azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Somehow banning guns is the thing that will finally do it.All this shows me is that you feel gun lovers won't be able to handle the freedom of having their guns out in places not designated as gun free. As I said before, no one is trying to take your guns. They just want you to leave your guns out of their gun free zones. It's the same with a home, if you don't want drugs in your home, you don't ban all drugs, you just don't let them in your home. You can take extreme measures to accomplish this, patting people down, xrays, or you can just leave it up to the goodness of people to not bring drugs into your home, or guns into your gun free areas. All the Sandy Hook shooting said to me was, maybe more extreme measure need to be taken to keep gun free zones, gun free.You want to have citizens not carry guns, and you consider the only ones you think should have guns as scary?They, with guns, are probably more feared them anyone without a gun. As I said before, i'm not afraid of gun use, I can't personally identify with people who feel guns should not be carried, that's why I'm not for banning guns. I'm for letting people who don't want guns around them, have an area where they can exist without guns. I don't see how that's asking for too much.That seems silly to me. This just shows your peace of mind argument is crap.It's not that it's crap, it's that it's based on opinionl and pretty bias, but rules around people that are victimless are usually bias, and they have to start somewhere.So I repeat, you can have your guns, can the people who don't want guns have a place to not be around them?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

So I repeat, you can have your guns, can the people who don't want guns have a place to not be around them?Apparently not. We give those to you and you get killed in them. Then you blame us.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Apparently not.Then this debate is virtually over. You just want all the rights, and all the freeroam to have your guns wherever.We give those to you and you get killed in them.Gun lovers, by all means keep your guns illegally, let the people who don't want guns to die in their folly.Then you blame us.The people who don't want guns blame the gun lovers, because, as I just said, the gun lovers keep their illegally.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The gun lovers are not doing anything illegal. The gun lovers leave their guns at home when in gun free zones. The criminals do not. I do not think the people should have guns in gun free zones. I am saying gun free zones don't work. You have also argued that they don't work. Apparently, I am right.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Duplicate
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

The gun lovers are not doing anything illegal.If they hold onto their guns when guns are illegal they are.he gun lovers leave their guns at home when in gun free zones.That's perfectly fine. The lunatics, didn't though, and that's when the cops stop them.Gun zones are not an exact science, obviously, but they are a solution to regular gun lovers getting upset, and firing off a round in their enemy's face!
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Gun zones are not an exact science, obviously, but they are a solution to regular gun lovers getting upset, and firing off a round in their enemy's face!That stuff doesn't happen you psycho.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Oh really?!So people that are angry never fight?I think if more people could openly carry guns, that they would use them if a heated discussion ever took place.AND In schools, where everyone's frontal lobe is under developed, it's more likely to happen faster and more often because no one will be thinking about the later consequences, just the current anger.In fact, if no one would ever use a gun when they were angry just because it's there, gun violence would not exist. People getting stabbed in the heat of the moment would not exist, throwing chairs, and knocking over tables would not exist.Get real, it would too happen.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

it would too happenI said it doesn't happen. How do you explain the lack of gun violence in these confrontations in America. In schoolsUh, no one is talking about giving the guns to the students. But, I agree we don't need kids to be armed.I think if more people could openly carry guns, that they would use them if a heated discussion ever took place.I think arguments would not get heated then ;)
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

How do you explain the lack of gun violence in these confrontations in America.The lack of guns, in these confrontations. Yet if these people had guns, like gangs often do, the fights would not be regular fights they'd be gun battles.Uh, no one is talking about giving the guns to the students. But, I agree we don't need kids to be armed.Well what do you know. A school....wait for it... is a gun free zone! If kids could have guns though, when a fight breaks out you'd have to be insane to think they wouldn't use them.I think arguments would not get heated then(s)Obviously this must be true, because gun violence never happens.(/s)
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The lack of gunsThis issue is not about giving guns to people who shouldn't have them. And, you think there is a lack of guns in America, see you are crazy.A school....wait for it...is where all those kids got shot.I am going to pull a Quocalimar and make an outrageous claim that has no basis in reason and you will have to admit that guns help: If we start getting people to turn in their guns, some people will obviously resist. There will be a group of people who keep their guns secretly. The people who don't want guns around will get suspicious. That's when the random murders happen. "Oh, I think I see Bob with a gun, I have to run him over with my car for the safety of the public." An anti gun "task force" of angry citizens will form. Anyone with a gun, or probably has one (wearing a suspicious trench coat) will be beaten until they give up their guns. But, gun violence will be gone, so everyone wins.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

The lack of gunsYou misquoted me.How do you explain the lack of gun violence in these confrontations in America.Was your question. My answer was that these areas with no gun violence have no guns in them. You said I must be crazy, I think a person who thinks that when two people get into a fight that they won't use whatever they have to win, is crazy.A school....wait for it...And again you misquoted.I said a school is a gun free zone. If schools openly allowed guns, then when any fight breaks out, a gun will be used.The rest is all an attempt to belittle me, great logic by the way, and I don't even see a reason to respond to that.Also for future reference, if you want to sound intelligent, don't misquote people, it's not helpful to your cause.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

misquoted meI didn't mean to, after all it was a copy paste. I meant that in America it is possible for basically anyone to have a gun on them. People don't shoot people because they know it is wrong to shoot people, and eliminating gun free zones will not change that.hey won't use whatever they have to winLET ME SHOUT SO YOU CAN FINALLY HEAR ME. WHY DON'T WE SEE THIS ANYWHERE?And again you misquoted.HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT THE SHOOTINGS HAPPENED IN A GUN FREE ZONE?gun will be usedYou have absolutely no reason to believe this. It doesn't happen anywhere, why would it suddenly start happening. Eliminating gun free zones means arming TEACHERS, not the students. I don't think the teachers will be getting into fights.The rest is all an attempt to belittle me, great logic by the way, and I don't even see a reason to respond to that.Only part of it was meant to belittle you. You have no reason to believe that what I said won't happen, if we assume that what you think will happen is possible.If YOU want to sound intelligent you need to stop using insane impossible situations that would clearly be happening if you were right that they were possible.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

I meant that in America it is possible for basically anyone to have a gun on them.Possible doesn't mean that everyone does, it means that everyone can. Make no mistake, if everyone did have a gun on them, gun violence would increase as any minor dispute, moved to a hot enough temperature could involve the use of their firearm. It's the reason when you fight in a public place, people get slammed onto floors, knocked over chairs, pushed into objects. People, in the heat of the moment, will often do whatever it takes to win the fight.LET ME SHOUT SO YOU CAN FINALLY HEAR ME. WHY DON'T WE SEE THIS ANYWHERE?Obviously you're not reading me.In a fight, whatever can be done to win, will be done.HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT THE SHOOTINGS HAPPENED IN A GUN FREE ZONE?That quote that you answered to, wrong. The shooting happened because one person didn't follow the rule, no one said gun free zones would eliminate gun violence.Eliminating gun free zones means arming TEACHERS, not the students.Yes, but if it's a place where anyone can bring a gun, then anyone that can get a license for it, will bring a gun their. The kids are more likely to use them. You think a kid will sit back and be bullied if he can pull a trigger and end it? I think not. You have no reason to believe that what I said won't happenSame for you.you need to stop using insane impossible situationsSo gang violence involving guns are insane impossible situations?that would clearly be happening if you were right that they were possible.Gang violence does happen. It's very possible. Anyone that has a gun will more than likely use it if a dispute does break out.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Possible doesn't mean that everyone does, it means that everyone can. Make no mistake, if everyone did have a gun on them, gun violence would increase as any minor dispute, moved to a hot enough temperature could involve the use of their firearm. It's the reason when you fight in a public place, people get slammed onto floors, knocked over chairs, pushed into objects. People, in the heat of the moment, will often do whatever it takes to win the fight.Since when did abolishing gun free zones lead to everyone having a gun.In a fight, whatever can be done to win, will be done.Obviously this is not true because we don't see it anywhere.That quote that you answered to, wrong. The shooting happened because one person didn't follow the rule, no one said gun free zones would eliminate gun violence.That is my point, gun free zones don't prevent gun violence, therefore there is no reason to have them.then anyone that can get a license for itWe have restrictions on the age someone can own a gun. Those restrictions will not be lifted, you argument is invalid.Same for you.Cool, since it is evident that eliminating gun free zones has no negative side effects, you must admit that taking away guns will cause massive amounts of violence. Seeing as you believe my scenario is fully reasonable.So gang violence involving guns are insane impossible situations?You are saying that if we eliminate gun free zones, every man, woman, and child will have a gun on them. I am not exactly sure how you can use gang violence to support your claim.Anyone that has a gun will more than likely use it if a dispute does break out.Gang violence usually occurs because gang members are always looking for a fight, it is not some regular dispute that just gets out of hand. Eliminating gun free zones will not cause more gang violence. Police reduce gang violence.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Since when did abolishing gun free zones lead to everyone having a gun.No one's saying they will, but if everyone does, then all disputes will be handled with them.Obviously this is not true because we don't see it anywhere.(1),(2),(3) I could go on all day, just google fights, or go to youtube.That is my point, gun free zones don't prevent gun violence, therefore there is no reason to have them.They limit it, if their was no law on drugs anyone that wanted to use, would use.We have restrictions on the age someone can own a gun. Those restrictions will not be lifted, you argument is invalid.18? Any 18 year old in high shcool, can buy a gun. WHen they get into a fight, they can use that gun.You are saying that if we eliminate gun free zones, every man, woman, and child will have a gun on them.No I'm saying if we eliminate gun free zones, the people who carry their guns naturally will no have no reason not to carry them into these places.I am not exactly sure how you can use gang violence to support your claim.Gang violence is supporting the claim that if people have guns, they will use them when altercation arrive.Gang violence usually occurs because gang members are always looking for a fight, it is not some regular dispute that just gets out of hand.So you think gangs stand for fighting? No, they are trying to make money. You think gangs like Bloods, and Crips? I think gangs like The Mafia. When they are having a deal with someone, they are not looking for a fight, but if one breaks out, think guns won't be used. Eliminating gun free zones will not cause more gang violence.True, gang violence will happen regardless, but eliminating gun free zones will allow more people to openly carry guns in more places, where if a physical argument happens, a gun will be used.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

No one's saying they willThat is the scenario you are arguing.google fightsI don't have time to look at those right now, can you just tell me when the guns get pulled out so I can fast forward to that exact time? That would help.They limit itIt is basically illegal to use a gun pretty much anywhere. How does a less enforceable law prevent more violence?Any 18 year old in high shcool, can buy a gun21 for handguns, sorry. carry them into these placesThat is not the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since when did the presence of a gun cause someone to die. It is the USE of the gun. The gun being used is just as illegal, and it would be as illegal as carrying a gun in a gun free zone, until you start detecting for guns.Gang violenceThis is an example of a group of people who want to commit violence so they go get guns, not the other way around. It does not apply to you.gangs stand for fightingI am really glad the Mafia will not bring guns into a gun free zone because they respect the law so much.if a physical argument happens, a gun will be usedYou have no reason to believe this is true. Plus, it is safer having people carrying guns currently. Note, those 2 statements are different.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

That is the scenario you are arguing.I am saying that if the guns are in people's pockets they will use them! How do you not see that?!I don't have time to look at those right now, can you just tell me when the guns get pulled out so I can fast forward to that exact time? That would help.Why on Earth would I put shootings on youtube? These are fights where people do whatever they can to win that is the nature of all fights!It is basically illegal to use a gun pretty much anywhere. How does a less enforceable law prevent more violence?You are trying to get them to be legal everywhere, I'm trying to keep what we already have.21 for handguns, sorry.Yes, but 18 years old for a shotgun or rifle. That will be used if the situation calls for it!Since when did the presence of a gun cause someone to die.If any dispute happens they will use them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I am really glad the Mafia will not bring guns into a gun free zone because they respect the law so much.You completely ignored my point yet again. The gangs like The Mafia are not abiding by the law, that was not the point, the point is that, The Mafia is just trying to do business, but when something goes wrong they have guns, and they use them. Any regular Joe could be just doing business then when something goes wrong, he will use his gun.You have no reason to believe this is true.People get stabbed when a knife is nearby during an argument, that is my reason to believe this.How about when you quote, you quote the entire sentence?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

A law for gun free zones is just as effective as the law to not shoot someone, therefore, there is no need for gun free zones as they are currently implemented.I don't believe your responses deserve to be recognized any more until they start to be based in reality.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

If it was legal to shoot someone, you better believe that it would happen more often.I don't believe your responses deserve to be recognized any more until they start to be based in reality.Yea that's good, because the way you misquote them, we're not getting anywhere.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

If it was legal to shoot someone, you better believe that it would happen more often.No shit Sherlock, you want a fucking cookie? Were you born this dumb, or does it take practice? This is why guns will never get banned in America, the other side is so fucking dumb, hahahahahahahahahamisquote themWhat's worse, misquoting someone or making incredibly stupid arguments like you do? I did not misquote you or misrepresent what you said. The stuff you said really is as fucking stupid as you thought when you reread it.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Okay we have a point of argument finally. All bold and italics so you'll actually read it.If it's illegal to shoot people, and shooting people still happens, then why make it illegal? Because it lowers the number of people getting shot. This is the same case with gun free zones.What's worse, misquoting someone or making incredibly stupid arguments like you do?I have yet to make a stupid argument they were all scenarios ground perfectly in fact and proof. You have yet to quote me properly, so i'd have to say it's you.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

You have yet to quote me properlyFuck you, this has to be a false statement.If we make a law that bans lollypops will that lower gun deaths, no. A law that bans guns in an area will mean that there will be less guns in that area. Period, end of story. Any other implications from that require FACTS. You know, those things you have yet to provide. Newtown is proof that gun free zones DON'T reduce gun death, therefore you argument is wrong, you lose. The ONLY reason why people aren't gunned down in gun free or not zones is because shooting people is wrong/illegal.all scenarios ground perfectly in fact and proofSorry Charlie, all of you scenarios were based on your opinion, not what actually happens in real life. You either made an outrageous statement or went too far and made other things legal that are not on the table.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Fuck you, this has to be a false statement.Really? What are we children?If we make a law that bans lollypops will that lower gun deaths, no.Mind me for saying it, but you're an idiot. If their is a law against suckers, their will be less suckers. If there is a law against guns there will be less guns. That is a fact, it's undeniable. Obviously some people will still keep suckers, and some people will keep guns, but their will be less. You even said that if it was legal to shoot people that shootings would increase, why does it not register with you that if it's illegal to shoot people that shooting will decrease?Newtown is proof that gun free zones DON'T reduce gun death,There had never been a gun death there before this big incident, if it the gun free zones did not exist, people would carry them all the time whenever, and if any dispute had happened, the incident would have happened sooner.Sorry Charlie, all of you scenarios were based on your opinion, not what actually happens in real life.So in real life, people don't do whatever they can to win a fight? That is balderdash.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Really? What are we children?You are an asshole. It is usually hard for assholes to accept that. So, let it sink in and try not to deny it. You make false statements and accuse people of saying false things when they aren't. Then you act superior if it gets brought up to you. Mind me for saying it, but you're an idiot. If their is a law against suckers, their will be less suckers. If there is a law against guns there will be less guns. That is a fact, it's undeniable. Obviously some people will still keep suckers, and some people will keep guns, but their will be less. You even said that if it was legal to shoot people that shootings would increase, why does it not register with you that if it's illegal to shoot people that shooting will decrease?I win , I win , I win. You lose. That was my point you dumb mother fucker. How does someone with your intelligence breath much less make "arguments"? Banning guns in gun free zones will reduce the number of guns in that area, not reduce the number of gun deaths, just like you have said. IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT PEOPLE YOU DUMB PRICK. Banning lollypops and banning guns in special zones has the same effect on whether someone will use a gun. But, we know that if someone else is around with a gun they can stop the shooter.Newtown is proof that gun free zones DON'T reduce gun death,There had never been a gun death there before this big incident, if it the gun free zones did not exist, people would carry them all the time whenever, and if any dispute had happened, the incident would have happened sooner.Sorry Charlie, all of you scenarios were based on your opinion, not what actually happens in real life.So in real life, people don't do whatever they can to win a fight? That is balderdash.Balderdash is precisely why I disagree with you. There are less actual deaths, yet you can just say "whatever, I believe in something else for no reason, and I will not justify with any proof" Obviously you didn't say that word for word. It is more of your attitude. I don't want to be accused of misquoting you again.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

You are an asshole. It is usually hard for assholes to accept that.And you are a child. It is hard for children to accept that people have different opinions than them, and they act out and resort to name calling. I should have known by avatar you chose to represent you.Then you act superior if it gets brought up to you.You want to quote me correctly on when I was acting superior?I'm sure I can quote you correctly on when you began acting like a spoiled child.I win , I win , I win. You lose. That was my point you dumb mother fucker. My suspicions are confirmed.All of the rest of that paragraph is slander, i won't quote that. Bear with me, let's go from here.If lollipops are illegal, not all the lollipops will be gone, but most of them will be. If guns zones exist. Less guns will be in those places.I don't want to be accused of misquoting you again.That's the most correct statement you've made since you joined this site. You are misquoting me, by paraphrasing, when you actually don't have an understanding of what i'm saying. Here....is...what...I'm...saying!If their is a rule against guns in an area, there will be less guns in that area.If there is no rule about guns in an area, there ill be more guns in that area.