azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Im from China, and my mom took a history course in university on China. THings weren't much better before the Europeans came along. The government was at least as bad as it is today.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Are those comforts really worth giving us the ability to blindly destroy our world? Our greed and short sightedness in such matters of comfort, profit and short-term benefit, our complacency, our seemingy inability to handle such things responsibly - the real threat we pose to ourselves far outweighs the paltry comforts of hot water and electric light - it however does not (perhaps) outweigh the massive advances in science, medicine and insight we have gained as a byproduct of these technologies.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Are those comforts really worth giving us the ability to blindly destroy our world?Yes.the real threat we pose to ourselves far outweighs the paltry comforts of hot water and electric lightPaltry? We have waited five thousand years for such things!
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Name one extremely powerful country in history that did not use its power for its own ends.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

"Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has, as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity" - Nikola Tesla (1919)Anybody care to explain how the atomic bomb served as an act intended to the "betterment of humanity"?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Deeper issue

The atomic bomb was originally intended to end the largest war in human history. In addition, scientists knew that the technology used in the bomb could also be used for peaceful purposes. However, the use of the bomb has been hijacked by power- hungry politicians and generals to further their own ends.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Sure. The atomic bomb was used to end the world's biggest, bloodiest and costliest war EVER. Sure, close to 500k died and several more suffered, but the atomic bomb SAVED the 2 million+ lives analysts estimate would have been needed to completely invade Japan, and that figure doesn't even consider the wounded. Personally, I think that saving 1.5 million lives, no matter their ethnicity, is good for humanity.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

I agree.However, the atomic bomb still exists. It can still do a great amount of damage.Albert Einstein said: "If only I had known, I would have been a locksmith."He also said: "It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." That means, that we have progressed (if you agree that such a monstrosity is 'progress') to the point where one idiot can cause untold damage to both life and limb.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

If only I had known, I would have been a locksmith.Watchmaker actually.That means, that we have progressed (if you agree that such a monstrosity is 'progress') to the point where one idiot can cause untold damage to both life and limb.I maintain that your argument is forty years outdated. If you are going to judge humanity solely upon its' worst inventions, then your conclusion will have little pertinence to reality, being wrong.I advise you to look to humanity's greater works, which are many, as indeed you are advised to behold its' wrath. Then, having of both hues tasted, render unto us your judgement, for it shall be a learned one.If but a fraction of the energies spent utterly, with purpose only to dress humanity as a villain, were warped to better effect, to the betterment of all, then we would indeed be held in saintly regard. But, if our cruel countenance's counterpart were to do oppositely, then should the world fall swiftly into chaos and utter ruin. As such, we are in temperament matched even, and, armed so, I defy you to conceive a refutation that is in all things: fair.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Watchmaker actually.That's not what my source saysI maintain that your argument is forty years outdated.How? Do we not still have the technology - if not even worse technology by now.If you are going to judge humanity solely upon its' worst inventions, then your conclusion will have little pertinence to reality, being wrong.Why? The worst of technology in all probability can do things which can never be undone.Scientist says humans will be extinct in 100 years.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

That's not what my source saysThat is what my sources say:Source OneSource TwoSource ThreeHow? Do we not still have the technology - if not even worse technology by now.Nuclear arsenals have decreased dramatically since the cold war.Why? The worst of technology in all probability can do things which can never be undone.And hence will never be done.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Nuclear arsenals have decreased dramatically since the cold war.Reduced to so great an extent that they cannot cause damage in the extreme?And hence will never be done.May never be done.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Reduced to so great an extent that they cannot cause damage in the extreme?Reducing at such a rate as to discredit doomsday theories involving them. Nuclear war did not happen when the world stage was perfectly set up for it; it will not happen now.May never be done.He who says that it will is M.A.D
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Nuclear war did not happen when the world stage was perfectly set up for it; it will not happen now.However, people change; new people come and go - perhaps a later ruler will use these weapons?He who says that it will is M.A.D"M.A.D."?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

However, people change; new people come and go - perhaps a later ruler will use these weapons?Defences will probably be in place by then."M.A.D."?Mutually Assured Destruction. No nation will deploy nuclear arms for fear of other nations doing the same in retaliation.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Defences will probably be in place by then.Defenses will be in place? How exactly can you protect, say, a city from a nuclear bomb?No nation will deploy nuclear arms for fear of other nations doing the same in retaliation.Some groups - such as Hamas or PLO - seem eccentric enough.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Defenses will be in place? How exactly can you protect, say, a city from a nuclear bomb?Anti-missile defence is possible Anti-ballistic missiles. (ABMs)Examples:THAADPatriotHQ-9Some groups - such as Hamas or PLO - seem eccentric enough.Have you any evidence to suggest that they have nuclear capability?
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

I think he is referring to the acronym Mutualy Assured Destruction (MAD) in a rather silly way.
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Another Einstein quote; "I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!" Lol
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

That is not what he said:"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Long Live Humanity

Damn Google giving me bad info, i knew it was something along those lines
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

Human beings are the smartest species on the planet. But we are also the stupidest!
Debate: Can Humanity survive our technolgical infancy?
Side: Woe for Us

we have manged to misuse every invention we have ever made example the nuclear bomb.so with most countries with that weapon not counting future inventions. Humanity will not survive a world war 3.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

As long as "guns" are available worldwide just about anyone can procure one. Take away our guns, take away our freedom.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Liberals continue down the road to nowhere, with their focus on the gun part of these tragic incidents. The underlying thread that runs through all of these mass killings is an (unstable person + a gun = innocent lives lost.). This equation is being ignored again by zealous liberals. There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in the us. Compare this number with any reasonable estimate of how many violently unstable individuals are in the us. Which is more feasible to try and control?
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

I will never understand why liberals have such an obsession with gun control, and such an inability to focus on the real issue of inadequate mental health services. It completely and utterly baffles me.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

I will never understand why liberals have such an obsession with gun control, and such an inability to focus on the real issue of inadequate mental health services.this falls under the "be careful what you wish for" category.as a liberal who has argued for better gun control laws, i find this diversion an interesting choice.many, many gun advocates demonstrate a lack of reason and clear thinking... especially when they just regurgitate the NRA talking points which are solely designed to do one thing and one thing only...sell more guns.so the next time a gun nut want's to make the claim that liberals are "cumin fur ma guns"... i have to wonder if maybe we should.that sounds crazy enough to disqualify a person from owning a gun, if you ask me.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

this falls under the "be careful what you wish for" category. as a liberal who has argued for better gun control laws, i find this diversion an interesting choice.Except it isn't a diversion. The point of gun control, as stated by this who propose it, is to fight gun related crimes. The problem is that you are fighting a symptom, not the cause, and as such doing very little good. When shootings sprees occur, there is almost always a trend of mental instability, yet few people call for increased mental health services.many, many gun advocates demonstrate a lack of reason and clear thinking Many, many gun control advocates demonstrate the same thing, while people on both sides of the issue also demonstrate plenty of reason and clear thinking.especially when they just regurgitate the NRA talking points which are solely designed to do one thing and one thing only...sell more guns.The NRA is an absurd organization run by absurd people who say absurd things, that much is abundantly clear. so the next time a gun nut want's to make the claim that liberals are "cumin fur ma guns"... i have to wonder if maybe we should."Gun nuts" make up a minority of gun owners in this country, so pointing to extremists doesn't help much for the conversation. that sounds crazy enough to disqualify a person from owning a gun, if you ask me.So if someone is simply ignorant and spends too much time on nonsense websites, that is sufficient to deny them a Constitutional right? That would actually end up denying them both their 2nd Amendment right, and their right to Due Process.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

The point of gun control, as stated by this who propose it, is to fight gun related crimes. no, its not. this is a straw man used by NRA disciples to avoid doing anything constructive about the problem of gun related violence.the point is to make gun ownership a safer thing for society at large, by holding gun owners more responsible for their introduction of this greater risk into the population.the point of gun control laws is not to stop a bad man from shooting someone, that's absurd... it is to PREVENT ACCESS to guns so that a bad man's intentions are not magnified by the power of a gun.much the same way that dynamite or toxic chemicals, or radioactive materials are WELL REGULATED to prevent a bad man from magnifying his power by using any of these things.we keep these dangerous things under lock and key, with strict rules on their use so that their danger to society at large is minimized as much as possible without removing their utility.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

no, its not. this is a straw man used by NRA disciples to avoid doing anything constructive about the problem of gun related violence.the point is to make gun ownership a safer thing for society at large, by holding gun owners more responsible for their introduction of this greater risk into the population.the point of gun control laws is not to stop a bad man from shooting someone, that's absurd... it is to PREVENT ACCESS to guns so that a bad man's intentions are not magnified by the power of a gun.How is the entire point of all that not to fight gun related crimes? Note I did not say that the purpose is to keep a bad man from shooting someone, I simply said to fight the crime. You'll also note that I did not say the purpose is to stop all crime, simply to fight gun related crime. That can be done in a wide variety of ways. much the same way that dynamite or toxic chemicals, or radioactive materials are WELL REGULATED to prevent a bad man from magnifying his power by using any of these things.we keep these dangerous things under lock and key, with strict rules on their use so that their danger to society at large is minimized as much as possible without removing their utility.For better or worse, guns are classified differently then the materials you mentioned due to the existence of the 2nd Amendment. I strongly believe in the need for a higher standard of training, as well as background checks, when it comes to gun ownership. But that is by no means the only form of gun control out there. You are applying your personal views on gun control to all views on gun control, which, while excusable considering you have a more realistic stance on it, is ultimately mistaken due to the existence and prevalence of those who seek to handle it quite different (for instance, the attempted handgun ban here in Chicago).
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

[to] fight gun related crime. That can be done in a wide variety of ways. name some.name some that we are not already doing.For better or worse, guns are classified differently then the materials you mentioned due to the existence of the 2nd Amendment.are they? the words WELL REGULATED are right in the amendment and universally ignored by the NRA crowd.only the EFFECT of relentless lobbying by the NRA has manifested in a "difference"... a difference that is illegitimate based on the founding documents and costly to our society as guns have been fetishized to a ridiculous degree.the creation of a standing army should have spelled the death knell of the individual right, since one displaces the need for the other (in theory).... or, alternatively, a standing army should have been deemed unconstitutional at the outset (as was argued by many).but now we have BOTH and each at the detriment of the other.yes, your two items are a good start, but there are a LOT more things that can be done to ensure the right to own a gun does not impose undue costs onto society... here is my list.mandatory background checks for every gun transfer... even for private citizen to private citizen regardless of profit or loss in the exchanges.... brokered by a licensed gun dealer..compile a robust national database of all ppl disqualified from owning a gun such as: convicted violent felons, anyone with a restraining order, anyone declared mentally unfit by a court of law or receiving disability insurance for that reason..fund mental health clinics to treat illness and which can diagnose violent tendencies that would disqualify a person from gun ownership..mandatory training for gun ownership which includes gun safety, and how to properly secure weapons from getting into the wrong hands as well as practical hands on live fire training..semi-annual training renewal including demonstration of proficiency and a safety test..hold gun owners responsible for damages (including pain and suffering) that result from their guns being used in the commission of a crime..mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership based on free-market assessment of the cost to society for guns being present in the home.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

Did you not see the equation in my post. Can you refute the clear evidence that it is based on? Return from your tired and dis-proven liberal walking point about the need for more laws, and address the evidence in cities like Chicago, so we can understand how tough gun laws really work.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

Did you not see the equation in my post. Can you refute the clear evidence that it is based on? yes, i saw your equation, and i'm attempting to address the "+gun" term in that equation.Return from your tired and dis-proven liberal walking(sic) point about the need for more laws, and address the evidence in cities like Chicago...your mis-characterization of the liberal position aside, laws are only as good as the enforcement behind them.and when one city plagued by gun violence makes laws, but the neighboring state only 1/2hr drive away undercuts those laws, then you have a recipe for failure that even the blind can see coming.none of these pockets of violence can be used as any kind of "example" when convenient just to avoid the real issues.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: No, They do not work today

The anti gun people are the only people repeating BS talking points. The pro gun people really do want their right to own guns. The NRA is not an agency that works for gun companies. The NRA is member funded. It is the largest lobby that represents actual citizens instead of corporations. Nothing sells guns better than gun control laws.The problem with liberals is they love to talk about what people need to defend themselves and what they don't need. The problem I have with that is that liberals don't bother to learn anything about guns before they describe aspects of guns that are bad, much of the time.The main goal of the NRA is to prevent any gun laws so that citizens can own them, not do that guns will be sold. I also think people are crazy for saying that "the liberals are coming for our guns" in the literal sense, but it is usually just hyperbole.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

The anti gun people are the only people repeating BS talking points. there is a self-eating snake of an argument, if i ever saw one.The pro gun people really do want their right to own guns.another self-evident non-statement... no one is coming for your guns.The NRA is not an agency that works for gun companies.um, someone hasn't been paying attention to the NRA since before the 1980's... that is ALL they are anymore... the transition has been completed.The NRA is member funded.they have a lot of lifetime memberships, but that's not were they get their money now.... look it up.It is the largest lobby that represents actual citizens instead of corporations.the NRA is USING its citizen membership base to lobby congress for corporate friendly legislation to enhance the profits of the firearms manufacturers and dealers, who they are now working for.you , and all other lifetime NRA members, are begin USED by corporations to enhance their bottom line.there is nothing new under the sun here. Nothing sells guns better than gun control laws.the NRA does....[more condescending NRA talking points about liberals: deleted]The main goal of the NRA is to prevent any gun laws...hey, you got one right!I also think people are crazy for saying that "the liberals are coming for our guns" in the literal sense, but it is usually just hyperbole.hey, you got another one right!you're on a roll.just one more step to go.the NRA is a lobby shop for the firearms manufacturers and dealers, and their ONLY mission now is to sew more fear so they can sell more guns.you are almost caught up... just a little remedial lobbyist 101 course work and you will be one of US.
Debate: Can more Gun laws prevent Gun violence
Side: Yes, low info voters sux

another self-evident non-statement... no one is coming for your guns.You want to limit the rights to own guns, yet you disagree that you don't want to limit gun rights? See, BS.um, someone hasn't been paying attention to the NRA since before the 1980's... that is ALL they are anymore... the transition has been completed.More anti gun BS talking points. Can you name any lobby that you personally support? Every gun event you go to has NRA members collecting funds from private citizens as funding for the NRA.they have a lot of lifetime memberships, but that's not were they get their money now.... look it up.They still get money from members. Name another lobby that gets citizen money.the NRA is USING its citizen membership base to lobby congress for corporate friendly legislation to enhance the profits of the firearms manufacturers and dealers, who they are now working for.How are they enhancing the profits of manufacturers? Is it by preventing congress from making laws that would allow citizens to buy the guns they want, because that would benefit the NRA members.you , and all other lifetime NRA members, are begin USED by corporations to enhance their bottom line.We buy their products. We already support their bottom line.there is nothing new under the sun here.Except in the 80s I guess they were different?the NRA does.The NRA has no power to sell guns without liberals trying to take away the ability to buy them.hey, you got one right!Gun laws prevent citizens from getting guns, so it looks like the NRA is focused on members not corporations.the NRA is a lobby shop for the firearms manufacturers and dealers, and their ONLY mission now is to sew more fear so they can sell more guns.And stupid anti gun people let them by doing everything the NRA claims liberals want to do to go after guns.no one is coming for your guns.I just want to point out that both think that only a moron says that the liberals are coming after guns, and only you are the one who said it. Good job. I have only ever been talking about taking away the right to purchase guns.[more condescending NRA talking points about liberals: deleted]It wasn't condescending talking points. I see a bunch of anti gun people who don't know what a magazine is. Can you explain what happens when you hold down the trigger in a semi-auto gun?