azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Are you not seeing what destruction it can cause? You seem to void it each time you post a reply to my responses.I said countless times, that the problems caused by internet bullying is the people who feel sad about the comments and shoot themselves, or when the problem is brought into the real world making it real world bullying not cyber. I reply to the topics addressed.What you fail to mention in every reply is the lot of people that internet bullying has killed. It has killed a lot compared to what? Driving accidents, I don't think so. Gun violence? Nope. How about drugs and or alcohol, still no. Maybe we should put it against it's rival, real world bullying. How has it fared against that, i think the prize goes to real world bullying. Bullying is still bullyingYes, but internet bullying can not harm anyone. Physical disputes can, anything online, and after this I will stop saying it because you seem to neglect it, Can be avoided by leaving.It not because they weren't ready to use the internet, that's silly, it because of how their lives have declined and continue to decline because of cyberbullying. Obviously they are not ready to be on a server with other people, the internet, if they can't cope with people bad mouthing them.All the example you gave of yourself only fitted your personality type and your experiences.My examples, included turning off the monitor, leaving the site, reporting that person, other things I'm pretty sure anyone who owns an internet device, (which you must to be bullied on it) can do. Also one doesn't even need an account for cyberbullying to take effect.True, but without the device, it won't. It's like not having sex is the sure fire prevention method for pregnancy, and other std. You keep saying cyberbullying ends on lineTo quote you, you last reply actually said that. "Humiliation from peers in school from cyberbullying won't be face to face"Saying that it doesn't come face to face means that it's stopping. In the real world, it only continues online.when that's were it starts and it finishes outside of the internetThis is a contradiction to your statement quoted above but none the less, if it's progressed to being outside it's now real world bullying.The next level for the "real world" you continue to mention is practically hacking, tapping, or even spamming someone.All real, none deadly. Do students not below to this real world?When did I ever say that didn't? Show me that quote please.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

I notice you won't step into the mentality of a person who has been affected by cyberbullying. You say since its face to face that its ends. It doesn't. Its the persons life that is being degraded. Even if the student has no phone cyberbullying can still take effect. You must realize that these actions are quite destructive. Leaving the site, abandoning technology, will not stop you from being cyberbullied. You are only viewing this from one point. Also I never contradicted myself but this does she me that you are limited in the understanding of cyberbullying. You also say that the real world things like hacking, tapping, or even spamming aren't deadly. Have you seen a good hacker deteriorate someone's life? Hacking can destroy lots of things people cherish in the technological world. Also you keep saying when "in the real world". You are practically misplacing the students. Also what I find very disturbing is the fact that since cyberbullying does not kill as many as cars or guns do makes it non-acknowledgable. So in a sense you are sayin that they also don't matter. Since their statistics are high we disregard them? Wouldn't that practically be unfair?
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

I notice you won't step into the mentality of a person who has been affected by cyberbullying.I don't really think I need to. I have been bullied in person. By people's words, that I brushed off, although I respect that some can''t, and by physical threats and being shoved that I retaliated to, that I also respect some can't. You say since its face to face that its ends.Well where could it progress to after that? It doesn't. Its the persons life that is being degraded. Even if the student has no phone cyberbullying can still take effect.How?Leaving the site, abandoning technology, will not stop you from being cyberbullied.How?You are only viewing this from one point. Also I never contradicted myselfI showed you the quotes.You also say that the real world things like hacking, tapping, or even spamming aren't deadly. Have you seen a good hacker deteriorate someone's life?No, show me how they kill?Hacking can destroy lots of things people cherish in the technological world.I know the dangers of hacking. Losing your life's savings. Affecting your grade. Even changing all of your personal info. Although some people cope, other's can't. As for the point in question, how is that 8% "a lot of people"?Also you keep saying when "in the real world".By real world, I mean the place where you aren't reading typed letters. In the case of the students, the real world is school, the non real world, is face book, and whatever social media site they are using. The disputes take place on these sites, but when the people are through arguing online, they bring it to school (the real world) where it's now real world bullying.Also what I find very disturbing is the fact that since cyberbullying does not kill as many as cars or guns do makes it non-acknowledgableI only said it's not high. it's low compared to gun stats and others.. So in a sense you are sayin that they also don't matter.I only said it's not high, as the question asked.Since their statistics are high we disregard them? Wouldn't that practically be unfair?I never said to disregard them, as the question asked I simply stated they are not high, relatively.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

You see all it takes to begin the process of cyberbullying is a bully. That bully just has to post things about a certain someone and never communicate with them. These words from the bully are going to circulate around the school. When does it end? If the bully stops, if the rumors die down, if the victim changes schools, etc. Also I saw the quotes. You misunderstood them. Also Hacking can degrade the quality of someone's life. A business can be ruined. Privacy is invaded. Your life begins to decline in quality. Also it depends on your own view of alot of people. The statistics said each year. It said each year at least 13 million kids between the ages of 6-17 are affected. 8% of those kids commit suicide. So lets do some math. It is approximately 1,040,000. That many kids die each year from cyberbullying. If that is not alot then I do not know what is.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

That bully just has to post things about a certain someone and never communicate with them.True, if they wanted to hurt someone that person had to be there to be hurt by it. If one never came to the site, the talk of the site would be of no concern to them.If the person never came to the site but the bully still wanted to hurt them, they would do it in person. By in person I of course don't mean to the person I mean, in a place where the person could hear about it.These words from the bully are going to circulate around the school. First they will circulate online, where if you don't pay it any mind, it won't be an issue at all. Then it will be take to the place where the victim can hear about it, and at that point, the point where it's now around the person and not online, it is now a real world bullying situation.When does it end? If the bully stops, if the rumors die down, if the victim changes schools, etc.Okay, yes. But the place that it ends, we are now agreeing is outside of the computer, in a place where the victim can be physically affected by it. This is now now a 'real world' bullying situation.A business can be ruined. Privacy is invaded. Your life begins to decline in quality.All very possible yes, all do not directly cause death. Death is finalized by the person, the victim, taking their own life. Even if this does count as Cyber bulling killing a person, the number of people this has happened to, is factually not a lot.e statistics said each year. It said each year at least 13 million kids between the ages of 6-17 are affected.As the question ask, does it kill a lot?8% of those kids commit suicide.Now we begin with the topic. Of the 7.075 billion people that exist, only 13 million are cyber bullied, that is a very small percentage overall. Out of the small percentage that are bullied, the death rate is an even smaller percent. Amounting to mere thousands. That, is why I say it's not a lot.1,040,000Out of 7.075 billion = not a lot.Of this site. The number as of 2012 is this many people world wide existing. 7,075,237,671
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

That's bot alot? Tell me did alot of people die in 9/11? According to your logic no. 1,040,000 people isn't alot? That's like an entire city. How is a million deaths each year not alot? I see your method of minimizing my argument but if you were to ask someone if a 1 million people is alot of people the will mostly say yes. And remember that this is an American poll.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

That's bot alot? Tell me did alot of people die in 9/11? According to your logic no.Agreed. I would say no because compared to the population it's a small number, pretty much insignificant.Even if we dial it back to just the 3, million people who have even been around cyber bullying. Only(mind me for that) only 8% were killed. I mean of the 313,914,040 U.S. citizens, 15.1 % were impoverished in 2010. There is a higher percentage(not number, just percentage) of people who were living in poverty than percentage of people who killed themselves due to cyber bullying.Even out of 100, 8 is not substantial.I couldn't find a pie graph showing bullying and what not, but this one shows the 8% out of 100%.It's pretty small.That's like an entire city.An entire city out of an entire country is not a lot.I see your method of minimizing my argument but if you were to ask someone if a 1 million people is alot of people the will mostly say yes.Most people would, but inquisitive people like me, tend to say compared to what. 1 million dollars is a lot to me, yet I am comparing it subconsciously to how much money I have seen in person. When if I were to sit down and compare it to all the money that wealthy well of people make have, I'd say on second thoughts it's not a lot.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

But if we cut to the chase 1 million is still a big number of people dying from cyberbullying. I mean for something of its caliber I would say that's alot of people. But I see this as more of a perspective thing. In a sense you would be correct and in a sense I would be correct.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

But if we cut to the chase 1 million is still a big number of people dying from cyberbullying.To label anything as an adjective we need a comparison. In this case I'd say "1 million is a big number...compared to what?"My answer is compared to the several billion people alive.Also where did you get 1 million from? You stated of the three million people that were cyber bullied, 8% of them died, now you say one million as if 1 million is 8% of 3 million?. I mean for something of its caliber I would say that's alot of people.This is where we boil away to my opinion vs your opinion. So long as the facts, the numbers, and the hard evidence is on the table neither side can gain lee way. All we have to go on is this. "Is 8% of 3 million a large amount?" and as I said, I don't think it is, I would compare it to other large amounts, you believe it is, because either way you look at it, it was a city's amount of lives.But I see this as more of a perspective thing. In a sense you would be correct and in a sense I would be correct.We have come to an end I believe.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Not 3 million. 13 million. 8% of 13 million is 1,040,000. That is alot of people.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Ah, 13 million. That makes it even less still.I'm sorry, I meant even less relatively.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Yeah but this just comes down to opinion and view point and I have to acknowledge your way of seeing it or else I can't even begin disputing it. Technically both of us aren't wrong.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Yes, I agree there.Sadly it's all relative.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

That was probably my longest debate with someone ever. Thank you. I actually enjoyed and learned alot from this.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

Same
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

You are so wrong. All forms of bullying are harmful, and that does not make the victim less than human. Go ahead and down vote this too since you down voted my other post.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

You are so wrong.Prove it. With facts, not opinions please. All forms of bullying are harmful,I see any form of bullying, that can be easily escaped as not harmful. And eve if it's real or not, that doesn't mean it killed people.Go ahead and down vote this too since you down voted my other post.I don't waste my time with you, let alone stalking you to down vote your arguments, when it solves nothing.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

I know what it is like to be bullied. My father abused me in every way possible, and it is a miracle that I am still alive. I was also cyber bullied by many conservative Christians. Do not tell me that bullying is not harmful. You do not know what I have been through.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

I know what it is like to be bullied. My father abused me in every way possible, and it is a miracle that I am still alive.Yes, and that's a real world situation that I don't even see a parallel with rude words online. I was also cyber bullied by many conservative Christians.Yet you're still alive. Evidence that cyber bullying does not kill.Do not tell me that bullying is not harmful.Show me my quote where I said bullying isn't harmful. I said cyber bullying is not harmful. It's too avoidable to be. You do not know what I have been through.Everything is personal to you. Where in any of my statements did I attack you, claim to know what you're going through, or have been through?
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

Cyber bullying almost killed me. .
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

How?How did the words, as 'evil' as you believe them to be, over the internet, almost kill you in real life. how were you almost physically affected by letters and words?
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

You have no right to dispute what has happened in MY life because you do not know me, and you are not God. I am not going to waste my time with a troll like you. You are probably a bully yourself. That is why you are defending bullies.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

You have no right to dispute what has happened in MY life because you do not know me, and you are not God.I am a person with the right to freedom ogf speech. I can do wahtever that entitles, even if it is call you on your bull, but I digress.Show me solid, quoted proof, of me disputing the facts of your life. Don't respond to me unless you're ready to really debate about the issue. This is about Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people. You're talking about how I'm insulting you, yet you won't show me how I insulted you. I am not going to waste my time with a troll like you.Yet you replied to me. I leave you alone since I know you don't like to debate you prefer to mindlessly argue, you can do the same.You are probably a bully yourself. That is why you are defending bullies.Again, another illogical, unwarranted insult, that has nothing to do with a point in this debate.Even if I were a bully that doesn't state how bullying online(if it even exists) has killed anyone let alone a lot of people.
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: Yes I agree.

No one has the right to unfairly judge another human being. You do not know me, therefore you do not have the right to judge me. Oh, and you are banned from all of MY debates now. Two can play this game sweetheart. Muah! ;)
Debate: Cyberbullying online has actually killed a lot of people
Side: No I don't agree

No one has the right to unfairly judge another human being.before we get of topic here, which is definitely where I can see this headed, i'll say this does not relate to the topic.You do not know me, therefore you do not have the right to judge me.Not on topic. Oh, and you are banned from all of MY debates now.Not on topic.. Two can play this game sweetheart. Muah! ;)Not on topic.Good day.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

It's a free-for-all. Anything goes! You should only piss people off over the internet where they can't shoot you ;)
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

It's a free-for-all. Anything goes! You should only piss people off over the internet where they can't shoot you Nice. So you freely admit it is the gun and not the person that kills people?
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

Not at all. I'm saying the guy wasn't paying attention that he was within firing range ;)
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Not at all.For someone who spends 80 percent of his days being sarcastic, you sure don't seem to spot sarcasm very well.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

I can spot sarcasm a mile away. I just like to disagree with whatever you say. Unless you try to trick me ;)
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

I can spot sarcasm a mile away.You know that's a remarkable coincidence. I kind of have the same deal when it comes to fools.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

Oh yeah? Cool ;)
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

or at least don't piss off agents of the state authorized to defend federal grounds and personnel with lethal force. lmao that anyone expected that little incursion not to end in fatality.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Either that or make sure you are well out of range ;)
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Often when the police shoots someone, the law takes their side. So yeah, it is lawful in the United States for the police to gun down unarmed people.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Certainly not in all cases. A legal standard must be met to use lethal force.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Certainly not in all cases. A legal standard must be met to use lethal force.But you aren't that legal standard. You're some sneering fascist douchebag who still thinks the Iraq War was legal. You're some delusional cretin who doesn't see a problem with assembling a makeshift jury on a backend internet site and asking them to make a ruling without hearing the facts of the case. That's who you are.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

I told you before not to interrupt my thread with others. That's why you're banned now. You have consistently confused "legal" with "right". The Iraq war was legal. The opinion not some guy at the UN does not apply to US law. I'll also tell you that abortion is legal. I don't think anyone here is under the impression that I think abortion nis right.Of course it is perfectly fine for people on the internet to discuss the legal aspects of current events. Actual Fascists may think otherwise.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

I told you before not to interrupt my thread with others. That's why you're banned now.I'm not banned you halfwit. You forgot to do it.You have consistently confused "legal" with "right". The Iraq war was legal.No, you have consistently invented your own facts. I have consistently referenced the actual facts:-Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charterhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq Chilcot report: John Prescott says Iraq War was illegalhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-john-prescott-says-tony-blair-led-uk-into-illegal-war-in-iraq-a7129106.html The war in Iraq was not a blunder or a mistake. It was a crimehttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/07/blair-chilcot-war-in-iraq-not-blunder-crime The experts agree with me because they are the ones I have taken my opinion from in the first place. I don't simply invent my own facts and then attempt to warp reality around them like you do.I'll also tell you that abortion is legal.Ahahaha! Stop you raging imbecile. What does abortion have to do with the War in Iraq? Deflect much, do we? Lol. 😆
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: No

You forgot to do it.Thanks. Most relevant nothing you've ever said.The UN does not determine US legality. The UN is a disfunctional diplomatic apparatus. It pretends to have enforcement ability only when the US decides to act as it's teeth. Your favorite experts can all call it criminal. But the UN can arrest a US citizen if, and only if, the US allows them to. The UN doesn't dictate a damn thing. Least of all US law.
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

No of course. I am not a law expert, butFrom my understanding law enforcement can use deadly force when they believe that the person is lethal threat others. You can be an lethal threat to others when police believe you are be armed. Even if you weren’t armed, the officer can judge the possibility as a threat. I find that completely absurd being that the only real lethal threat is the officer holding a gun at your face.But I assume we aren’t here to judge the morality of the shoot or the law in the debate. If we were I would be on the other side. Where is the debate here?
Debate: DC Capital Police shot and killed one of the rioters. Was it a lawful shoot?
Side: Yes

Yes! That’s like saying “ a man WILLINGLY walked into a lion den and started chaos, the lion attacked the man, the mad died. Was it the lions fault?” It wasn’t the lions just just like it wasn’t writing for the cop to shoot the man, he was trying to protect all the residents in the capitol. The rioters were looking for violence and chaos. So yes it’s fine that the guy got shot.All I know is the same people saying it was unlawful better have had the same energy in defending George Floyd’s death because he didn’t do ANYTHING.