military weapons - restricting assault rifles is just common sense
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

"The sword and rifle and the bayonet and canon and all terrible implements of the solder are the birth right of the American citizen"- Benjamin Franklin
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

You can own a tank and drive it (they are pretty cool). You can own flamethrowers and grenade launchers, but when have they been used in a mass murder or crime? Weaponized drones are too expensive, and not a lot of people want one. Nuclear devices are pretty illegal already for civilians. We have drawn the line. People just want to keep pushing that line until we have absolutely no guns, which will never happen. Assault rifles are already heavily controlled and have not been used in crimes in the last few decades.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Russia's crime rate has been dropping over the years, down from over 30 in 1995. Greenland is not a member state of the UN and doesn't follow all thier laws, North Koreas has also been dropping in time.Honduras allowed concealed weapons etc until 2007. Of the 800,000 weapons estimated there, over 650,000 are unregistered, with 500,000 being "military grade".Gun laws don't fix problems overnight, it takes decades for it to get to a good level. It is a long term fix to a long term addiction.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Way to cherry pick.Here's a more complete look. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg Minus factors like drug cartels running countries or countries in a state of chaos due to extreme poverty and roving war bands, there is a very direct correlation in between gun control and deaths. The U.S. is a prime example of where our cowboy mentality and rejection of fact leads to way way way more dead people than we should ever accept.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Cherry Pick. Look at your article. Notice it did not mention anyone above the United States, which there are many more countries that are. This is a classic example of bias. It is indisputable that your facts are correct. However, it takes it out of context from the rest of the world.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

There are like 10 countries ahead of the U.S., you've mentioned like three of them. The other 70 something countries with statistics all do a better job, many 2nd world countries do a better job. It is an odd habit of those on your side of issues, to wrap yourselves in American flags made of strawmen and re-written history, to contentedly brag about this country in areas where we are in the bottom 10% in terms of performance while accusing anyone who dares suggest the U.S. should be in the top 1% (us being the richest and most advanced country in the history of the world after all) in any area, whether it be gun violence or healthcare, of somehow being against what this country stands for.Well, you have that right. For me, I'd rather be one of the best countries in terms of gun violence. Since statistically we know for an absolute fact that better regulation of high powered guns and better background checks works, that is what I am for. Tell yourself all the fairy tales about mexican stand-offs in your home you like, and continue to only compare the U.S. to societies decades behind us to backup your fantasies if you like. Try to remember in some part of your mind though, that this specific pursuit of fantasy has lead to more innocent deaths than nearly any other country in the world.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

From the World Health Organization:The latest Murder Statistics for the world:Murders per 100,000 citizensHonduras 91.6El Salvador 69.2Cote d'lvoire 56.9Jamaica 52.2Venezuela 45.1Belize 41.4US Virgin Islands 39.2Guatemala 38.5Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2Zambia 38.0Uganda 36.3Malawi 36.0Lesotho 35.2Trinidad and Tobago 35.2Colombia 33.4South Africa 31.8Congo 30.8Central African Republic 29.3Bahamas 27.4Puerto Rico 26.2Saint Lucia 25.2Dominican Republic 25.0Tanzania 24.5Sudan 24.2Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9Ethiopia 22.5Guinea 22.5Dominica 22.1Burundi 21.7Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7Panama 21.6Brazil 21.0Equatorial Guinea 20.7Guinea-Bissau 20.2Kenya 20.1Kyrgyzstan 20.1Cameroon 19.7Montserrat 19.7Greenland 19.2Angola 19.0Guyana 18.6Burkina Faso 18.0Eritrea 17.8Namibia 17.2Rwanda 17.1Mexico 16.9Chad 15.8Ghana 15.7Ecuador 15.2North Korea 15.2Benin 15.1Sierra Leone 14.9Mauritania 14.7Botswana 14.5Zimbabwe 14.3Gabon 13.8Nicaragua 13.6French Guiana 13.3Papua New Guinea 13.0Swaziland 12.9Bermuda 12.3Comoros 12.2Nigeria 12.2Cape Verde 11.6Grenada 11.5Paraguay 11.5Barbados 11.3Togo 10.9Gambia 10.8Peru 10.8Myanmar 10.2Russia 10.2Liberia 10.1Costa Rica 10.0Nauru 9.8Bolivia 8.9Mozambique 8.8Kazakhstan 8.8Senegal 8.7Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7Mongolia 8.7British Virgin Islands 8.6Cayman Islands 8.4Seychelles 8.3Madagascar 8.1Indonesia 8.1Mali 8.0Pakistan 7.8Moldova 7.5Kiribati 7.3Guadeloupe 7.0Haiti 6.9Timor-Leste 6.9Anguilla 6.8Antigua and Barbuda 6.8Lithuania 6.6Uruguay 5.9Philippines 5.4Ukraine 5.2Estonia 5.2Cuba 5.0Belarus 4.9Thailand 4.8Suriname 4.6Laos 4.6Georgia 4.3Martinique 4.2The United States 4.2ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bansPlease tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works. Since we know statistically that better regulation of high powered guns works.And please take a look at the link. It shows a map of gun ownership versus gun violence in the entire world.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/12/U-N-Maps-Show-U-S-High-In-Gun-Ownership- Low-In-Homicides
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Breitbart is a far far right wing nut site. You might as well copy and paste figures from Harry Potter.Here are the real statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45ehkhl/no-1-el-salvador/ http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ Every time anyone studies this subject who isn't a right wing nut group like Breitbart or the NRA itself, the numbers are the same. The U.S. has a huge problem and better gun control is a proven way to solve it.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I'm not looking at the site itself. If you noticed on the bottom of the maps, they were a from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. This site was the only one that had it in a convienent package. And almost all of these site are left wing nut sites. And your fact check site showed that gun ownership and manufacture have increased, yet the gun crimes are in their lowest.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

><When you start calling Wikipedia (who's using WHO stats) Forbes, and Business Insider left wing sources you know your have fallen off the deep end. Left wing sources would be Huffington Post or MSNBC, who consequently use the same set of facts. The left has an annoying habit of not pulling bullshit completely out of their ass, unlike Breitbart and others.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

What would that do? Criminals don't follow the law why is that so hard to understand? All guns are banned in Mexico and the cartels have all the Gus they want. It's called the black market genius. The problem with laws is that only law abiding citizens follow them. Criminals already by and sell illegal drugs and guns in this country we should make as many guns available to people who can pass a background check as is possible. The criminals will have any gun they want anyway. so should the honest law abiding citizens they pray on.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

100% wrong. get more guns out of criculation and theres far less chance of idiots and criminals getting hold of one. tighten gun laws and empower the police to enforec these laws. this is how it has worked brilliantly in all of europe since they tightended gun laws. they dont sell them in shops, nor bullets and only people with legitimate reasons can buy guns. assault weapons are 100% illegal. no citizen needs a gun firing 100 bullets a minute. as weve seen for years they soon fall into the hands of maniacs and NOONE can defend themselves agaisnt such a weapon, not even ex soldiers not even navy seals. the end result is the gun murder rate in europe is 80 times lower than america. so for example france or uk has 35 gun murders a year , thats 1 in every 2.48 million people, in america 11500 were gunned down last year, thats 1 in every 30,000 people...80 times the murder rate
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

"Those who sacrifice liberty in the name of safety deserve and receive neither"- Benjamin Franklin
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

I'd rather be alive without the right to have ludicrous firepower than risk death so I can have some toys.