azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

That was when we were arguing just the 1st amendment, now we are arguing the amendment under the hypothetical situation that it allows harassment. It doesn't apply.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

This is a debate about the 2nd amendment and you are completely off topic, clearly I have beaten you so bad you can't think straight. We can create laws to not allow harassment without breaking the freedoms set forth in the 1st amendment, there is no need to update it, just like there is no need to change the 2nd amendment. Maybe we should make it illegal to commit a crime with a gun.Thank you for not continuing your crazy stance on freedom to murder, it made you sound like a lunatic.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Oh I'm the only one who's off topic? XD. I don't want to change the 1st amendment at all because as far as I can tell it doesn't allow the harrassment I am talking about, this was all hypothetical. If we can create laws against harassment without affecting the 1st amendment, ewe can create laws regulating guns without affecting the 2nd amendment. Making it illegal to commit a crime with a gun isn't going to solve anything, it already is. The point I was trying to make to you is that the amendments are there to be adapted when need be, I honestly agree the 2nd amendment should be revised for today's guns. The 1st amendment isn't causing any problems. You are so delusional, you already are shown to have tried to twist my words against and yet you still think you win, I'm sorry if I'm winning I wouldn't need to play dirty tricks at all. Fine ill say you win, ill grant you that satisfaction your delusional mind wants and let the actions speak for themselves.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Can you give an example for how you have demonstrated that you are more qualified than the founding fathers to make these decisions? Can you give an example for anyone alive today who has spent the time and effort to really think about what it means to change one of the fundamental principles that the country was founded upon? Should we really be making gut decisions about what rights millions of people are allowed to have?By the way, I played no such dirty tricks, it only seems like that because you lost.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

We can't ask the founding fathers whether or not it is outdated can we? I'm not necessarily more qualified, if they were still around today they could agree or disagree with me as times now are than different back then. The founding fathers made the amendments to be adapted when need be, that's why they are called "amendments" to amend something means to change, therefore the amendments are supposed to be changing through out history, the reason the amendments by the founding fathers have gone so long untouched is because there brilliance in creating them, but sooner or later times are going to change so much that some amendments won't even apply anymore. Like the day weapons more advanced then guns comes along and replaces them will make the 2nd amendment completely superfluous. Sooner or later thos. If amendments won't apply effectively. If the founding fathers really thought that the people of the u.s. years after there death weren't qualified to update their amendments, why make them amendments? Why not put it under a section that says "founding father's untouchable rules".
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

The answer was no. Don't write blah blah blah, I won't even come close to addressing your question blah blah blah. What we do in this life echoes an eternity. We should really consider the consequences of our actions. You demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge required to change a fundamental right set forth by the people who founded this country who actually had a vision of what makes a good country to live in. I know you wouldn't be the one responsible for the changes, but no one has demonstrated that they possess the qualifications that might be needed to make those changes.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

the answer was no.That was my answer but my explanation was to your implied argument that came with your question. Unless you weren't implying anything which as someone as dishonest as you would be leaving you without an actual point being made yet. Go ahead make your actual point unless I am right about yur implied argument then I am waiting for you to actually refute my refutation to your implied argument.don't write blah blah blah, I won't even come close to addressing your question blah blah blah.Gosh you're such a genius debater completely disregarding my argument and with absolutely no effort of refuting, I kind of doubt you even read it. Learn how to debate noob... I wasn't as bad as you when I started but you're going to get your ass beaten when trying to debate with others on here. what we do in life echoes an eternity. We should really consider the consequences of our actions.These are such good points against me man, accussing me of being irresponsible without logic as to why applaudes congratulations, I guess you got me checkmated good sir. you demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge required to change a fundamental right.What right do I want to take away? I wasn't aware that I wanted to take someone's rights away... Man the things you learn about yourself that apparently only other people know. I smell a strawman cominI know you wouldn't be responsible for the changes, but no one has demonstrated that they possess the qualifications that might be needed to make those changes.How do you figure that?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

Ooh, let's bold the other guys responses.These are such good points against me man, accussing me of being irresponsible without logic as to why applaudes congratulations, I guess you got me checkmated good sir. You were responding to statements that were not directed at you in any way, they are rules we should live by. I am trying to stress the importance of thinking about these things not attacking you. But obviously you refuse to think or read (now I am attacking you).What right do I want to take away? You want to take away part of our 2nd amendment rights. If you wanted to update the 2nd amendment to give us more rights that's news to me. Do you not even know what it is that you are proposing when you say we should change the 2nd amendment? And, I didn't even say you wanted to take away rights, I was accusing you of not being qualified to CHANGE the 2nd amendment. It says it right in the bolded text you quoted, nice reading comprehension. If we do change the 2nd amendment, which would be a terrible idea, I certainly hope the people involved can read unlike yourself.How do you figure that?I have not observed anything to the contrary. You can't even address it which leads me to think I am even more correct.completely disregarding my argument and with absolutely no effort of refutingWell, the pot just called the kettle black I see. The argument that we can't tell what the Founding Fathers would do nowadays, so let's hack up the constitution is ridiculous for 2 reasons. 1) The Founding Fathers left us an entire constitution with all of their beliefs in it and 2) Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean let's rip it apart.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

ooh let's bold the other guys responsesThat's what people do on here when responding to each other, I don't as much cause I only have my phone do all this on which doesn't allow me to copy and past making it very tedious thus only if the argument is short, I'm responding to one or two sentences, then I feel up to it.People having to think about their consequences is a given, when you saythat to me I assume that you think I don't know that.About the whome change/take away thing my bad I guess I read that wrong, I'm willing to admit when I am wrong.You are the one claiming people aren't qualified. What is your defenition of qualified? What do you mean when you say people aren't qualified?The founding fathers did put all of their beliefs in the constitution, and all their knowledge. And I don't disagree with them, at that time I think having guns were much more justified. However their knowledge about guns is less when it comes to present day is less than the common person's knowledge now, because guns technology has advanced quite a bit since then. They also had the beliefs that the beliefs of the constitution should be improved upon when need be, are you against that belief of theirs?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

You accused me of not responding to your arguments and then you totally ignored my arguments. I need to know why it is so important that the types of guns have changed. We have rules in place to protect us, why should we throw that all away? There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers believed that the rights that they gave us should be taken away. There is a system to add amendments which are supposed to give us more rights not less. How many amendments have been modified after being accepted?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."When they wrote this, they had no idea what guns would become making gun regulation complicated. Those against the regulation of guns argue that the right to bear arms says that it shall not be infringed upon, but we have no reason to think the founding fathers wouldn't have tooken inconsideration some of the unnecessarily powerful guns for the public, and we can't bring them back to life. If the founding fathers didn't want it to ever be a possibility that the bill of rights be updated, why make them as amendable as the future amendments that came?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

The Founding Fathers only intended for extra rights to be added to the constitution through the amendment process, and since updating the 2nd amendment would remove rights the Founding Fathers would be against it.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Do you have evidence that there stance on guns would be no different if they were around in modern days?
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I guess about as much as you have that their stance would be different :) We do know that they were very much against losing rights, so it is likely that they would be against changing their stance. Your position is supported by zero evidence, and you cling to some kind of hope that they would believe something that they have said they do not believe in. I wish you luck in convincing the Founding Fathers to change their beliefs, you will need it.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Remember you were the one who first claimed what the founding fathers would think as your argument, I don't necessarily believe one way or the other, but was arguing the other assertion to get you to realize your assertion was just an assertion. I succeeded. What rights do I want to take away? I thought we have been over this...I don't know what they'd think but I do know they had no idea what to expect from guns nowadays.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I think you need to correct a few statements. A) I was not the first person to claim something about Founding Fathers. B) You don't know anything. Maybe you should learn to read before even attempting to assert anything about what the Founding Fathers were thinking. I am glad you have stopped your silly position of taking away rights and replacing it with the freedom to murder, this is a much better position for you to defend.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Correction: I did not say you were the first to claim SOMETHING about the founding fathers, I said you were the first to claim what the founding fathers stance on gun politics nowadays would be.I don't know anything?Good debating skills... I have no idea to argue against that point... LolWhen did I ever want to take away anyone's rights? Can you explain that to me? When did I want to allow murder? Can you explain that to me? I'll be happy to clarify for you, what you can't understand through common sense.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

You haven't clarified a single thing. Why don't you clarify why you are such an idiot. All you have done is gone back on your own beliefs. You have the worst debating skills, you pick a side, change sides, then get mad because people remember you chose the first side. Then your go to move, tell the other guy, who is clearing beating you very badly, that he has bad debating skills. I hope you don't ever get accused of killing anyone because this whole murder freedom that you keep pushing might get you in trouble.By the way, my very first argument that the Founding Fathers would not know about the internet was in response to HoldTheMayo's stupid assertion that the second amendment should be modified. You then came in and pointed out that my statement was stupid, which PROVED my point. You lost this debate in your very first argument, congratulations on losing so bad.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

I said I'd be happy to clarify for you, not that I did...No we argued over 3 different things, of which all my stances on haven't changed. I'm not mad but I find it funny how you like to try to turn everything back on me dishonestly.Again when did I want to allow murder?What you said about the first amendment about the founding fathers was not what I was talking about. Just because holdthemayo thought that the 2nd amendment needed to be modified doesn't mean he thinks the same thing about the 2nd amendment. The point I was trying to make is just because someone thinks that perhaps the 2nd amendment needs to be modified doesn't necessarily mean It's hypocritical to not think the same thing about the 1st amendment.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

It is however hypocritical to brush off the fact that the Founding Fathers wouldn't know how life would have changed with respect to the 1st amendment and then argue that life has changed so the 2nd amendment is affected. I pointed out what was wrong with the idiotic line of thought that you share, and you proved me right, thank you.I asked you several times for clarification earlier and you provided nothing, and said stuff that was stupid like your stance on murder. Instead of trying to add to the discussion you tried to take away from it.You said murder could be considered a freedom, which was by far the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time, and I keep bringing it up to show how stupid you are as a debater.You said you were against changing the 1st amendment, then you said you for changing the first amendment, then you said you were against changing the first amendment. Was that the 3 different arguments you were referring to?So, please put down the crack pipe or the bong or whatever drugs you are on and just admit defeat.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

1st paragraph: yes but both of the stances on modifying either of them of requires a different multitude of arguments. 2nd paragraph: like what? Still accusing me of wanting to illegalize murder... sigh you are hopeless. I was trying to point out ANYTHING can be considered a freedom good grief... If you think it was so stupid then make a freaking point about it already instead of calling me an idiot for it over and over that is how a person with a below average IQ debates rather than annoying the hell out of someone ... If you just take 5 seconds to google it the defenition will say it is the power or right to act... You can be FREE to murder someone merely by having the power to do as such... The 3 different arguments1st amendment1st amendment allowing harrassment onlineIf you push that limit far enough authorities WILL do something, if someone keeps attacking people on facebook you can block them, if someone threatens you online, you can call the police on them. Any other defenition of cyber bullying I don't want to try to illegalize. Most cyber bullying that causes that are preventable. The 1st amendment hasn't gone outdated... The 2nd amendment has a bit. Where have you been seeing recent bursts of group suicides equal to the massacres that blew up the news?Gun regulation.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I am going to try a new technique, I will debate like you, so if I sound like an idiot it is your fault. What do you have to say about this:No one has ever been hurt because someone owned a gun which is what the 2nd amendment specifies. People only get hurt by a gun when it is used, which is not protected under the 2nd amendment. Therefore, there is no reason to update the 2nd amendment.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

I think that the guns we have now and how they could possibly be utilized were not expected in the 1700's-1850's. Nobody really thought of commiting mass crimes or shooting random citizens or any other possible examples when the 2nd amendment was passed. Typically guns back then were naturally going to be used for protection as they still are now, but in the 21st century we are finding an increase of gun abuse and horrible cases in which guns were used in an uncivilized fashion. I think they should be slightly tightened to begin avoidance of any future occurences, besides protection, that envoke violence or terror among the common people.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Cars kill more people than guns. Should we ban them too? ;)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Nah, we should though create bots to run our cars for us and give themselves maintenance checks so it should eliminate accidents, DUI's, deaths via automobile accidents and what not. However, I'm not so sure I would want skyNET/bots taking over the world. And so quite frankly it comes down to a matter that perhaps people should do more training, older people whom can't see shouldn't drive, stuff like that. Changing the people would help this situation a ton.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Sure. Or just have an AI do it. I mean it would be nice to have my car drive itself. But cars have many limits on them.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

we ban dangerous drivers and dangerous cars , everyone needs lessons galore and expensive licenses and expensive car tests and mechanics bills...they get tested regularly and vigorously, especially commercial vehicles.id also add vehicles add more to our quality of life , theyre not purposely built to destroy and kill...they also save lives galore such as ambulances, fire engines, taxis and regular cars can be used to escort people to hospital or women to maternity wards etc
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

And that's why drunk drivers usually have multiple DWIs. They are repeat offenders ;)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

We also ban dangerous gun owners. Rational minded, responsible gun owners are not the ones going out and committing these atrocities.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Family members in gun owning households are more likely than their non-gun-owning neighbors to die in a gun-related accidents, suicides, or homicides.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

What the hell do you need a gun for? Don't give me that crap about hunting... this is a civilized world, go get educated, go get a job, get some money, and go to Costco. Don't give me that crap about self-defence. How many cases of mugging would you encounter in a year? If its more than 2... go get educated, get a job, get some money, move to a better place. How often do we face home-invasions? And how often would we actually have time to snap into response and draw our guns before we are held at gunpoint (if we don't deal with autoarms professionally as a soldier or cop). Get educated, and get rich, and get a bodyguard. Sure, relieving stress seems justified, but then, confine your gun to the gun range! You don't need it unless you work in an environment where you could get killed on a daily basis. Guns give us a false sense of bravado when in truth we could do just as well without it. The era for guns has long passed, just as the era for carrying swords and crossbows passed before it. Get with the program. In shorrt, get an education and get out of debt. then u probs wont need guns. Cheers.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

100% agree.....11500 americans are killed every year and 50000+ more and injured simply to allow everyone to buy as many weapons as they like for a hypothetical scenario that has a less than 1 in ten million chace of hapening and even if it did happen, the likelihood is that a gun wont save you anyways...the facts prove gun owners are 10 times more likely to be shot in their lives than non gun owners....though my major concern is assault wepaons
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

No one needs automatic weapons to go hunting or to protect themselves same as the don't need big gun clips to go hunting or to protect themselves.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

I want an automatic weapon with a big gun clip to pursue my happiness..., which is one of my unalienable rights ;)If it makes me happy to own those things, who are you to tell me I can't have them? You are not the boss of me ;)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

I want to set homes on fire to pursue my happiness..., which is one of my unalienable rights ;)If it makes me happy to set homes on fire, who are you to tell me I can't? You are not the boss of me ;)
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: No

If they're you're homes and you don't burn anyone elses property in the process, burn all the homes you like. When you start burning other peoples stuff we have a problem. Like you should be allowed to own a firearm but using it to shoot someone should be illegal... kinda like how it is now.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

Oh yeah, and I need access to a blow torch for my happiness to be complete.Anyway. Nice strawman. Banning automatic guns isn't banning all guns nor tightening gun laws. You are addressing the Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws? question in answer to my response to Joe, which was not the Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws? subject.It was pointing out a fallacy in his logic.If I said spaghetti was better than eggplant Parmesan would you answer that you should still be allowed to plug in your toaster and quit trampling on your toaster rights?To the gun question, here's that argument.We don't let people have nuclear bombs. Sure, a responsible person could have a nuclear bomb and not hurt people, but why take that chance? We determine it is not worth the risk.It is perfectly acceptable to look at some guns and some gun laws and make rational decisions as to whether some are worth the risk.I argue they are not. Stats show conclusively smart regulation works. I think that is more important than whether someone wants to pretend they are defending against invisible black helicopters with their automatic gun arsenal.I also find it is those most vehement that they absolutely must have all of this firepower who are the least mentally stable and should not be allowed them.
Debate: Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Side: Yes

I want an automatic weapon with a big gun clip to pursue my happiness..., which is one of my unalienable rights ;)If it makes me happy to own those things, who are you to tell me I can't have them? You are not the boss of me ;)This was the argument I was answering. So from there, your reply to me created a strawman and was not addressing the same subject as me or what joe originally said.His premise was the pursuit of happiness and only the pursuit of happiness. My reply used the exact same logic.