azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

My presence in her life will more that counteract the presence of a gun. Which, by the way is mere correlation. You may find a person is 5 times more likely to commit suicide if they use vinegar as a cleaner in their home. Mere correlation. I can be dangerous on occasion. I took up skydiving this year.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

My presence in her life will more that counteract the presence of a gun.Stop talking absolute fucking rubbish. Show me the statistics illustrating that your "presence in her life" reduces her chances of committing suicide by over 300 percent.The moment you begin to lose an argument is the same moment you start fabricating bullshit in an effort to maintain your skewered belief system. It's an awful habit and it makes you extremely unlikeable.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Well, suicides are twice as likely to be fatherless. And since I had her assigned a girl at birth, she is 7 times less likely to commit suicide. So my presence more than offsets the correlation of a presence of a gun with suicide.Plus, chances of suicide are only about. .14% for everyone, let alone women who are far less. Tripling a miniscule number is still a miniscule number.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Well, suicides are twice as likely to be fatherless.Oh, I see. Suicides are immaculate conceptions? That's very interesting, Amarel. Tell us more please, you irrational, gun obsessed lunatic.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Suicides are immaculate conceptions?Wtf ?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

wtf?Everybody has a father you dumb fuck. That's how biology works. Pee pee and vagina.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Yeah, biology. The father determines the gender. And females are very unlikely to commit suicide by any means, including the gun I give her.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

The father determines the gender.I'm not sure you're getting this. Biology determines the gender. At least, if you believe that sex and gender are the same thing. The father can't magic up a penis.And females are very unlikely to commit suicide by any meansThere are almost 10,000 female suicides in the US every year you dumb fuck. Just because more men commit suicide than women doesn't make female suicides statistically insignificant. You're misrepresenting a relative (i.e. to men) statistic as an objective statistic.Either way, your daughter is 300 percent more likely to commit suicide than she would ordinarily be if you give her access to a gun, so you're objectively a shit father.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Perhaps that last part was a bit harsh. It's more that you're a shit human being. The father part is just by extension.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Golly, 10 thousand sure does seem like a high likelihood kind of number... until you consider that's out of 168 million women. Lucky for me and my daughter I understand what unlikely looks like. Men are unlikely to commit suicide too by the way. And if you have a gun in your home, it doesn't induce suicidal ideation. A gun should be a problem for you, because you should definitely have suicidal ideation. It's not for me or my daughter.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Golly, 10 thousand sure does seem like a high likelihood kind of number... until you consider that's out of 168 million women.It's 10 thousand per year, moron. And the likelihood of the event has no statistical connection to how many other women exist. It does however, have a statistical connection to whether you give your daughter access to a firearm.Men are unlikely to commit suicide too by the wayAmarel, please shut your stupid mouth. By the same twisted quasi-logic (i.e. population versus confirmed incidents) tigers are unlikely to eat humans, but only an idiot would throw their daughter into a tiger pit.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

The likelihood of the event absolutely has to do with how many people have an event occur vs how many do not. Suicide is highly unlikely. For people who do not suffer suicidal ideation, the likelihood is zero, even if there's a gun in the home.Your hoplophobia causes you to put a high degree of agency in inanimate objects.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

The likelihood of the event absolutely has to do with how many people have an event occur vs how many do not.Suicides do not "occur", you idiot. They are conscious actions undertaken by people. They are not random events and so the likelihood of one person taking their own life has absolutely nothing to do with the experiences of someone else. Equally, the likelihood of me choosing to eat Italian food instead of Chinese food tonight has nothing to do with the experiences of someone else.You are literally an idiot, Amarel. You do not have the faintest understanding of statistical probability.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

What affect does the presence of a gun have on someone's conscientious decision to kill themselves?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

What affect does the presence of a gun have on someone's conscientious decision to kill themselves?I think you probably mean conscious, not conscientious.A gun offers a very quick, highly effective and relatively painless method of ending a person's life. Hence, the ease by which suicide can be successfully achieved, in at least some instances, influences a person's decision about whether or not it is the most preferable option. This is especially true if that person is emotional and has a gun immediately at hand. Without the gun, the same individual might have to first go through a meticulous preparation process, during which time they have the opportunity to calm down and think more rationally.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

All true. If a person is suicidal, a gun increases their chances of follow through. The vast majority of people are not suicidal, in which case a gun has no impact on suicidality. The presence of a father decreases the likelihood that such emotional disturbances will arise.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

If a person is suicidal, a gun increases their chances of follow through. The vast majority of people are not suicidalI'm not going round in circles with you, pal. The figures are perfectly clear. The US has the highest suicide rate of any wealthy nation, the laxest gun laws, and over half of all its suicides are via firearm. You can choose to believe that's all a big coincidence if you like.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

You can only say that because you pick and choose what qualifies as wealthy. South Korea is much higher than the US. The US barely inches ahead of Japan, Sweden, Austria, Finland and Switzerland.Just go shoot a gun and calm the fuck down. You need to move past this mental illness. Hoplophobia appears to seriously affect ones ability to...do anything at all
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

I'm not sure you're getting this. Biology determines the gender.I'm sure you weren't listening in sex ed. Sperm determines gender. It comes from the father. Whether a person is a boy or a girl depends on the father. You're too fuckin stupid to continue this back and forth waste of my time.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

I'm sure you weren't listening in sex ed.I'm sure you attended some pretty weird sex ed if you were taught mothers can reproduce without fathers and fathers can create magic penises. Sperm determines gender. It comes from the father.The father doesn't communicate with his sperm so he doesn't determine the gender. Learn to speak English please.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Oh, well isn't that just lovely. Clearly, you had that little closed debate therapy session because you were too cowardly to respond to me. Well, for everyone's benefit: the comment that got Dr_Batman's panties so twisted he had to go and start a private debate with someone else, rather than face legitimate criticism. Hope y'all enjoy:Children and guns do not mix. Ever.Clearly, you've never met some of these kids. In our circles, we don't child-proof the guns, we gun-proof the children. Then when they get a little older, some of them can outshoot the Terminator. Think about it this way: if a parent is willing to drop $1,500 on an entry level race pistol and ammunition, they're probably teaching the kid to use it right. My daughter knew the 4 firearms safety rules better than most cops at the age of 3. There's one kid we build guns for who can put 5 bullets on 3 targets in less than a second on the shot timer.Child soldiering is a crime.Great news; I don't do that. Soldiering and shooting are completely separate disciplines, despite both requiring the use of firearms. Seeing me teach my 4 year old to safely and properly use a 10/22 to plink steel targets and calling it soldiering is like seeing me take her out for ice cream afterward and calling it heroin abuse just because both activities require the use of a spoon. Or, if you prefer to think of shooting as a subset skill, part of the building blocks of effective soldiering, first of all let me remind you that the United States government is really bad at teaching people to shoot, and most soldiers either don't shoot or barely qualify. Second, I'd then be just as guilty of "child soldiering" for so much as teaching them to fold their laundry, which is probably what we spent more time on in boot camp than anything else. Discipline and competence with firearms as well as folding laundry, sewing, teamwork, etc, are not only necessary skills of soldiering, they're necessary skills of life. In fact, there's quite a bit of overlap in skillsets between the two.I don't know if you're just trying to be an antagonistic dickhead like me. More power to you, if you are. But if you take any of this seriously, I suggest that you go take a long look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you're actually retarded.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Seeing me teach my 4 year old to safely and properly use a 10/22 to plink steel targets and calling it soldiering is like seeing me take her out for ice cream afterward and calling it heroin abuseLol. Pretending there's a "safe and proper" way to give a gun to a 4 year old child is like saying there's a safe and proper way to sprinkle anthrax onto your cornflakes. What is actually wrong with you? I mean, apart from being ginger that is.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Nom, you're adorable, but you're intentionally retarded when it comes to any understanding of firearms. Leave this to people who've been doing this well and safely for years.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

These bigots are gun-phobic. .
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

you're intentionally retarded when it comes to any understanding of firearmsSure buddy. Thinking it's a bad idea to give guns to a four year old is "intentionally retarded".I've a counter theory. I think you are wrong in the head.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

You saying that handing my kid a gun under controlled circumstances is a "bad idea" is as valid and as batshit stupid as an anti vaxxer insisting that vaccines give kids autism, and equally as informed. If I am wrong in the head, I have thousands of customers who are no danger to themselves or society who are grateful for it.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

You saying that handing my kid a gun under controlled circumstances is a "bad idea"I'm saying you literally should be sent to jail for doing that.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

LOL!But it's not up to you! It's a good thing too or most of us would be in the goulag.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

LOL!But it's not up to you!Neither was the Holocaust. But I'd have put a stop to that, too.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

No you wouldn't have. What current atrocities are you putting a stop to?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Familiarity reduces irrational fear. You should go to a gun range. Let the instructor know that you need to be treated like a 4 year old though. That way you can catch up with SJs kids. It's your only hope of curing your phobia.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Familiarity reduces irrational fear. You should go to a gun range.Education reduces stupidity. You should go to school.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

The technical term for your condition is hoplophobia. You have an irrational fear of weapons.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

The technical term for your condition is hoplophobia. You have an irrational fear of weapons.The technical term for your condition is stupidity. You are presented with cold logic but purposefully misrepresent it as fear.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Lol you compare firearms safety education to sprinkling anthrax on cereal. That's obviously an expression of phobia.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Lol you compare firearms safety education to sprinkling anthrax on cereal.Allowing a four year old to handle a gun is the precise opposite of "safety". Stop being fucking ridiculous, Amarel.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

If you did it that would be true. You should be nowhere near a firearm, for everyone's safety.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

If you did it that would be true.Whoever gives the gun to the four year old has no impact on how stupid an idea it is.You are just honestly ridiculous, Amarel. There is something quite wrong with the way your mind works.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Don't try. I should've written a book with the time and words I've wasted on this ignorant cocksucker; someone might've actually read it. You can dick slap him with logic and statistics for years, and it'll be like arguing with a dog through the mail slot. If he's ever going to stop ignoring what's inconvenient to his worldview it'll be because he finally stops being a coward of his own choice. Don't try.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

I should've written a book with the time and words I've wasted on this ignorant cocksuckerListen up, you semi-retarded ginger fool. Thinking it unsafe to put lethal weapons in the hands of four year old children does not make me an "ignorant cocksucker". You are a dangerously stupid idiot.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Now is a great time to think about the future and be happy. I've read this post and if I could, I want to suggest you some interesting things or suggestions. You could talk about this article in the next ones you write. I'd like to learn more about it.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Mornin', fuckers! Nobody invited me?Allow me to provide a bit of context. Yes, last Christmas I bought my 3 year old daughter a Ruger 10/22 Charger. Why and how did I do that?I did it because I want to raise her to understand violence. Plain and simple. I want her to not be a victim. Part of that- a small part- is proficiency with firearms. So why not a BB gun, I hear you asking? Great question, there are a few good reasons. One, we had spent the last few months drilling Jeff Cooper's 4 firearm safety rules. Putting it into practice was the logical next step, and I think it's a sound theory that a bit of noise and recoil helps drive the point home that this is not a toy. Doesn't hurt either for her to see impacts on soft targets, like apples. She'll get a BB gun when I can trust her to go out into the woods and shoot with less direct supervision. Second, it's a 10/22. Aftermarket support is higher for that gun than any other rimfire rifle in the world, and it's configurable in just about any way you like. In other words, it's not something you outgrow; she'll be able to use that thing for the rest of her life. And for the rest of her life, if I do my job right, she'll have the habits to use it safely and efficiently. Which leaves, how? How do you have a 3 year old safely use a firearm? Well, apart from a few helpful features like a benchrest, bipod, red dot optic and a lot of patience, it's really simple: first you teach them the rules, drill it into them until they know them better than most cops. Bribing them with gummy bears works wonders here. Second, when they get the gun in their hands, you don't give them the chance to be unsafe with it. You stay right behind them, correcting bad habits as they come up- making sure the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction and guiding it where necessary, keeping little fingers off of triggers, handing them ammunition only as needed, and making sure that they don't panic when they fire off their first shots. Third, is to demystify the whole subject. She knows she can come up to me and ask to look inside of the gun safe. We'll open it up, and she'll ask to look at a few different guns until she gets bored. That, in and of itself, is another great chance to teach safe handling. So, ladies and whatevers: as I've said before, kids should be taught in the use of firearms from the time that they're physically able to hold one and mentally able to follow instructions. I've outlined how and why. Mainly to piss people off. And while I keep returning here because I apparently fall asleep to the incoherent screeching of retards, I don't give an actual fuck what any of you think about that, especially if you intentionally don't know a goddamn thing about weapons or violence.Also, there's the whole thing about how I build custom guns. Sometimes, I'm well aware that it's for someone's kid. If someone is willing to spend $1,500 on a pistol for their kid, it's a fair bet that the kid is well trained and has demonstrated good judgement and discipline. I sleep like a log the moment I hit the mattress.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Are you fucking serious!? Red dot? !
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Sure. We'll get into teaching proper sight picture soon enough, but in the meantime, she can barely hit anything even with the optic. It's a cheap Holosun, nothing special.Got that shit for free, though. Perks of working in the business.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Yeah, I just wanted to take something innocuous from all of that and pretend it's outrageous
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Ah. Yeah, I was wondering why that had you so excited.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Um, obviously. .
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

I was taught to shoot a gun as a young kid. Later in life, two men tried to rob my home. Out of the three of us, I lived. The cops looked around, asked me what happened, and I was the only witness, so it my word against well, no one's. Any questions?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

You're not the one who claimed you shit the guy who got in your face while you were in a wheelchair, are you?The home invasion would be a burglary, not a robbery
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Don't need legs to work a firearm or be a marksman. And on that note, don't enter the home of someone who is. They'll win. And at this point, years later, they'll never make it to the house. I've made sure of that. They won't make it past the fence much less to the open field. And if they somehow did by pure luck, they wouldn't make it across the field. And if somehow they were to catch lightning in a bottle twice, either the dogs will kill them, or they might grab a door knob that wouldn't be advised to grab. I'd tell you more specifics, but some things may or may not be legal. Nevertheless, no cops will be involved for anyone to have to decide. Let's call it the law of the jungle. If someone hypothetically wandered onto a large, hypothetical piece of property and hypothetically disappeared, I have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, sometimes people just vanish, and the community never knows why. In this hypothetical situation, the community wouldn't care even if they did know why. The hills have eyes they say because they do.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

So you are the guy who pretended you shot a man for getting in your face. Got it.
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

Chemical Warfare had the greatest impact because it lead to the development of Nuclear Warheads. Also the use of Mustard Gas during the war struck fear into the enemy because it became an enemy that no one could defend against.
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

Chemical Warfare had the greatest impact because it used different chemicals and nuclear weapons to defeat the enemy.
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

Chemical warfare had the greatest impact because using different chemicals and nuclear weapons was able to kill more at one time and it defeated the enemy faster.
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

The reason why chemical weaponry is banned is because it has a long lasting effect to the environment and future generations (e.g Agent Orange and Antrax). War itself is an idiotic decision but to drive the rest of the living world with the stupidity of man is going too far
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

Chemical power is better because unlike most weapons gas can spread out and kill easier and chemicals can do more damage than man and machine can do.
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

Chemical warfare had the greatest effect on WWI because it slowed down the battle because soldiers could not pass or they would die. It killed whoever inhaled it and it made trench warfare possible.
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

Yes because, all the chemicals in the gasses affected some people soon and others had problems for longer periods of time. They used the gasses because, they didn't exactly know all the effects.
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

The use toxic gas against the Japanese. Mustard gas is a bad toxic. The use the atomic Bomb against the Japanese.
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

Chemicals are a whole lot better because chemicals can get in tight places like the bunker were bullets can't
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: No

In an open field, it can backfire if the wind blew against your direction
Debate: Chemical warfare had the greatest impact and the longest effect on the world during WWI
Side: Yes

chemical warfare had the greatest impact because it did way more damage than regular weapons and had a slow painful death when it hit