azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I am against smoking. I think it should be disallowed in public places due to the harms caused by second hand smoke, the person would be harming other people when they inhaled the smoke. Smoking on private property should be at the discretion of the owner.Smokers typically respond with "well you should leave", but why should they leave? So we're not allowed to enjoy the same public space as you are? Just because you want to satisfy your addiction? You want to satisfy your addiction so bad that you don't care if you harm other people's lungs? Carelessness towards the fact that you're harming others is immoral in my opinion.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

There's some middle ground to this, no?One, I can't speak for wherever you live, but smoking is already by and large disallowed in public places, and in a lot of private ones, too. I can smoke a cigarette in my car while I'm driving on the road or if I'm walking down the street, but I can't smoke at my apartment complex, or at my past/present schools, or local parks, or shopping centers, beaches, etc. When you smoke cigarettes you pay a lot more attention to all the places you're not allowed to smoke cigarettes, and there are many. So there are Designated Smoking Areas, places where people can go to smoke that are off the beaten path and won't bother anyone. If you dislike smoke, I suggest you steer clear of these areas. As for everywhere else, well, you're not guaranteed good air quality in the Bill of Rights, and there are numerous other factors that play into bad air quality other than smoking, although smoking is disproportionately attacked, probably because it smells bad. Or so I hear. For example, you are libel to encounter automobiles, factories, dwellings, BBQs, bonfires, and people dousing themselves with hairspray or some other spray product in public, too. All of these things pose a substantial risk to your health as surely as smoking does. Are you for putting a public ban on any of these things, or are you okay with just walking away from a BBQ some people are having at the park because you dislike the smoke? It seems only natural to take steps to remove yourself from a situation you dislike; it seems infantile to ban an activity in public because you dislike it. Given that DSAs do already exist in great abundance, choosing to be in a DSA and then complain about air quality comes across as whiny and pointless. That would be like choosing to stand next to a public grill at the park and then getting angry when people start to cook on it. Or standing next to a fire pit at the beach and getting upset when people make a bonfire there. Of insisting on being in a busy parking and then complaining about all the exhaust fumes. To some extent you do have the ability to remove yourself from a situation you dislike, and to some extent that is the most reasonable course of action. Like I said in the beginning, there is some middle ground; I know there are some areas that are not DSAs or places where smoking isn't allowed, and you may encounter smokers, there (like you might encounter a car spewing exhaust or a factory vent dumping pollution into the air). If you're really so offended and terrified by second hand smoke like this, I would advise investing in a gas mask, because cars and factories aren't going anywhere any time soon. Bu in regards to these situations, I'd be happy to discuss instituting DSAs everywhere public, but not banning smoking everywhere public.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

In regards to what you said about being guaranteed good air quality in the bill of rights; You are not guaranteed that, I'm aware. You spoke of factories, vehicles, BBQs, etc, some of those things are absolutely necessary to live in the modern world. As for BBQs, I don't know anyone who happens to dislike that smell, although I do imagine there must be people out there who dislike the smell. Do BBQs damage lungs as much as cigarette smoke? I don't think BBQs cause lung cancer. Smoking cigarettes and such is not absolutely necessary at all. It might feel necessary to the smoker, because he is chemically addicted to the substance. But it is really not necessary to live in the modern world. When I say that smoking should be banned in public, I mean anywhere outside that the government owns. Smoking is not a necessity of modern life, and it raises the chance of lung cancer significantly to people who happen to be nearby.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Yes, I'm against smoking. Because it is very harmful to health. Of course the whole world knows that smoking is bad, but they continue to smoke not understanding how it is actually harmful. Continued dependence on cigarettes leads to heart disease, shortness of breath, it becomes hard to breathe, the person does not maintain strong physical exertion. Smoking also spoils genes. Children born to parents who smoke have a weak immune system.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

yes!! smoking is a horrible, terrible thing to do and it affects your lungs badly! if you smoke too much, your teeth will rot, your breath will stink of smoke, and worst of all.... you'll get lung cancer!! lung cancer is horrible and it could cause you to die. so smoking is a horrible thing, and i suggest you shouldn't smoke!
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

A cigarette stick has many undesirable chemicals like tar or nicotine. Studies show that people reduce their life span by 11 minutes every time they smoke.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

People can lung cancer and heart diseases as a result of smoking.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Yes I am against smoking, because it not only harm people who smoke but it is also very bad for the people who surrounds you. That is why dont think only about you but also your surroundings
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Yeah!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! THINK OF THE HELPLESS FAST-BREATHING CHILDREN!!!
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I am agaisnt smoking because it damages health. Where-ever it should be illegal or not is something for debate.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

YES I AM 100% AGAINST SMOKING. SEE FOR YOURSELF.TRY 1 CIGARETTE AND YOU CAN'T STOP. THIS RUINS YOUR LUNGS AND YOU DIE.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Everyone knows about the dangers of smoking. The impact is said and shown in schools universities, on posters in the streets, even on the cigarette packs. World Health Organization tells us that more than one billion people are smokers in the world, because smoking is a hard habit to break because tobacco contains nicotine, which is highly addictive. Like heroin or other addictive drugs, the body and mind quickly become so used to the nicotine in cigarettes that a person needs to have it just to feel normal. Because of this people find it difficult to break the habit of smoking and it is best way not to start smoking.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I am so anti I can't even describe how anti I am and how angry I am with these idiots. Every day they buy a cigarette box, they could save a live from malaria!! Some people are disgusting and selfish.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Smoking causes severe long term damages. So yes, I am against it. I also have asthma.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Always have been!
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

I am against people smoking cigarettes but I do not support making them illegal, its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like smoking. Your gonna take away someone's rights cause you don't agree with them? What are you, 9?
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?In this case, whose liberty weighs more? In a public place, does a smoker's liberty outweigh my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment? Am I obligated to leave whenever someone pulls out a smoke? Or is it the otherway around and the smoker is expected to not smoke if he might endanger the clear air of others?I'm against smoking for the sole reason that I'm against all drugs. I don't find it to be ethical to have the state support self-destructive behavior. The state should not strive for fully fledged freedom, it should strive for the health and well-being of its citizens. As I take it, your idea of liberty boils down to ''its their choice and you have no right to take away their personal liberties and rights because you don't like _____ (insert blank with).'' With this principle you can allow anything. While I may not like it and be personally against it, I have no right to take away another's liberty to walk around naked, shoot heroin or have sex with animals for example. Let me turn what you said around - Does a smoker have the right to take away my personal liberty for clean air because he doesn't like the idea of not-smoking?
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Legalizing drugs will make it even more simpler than it currently is. And cheaper.Not really and not at all. Buying drugs illegally is a matter of having the proper contact and some money, which really isn't that hard. Buying drugs legally is a matter of having the proper contact, some money, valid identification, and quite probably some kind of paperwork. You tell me, which is more simple?As for cheap, don't make me laugh. You're telling me once the government gets it's greedy hands on the illicit drug industry the first thing they'll do is lower prices? Ha! As it stands right now I can call up one of my friends and illegally purchase about 2 grams of marijuana for about 20 bucks. To get that same 2 grams from a state-sanctioned and monitored club (with my paperwork, going back to the legal method of purchasing being more complex), I would pay about 35 dollars. The money for drugs you buy from a drug dealer is split between re-upping and profit. The money you hand to a business for the same product has to go to building rent, employee paychecks and benefits, paying for proper certifications and licenses, and everything else that goes into running a business. Oh, and you're paying extra money to the government simply for making the purchase in the form of a tax. A "sin" tax, in this case, which tends to be even higher than taxes for other products. So no and no; buying will not be more simple or cheaper if drugs are legalized.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Why do you think murder is declared illegal? It’s not like anti-murder laws actually prevent murder – no they don’t, murder still happens and it happens a lot. Should we then legalize murder because we can’t stop it anyway? No. By keeping it illegal, less murder will be comitted.Lol. The whole argument for legalizing substances to help reduce crime/arrests related to those substances is that the substances themselves are victimless. In your example you substituted "substances" for "murder," which is, like, the definition of a victimfull crime. So your example doesn't work at all because killing someone and taking a substance are not the same thing, or even remotely similar, really.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I understand well that murder is a victimful crime, but I don't see how it's relevant to the context I presented it. What I'm trying to point out is that legalizing an action or substance will always lead to the increase of the people making these actions and using these substances. If murder were legalized, more people would commit murder. If drugs are legalized, more people would start using drugs. Legalize abortion and more people will start using the service, legalize divorce and more people will start doing it.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

It's relevant because if there is an increase in victim-full crime there is in increase in victims - which is almost always a bad thing. And increase in victimless "crime" isn't anything to worry about.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Victimless crime, as in being drug users, is most certainly something to worry about.If the amount of drug users increase as a direct result of the state's policies, then any self-respecting official would be concerned. The more the citizens poison themselves, the weaker the state and the quality of its population will become.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

We've been poisoning ourselves with one of the most powerful (alcohol) and one of the most deadly drugs (nicotine/tobacco) since the founding of our country and we turned out alright. This is true for most first world nations. And people are already doing the other drugs we are talking about in great abundance already, and society as a whole marches on, just fine. I don't see how legalizing a few of these drugs would usurp all that.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Just because we use alchohol and smokes - that does mean that we should therefore give the people even more dangerous, addictive and potent drugs. Civilization keeps marching on because fortunately, the amount of problematic users isn't that high. However, if we as a society are going to condone the use of drugs through legalizing it, then the amount of users we have now will increase and I don't see why the state should condone and support this kind of destructive behavior.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Well, isn't a smoker taking away my liberty to be in a smoke-free environment?If you choose to be in one of the few public places where smoking is actually allowed, yes, yes they are. However I would like to point out that automobiles, factories, people have BBQs, and the like are all also infringing on this imagined right to clean air. However if you were chilling in the middle of a busy road, or directly beside some factory vents, or standing next to someone elses BBQ, standing there and bitching about the air quality and how everyone else driving and producing and cooking is taking away your liberty to be in an environment with clean air, I think you'd get laughed at. Someone might be kind enough to point out the obvious solution to your problem: move someplace else. This is a classic example of people going way out of their way to make their environment adapt to them instead of taking easy steps to adapt to their environment. There are a whole shit ton of places smokers can't smoke; I know this, as I'm a smoker myself and pay attention to these things. We can't smoke indoors and when we can smoke outdoors, in a public place, it is never in central areas but off to the side. So if you choose to hang out in a DSA and then expect your complaints about clean air to be taken seriously, you've got another thing coming, my friend. It seems to me that laws are already in effect to solve this problem you guys are debating back and forth on. There are designated smoking areas for smokers, and everywhere else is a smoke free zone. There's some unaccounted for middle-ground, yes, but realistically unless you are calling for a ban on all things that pollute our air - cars, spray cans, industry, wood-fires, etc - you shouldn't single smoking out. It's unfair. If you want totally clean air, go move out to the unexplored, fresh wilderness out there somewhere. If you want to live anywhere with other people also living there, get used to some degree of air pollution. Simple as that.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

well said.Yes, smoking is bad yet it is sometimes a treat to few. Yet, taking them away is going kill jobs (those who make them), cut the income of cigarette companies, make people go insane because they dont have there cigs, and overall is killing our rights. I dislike cigarettes but removing them is just as bad.... BUT! The question says are you against smoking...well i am :3
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

I don't smoke, but I'm fine with others having the right to smoke.At this point, the idea that the lifestyles we choose will truly impact our lives is childish. We are all going to die. Some wish to die with a cigarette in hand, others wish to die with completely healthy lungs.I support choice. Not legislation.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I think the conclusion you've come to is ridiculous. "We're all going to die, so smoking doesn't matter". Okay, well you can live to be 70-80 without smoking. Or you can die at age 50-60 right when you retire due to lung cancer all because of your 30-40 years of smoking. That's 20-30 years you could have spent enjoying your retirement money.Now, I agree with you that we should not make legislation to stop people from smoking. I just don't think smokers should be allowed to smoke in public where they are damaging other people's lungs.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Public... as in a publicly owned building?I guess.But outside does not harm people's lungs. And inside a privately owned building is up to the owner, not the government.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Well, I thought smoking was disallowed in most public buildings anyways...? Except for a few restaurants of course...I meant public as in at a park, a playground, any place where people gather on public property. Outside will harm people's lungs if there's like a parade nearby, or some other local festivity.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Outside will harm people's lungs if there's like a parade nearby, or some other local festivity.I assume there is scientific evidence validating your statement...
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

What evidence do you need...? If there is a local festivity, say a parade or something and you're on the side walk next to a smoker or group of smokers and you are inhaling the smoke, it will cause damage to your lungs. One example being increased chance of lung cancer. Second hand smoke has been verified to cause damage to people's lungs. Do you really want me to go find a source?
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Second hand smoke has been verified to cause damage to people's lungs. Do you really want me to go find a source?Yes, because I believe you do not know enough about the evidence linking second-hand smoke to lung cancer.I have read up on it, and I have found it INEFFICIENT in suggesting that second-hand smoke is dangerous in anyway, let alone outside.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I do not believe you have done sufficient research on the topic. I found a source already confirming what I already knew. Cancer Secondhand SmokeThis is from the American Cancer Society. The site I linked says that second hand smoke does indeed cause cancer. Second hand smoke also causes other diseases such as heart disease in non smokers, worsens asthma and causes other asthma related problems to people with asthma. And this as well:Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and healthSince 1964, 30 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports continues to support the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Yes, nothing about how dangerous it really is. Such as if it causes a health problem if outside for only a few hours in short bursts.The most it said was exposure within a building for several hours. So if you're a bartender in a bar that allows smoking, you are at risk. Kid at a park, virtually no risk.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

You don't seem to understand that second hand smoke causes cumulative damage. So a few minutes here and a few minutes there will add up over the course of decades of rampant second hand smoke.The Surgeon General report says that second hand smoke problems can be prevented. How can they be prevented though? By minimizing or outright eliminating exposure to second hand smoke.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Show me the specific evidence saying that "a little bit here and a little bit there" will cause major damage to your health.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

Secondhand smoke also causes lung cancer, heart and lung disease in non-smokers. There is no safe level of exposure, but long-term exposure increases risk of lung cancer by 10% to 15% and heart disease by 30%. This translates into 5,000 to 10,000 lung cancer deaths and 40,000 heart disease deaths each year in the United States. Worldwide, it is estimated that exposure to secondhand smoke caused 50,000 lung cancer deaths and 379,000 heart disease deaths in 2004."There is no safe level of exposure". Meaning any and all exposure is to be avoided. Due to the carelessness of the well being of others by smokers, they not only kill themselves but they also kill thousand of other people as well. The response was written by Dr. Otis Brawley. He is CNN's Health Conditions Expert.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

yet after your quote the "expert" goes to quote science ONLY pertaining to long term exposure.I'm getting kind of bored of this. What evidence says that any second hand smoke is actually harmful.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

I just showed you. The doctor said that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. Avoid it at all times if you can.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

The doctor said that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. Avoid it at all times if you can.That is not evidence. That is a testimony from a doctor. Where is the EVIDENCE to back his claim?
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

If anything, this is an argument from authority. In this case, it's perfectly valid. Given the fact that both doctor's I've cited are subject matter experts in their fields. CHARLES KRAUSE: Does your study--did you have any way of determining how long one would have to--how much second-hand smoke one would have to be exposed to, to have it be harmful to you?DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: That's actually the one question that I think needs to be looked at in more refined studies. We weren't able to precisely estimate just how much of a dose and how long one would have to be exposed to in order to get into increased--situations of increased risk, such as we observed. I think it's safe to say that knowing what is in tobacco smoke, any exposure is likely to constitute some measurable degree of risk. In other words, there are no known stage thresholds of exposure for most of the chemicals that we know are harmful in tobacco smoke.Source of the material is PBS News. He basically says that any exposure constitutes some measurable degree of risk. Meaning, that it does increase your chances of getting cancer, heart disease, among other thing. By how much, he says we need to do more research. Your argument though is "It won't hurt you that much, don't worry about it". I don't think this is safe at all unless we can be certain that the health effects are so miniscule that they aren't worth considering. And for your sake, I hope you are right. When I'm around second hand smoke, I fear for my lungs, it's an added stressor to the fact that I have difficulty breathing around the smoke anyways. If I could be reassured that the second hand smoke would have an effect so small that it's not even worth considering, that would be comforting to me.
Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

I don't think this is safe at all unless we can be certain that the health effects are so miniscule that they aren't worth considering.Except that there IS NO EVIDENCE that it is actually dangerous in small doses. Opinions are nice, but not enough to validate you wanting to pass legislation that conflicts with people's civil liberties.