azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Cops are people. Trusted and trained, but they are just people. So why should other people, who are trusted and trained, not be allowed to carry a gun on a campus? Even if trusted and trained people aren't there with a gun, the guy who wants to do damage will be.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

A. Police officers have an entirely different and more dangerous job role than college campus security guards, how can you even compare the two?B.Yes they are people too, people that we give a higher authority to than college security.C. You seem pretty keen to arm everyone, which in turn will just increase the rate of shootings, but you don't seem to bright maybe you'll just end up shooting yourself lol
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

A. I wasn't referring to campus security, but anyone who can be considered trusted and trained. Lots of college students are well trained military vets with squeaky clean records. They don't have the job of police, but they can be considered trusted and trained. B. What is that authority based on? Perhaps the trust we have in them; perhaps their training?C. Ad Hominem attacks expose weakness in the position of it's employer rather than in the position of it's target. If you had known that I don't expect you would have done it.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

So now your justification comparison is between college students and police officers? Cray.You want to give college students guns in the hopes of decreasing the chances of being shot....lol So what if it's ad hominem if it's true, you are an idiot.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

So now your justification comparison is between college students and police officers? Cray.You have no problem allowing police officers to carry on campus because they are trusted and trained. Since they are not the only kind of person who can be considered trusted and trained, it is reasonable to conclude they are not the only kind of person you should feel comfortable allowing to carry a gun on campus.You know that I am simply making a case for this side of the debate right? Do you also know that you are not making a counter-argument? That actually means you are loosing. Simply saying that this side of the argument is cray and stupid, again, only shows a lack in your own ability to articulate a position to counter my own.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

But police ARE the only people considered 'trusted and trained' to carry on campus. Your argument fails itself...I have made counter arguments and they have squashed your points each time.You do realise your entire second paragraph is one giant ironic, hypocritical contradiction, right? lol
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

But police ARE the only people considered 'trusted and trained'Considered by whom? Most military personell are better trained for firearms handling and have had security clearance. While a sizeable portion of the population doesn't really trust the police. Are you ok with an off duty police officer, who is also a student, carrying his gun on campus?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Well look here the dummy says an off duty police officer does not have the firearms training of the military ? Should police officers be unarmed ?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Campus Security should not be allowed to carry firearms because they are not properly trained ? Insanity grows with you Leftist !
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

It really aggravates me when clearly ignorant, narrow minded people say things like, 'a sizeable portion of the population doesn't really trust the police'What do you mean? People don't trust the law's? People don't trust the uniform? People don't trust the handcuffs?Or do you simply mean people don't trust people, and seeing as the police force is made up of PEOPLE, this would be reasonable conclusion not out of the ordinary...You could say the same about a car salesman, What about a real estate agent? etc. etc. Police just have a different job...What a stupid point to make...
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Really though, Are you ok with an off duty police officer, who is also a student, carrying his gun on campus?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

I'm not really happy with, but It depends on the law's in regards.If the law permits an off duty police officer to carry a fire arm on campus, I am satisfied with that, why aren't you?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

I am satisfied with that. Why are you satisfied but not happy?If off duty cops, who look just like anybody, can carry on campus, what reason is there to ban others who are as well trained and as trustworthy? They will look just like the off duty cop. What's the difference?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Because as I have pointed out over and over, gun's increase the rate of shootings, not decrease them.It's just that simple.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

You haven't pointed it out, you simply said it. The fact is that all crime, including violent gun crime is at historic lows dispite gun ownership being at historic highs. What you "pointed out" is your opinion that does not derive from facts.When shootings do occur, they are rarely by legal gun owners. So again, if a trustworthy, trained, off duty officer is ok to carry on campus, why not a trustworthy, trained student of a different occupation?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

"What you "pointed out" is your opinion that does not derive from facts."Owning or possessing, instantly increases your chances of being shot, fact.You then returned with your 'swimming pool' analogy, which is a clear false equivalency.So you're wrong and I feel like we are just back at square one..."When shootings do occur, they are rarely by legal gun owners. So again, if a trustworthy, trained, off duty officer is ok to carry on campus, why not a trustworthy, trained student of a different occupation?"I think you're missing the point about a police officers role and authority in society vs. a school students, and again creating a false equivalency. You want college kids having gun battles with what they might deem a potential threat? You don't see the pandora's box you are opening up, shootings will sky rocket! This isn't just my opinion this is a statistical fact!
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Owning or possessing, instantly increases your chances of being shot, fact.This absolutely is not a fact. Your primary problem is that you state your opinion and claim facts or statistics that do not exist. An unarmed person in the ghetto of Chicago stands a substantially greater risk of being shot than does the Montana rancher who owns an arsenal. You know why? Because owning and carrying a gun does not, in and of itself, increase your chances of being shot. If owning and carrying a gun increased your chances of being shot, then the historically high level of legal gun ownership would be accompanied by historically high incidents of gun crimes. Instead, we are at historically low levels of all crimes including gun crimes. These are facts.You don't see the pandora's box you are opening up, shootings will sky rocket! This isn't just my opinion this is a statistical fact!Your statistical facts are historically false. More people legally carry now than in the 90's. Gun crimes are down.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

See this is the problem, I am offering a very commonly known and agreed upon factual statistic,That gun ownership increases your chances of being shot,You then say that this is not a fact, it is false, and yet you don't provide any proof of this yourself.You really enjoy contracting yourself and being hypocritical...
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Here's the problem. You repeatedly state that your opinion is commonly known statistical fact while repeatedly failing to provide any evidence in support of your opinion. I would say that you are intellectually dishonest, but it's best not to attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity. If you claim a fact, the onus of proof is on you.Now here is some evidence for my position. It is commonly known that violent crime is way down (I can provide a source if you actually think it's up). At the same time, concealed carry permits are up from 2.7 million in 1999 to over 14.5 million in 2016. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has exploded, almost doubling from 2008 to 2015.This directly counters your commonly held false opinion.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

You even confirmed my statistic factual with your previous rebuttal, when you brought up swimming pools.How can you say owning a swimming pool increases your chances of drowning, but owning a gun not does increase your chances of being shot.You know, I thought when I joined this site people might be vaguely intelligent and enjoy a reasonable debate, rather than demanding sources and evidence for every little fucking point I make, or just points they aren't able to refute.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Why am I the only one of us citing statistics when claiming statistical points? Pools increase the risk of death to a child in the household more than guns increase the risk of death to a child in the household. The fact that concealed carry permits have skyrocketed while violent crime has decreased directly contradicts your point. The only way for you to contradict my evidence, is to actually show the data that indicate owning a gun gets you shot. Since we both know you can’t do that, you must rely on claiming your opinion is commonly held statistical fact. It isn’t
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

So i would assume you to be a logical person, maybe I'm wrong.You say that owning a swimming pool increases the chances of drowning,but owning a gun does not, whatsoever, increase your chances of being shot?If this is what you are saying and unless I provide your ignorant ass sources to refute this,I am satisfied and we can end this now, you are just an idiot.If however you are able to comprehend the logic behind your own argument (swimming pools),then you could also say that owning a bowling ball increases your chances of dropping one on your foot, however small the statistics may be, it does increase.Continuing to follow this logic it would be reasonable to say owning a gun increases your chances of being shot.So even following your own logic, I'm still right...This is the basics of statistics...Be enlightened peasant. lol
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

If you scroll up to the post you just responded to, you will see what I have been saying, in no uncertain terms. If you would like to call names and give up, I'm fine with that. Insults have far less bite when it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. As for basic statistics, I'm the only one who provided any.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

So you concede the fact that gun ownership increases your chances of being shot?After all this bullshit, If not your just going round in a retarded circle...
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

If I bought a shotgun, brought it home, and locked it in a gun case, I am neither more nor less likely to be gunned down in the street as a matter derived directly from my ownership of that gun. Even if you could provide a source to support your position (so far you cannot), you would have to indicate causation, not mere correlation. As it is though, the correlation favors my position (as my evidence provided elsewhere in this argument indicates), thus it disproves the causation you assert.You may now claim victory if you like. You can walk away feeling proud of your argumentative acumen. But your victory will have been won without providing any evidence or countering the evidence provided by your opponent. Congratulations winner.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

I really want to get past this it has become beyond ridiculous, when in fact it's so simple.Gun ownership increases your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting. You have already conceded this fact, yet now you seem to be back peddling, you're not helping yourself...Given this factor, why would your only solution in this circumstance be to increase the chances of people on college campuses to be shot or involved in a shooting?A really don't think you have a logical response to this, I think you know this too, so you keep going round in circles, well have fun!Otherwise I appreciate you being gracious in defeat, as you said so yourself I am the Victor, I'll take that, so thank you because there really is nothing worse than a bad loser :)
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Interesting exchange and here is a piece from The Scientist magazine with a study on this issue 😊Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn’t, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn’t worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. “We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,” Branas says. “This study is a beginning.”Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. “It affects others a heck of a lot more,” he says.Journal reference: American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

You're incorrect , you also claimed before that there were more deaths from swimming pool accidents than guns , so would owning a swimming pool increase your chance of drowning over those who don't own swimming pools , and if not why not ? This is the logic you're using and using your logic people who don't own guns are at the very same risk as gun owners of dying from guns .The study i posted to your opponent is based on case studies rather than your flawed assumptions and demonstrates how flawed your position is .Gun crime may be down but that's merely a red herring that does not evade the simple truth that gun owners increases their chance of getting shot over those who are unarmed Interesting exchange and here is a piece from The Scientist magazine with a study on this issue 😊Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn’t, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn’t worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. “We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,” Branas says. “This study is a beginning.”Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. “It affects others a heck of a lot more,” he says.Journal reference: American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

you also claimed before that there were more deaths from swimming pool accidents than guns, so would owning a swimming pool increase your chance of drowning over those who don't own swimming pools , and if not why not ?You and I both know that I claimed pools are more dangerous in the household, specifically with regards to children, and that I drew this directly from a reasonable source with a reasonable position. Guns kill more people, but when you consider the fewer number of pools, more pools per capita are lethal.The only situation in which this logic applies to firearms would be accidental self-inflicted gunshot. This is because you literally cannot accidentally shoot yourself without a gun present. Not only are these the rarest of gun injuries, but they commonly done by people who are using someone else’s gun, rather than actual gun owners. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/ Thank you for actually seeking a source to back up your claim. Simply owning a gun does not, in fact, increase your risk of being shot, and I’ll explain why, as well as what is wrong with your source.Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the timeWhat they are studying is the likelihood that shooting victims were carrying guns, not the likelihood of getting shot due to carrying. This fallacious error is either intellectual dishonesty on the part of the reporter, or scientific ignorance. The study does not account for all the people carrying guns that do not get shot, thus it does not measure what it claims.The study was done in Philadelphia, a dense urban population that had a higher murder rate than Chicago at the time of the study according to FBI crime stats. Most people killed by gun violence in cities are drug dealers and gang bangers. Drug dealers and gang bangers often carry guns (illegally). This study confirms that, but little more. If you are a drug dealer or a gang banger, you are more likely to be killed, you are also more likely to illegally carry a gun. You cannot reasonably derive from this study that a Kansas farmer who buys a varmint rifle is now more likely to be shot; he isn’t. You cannot even reasonably derive that a regular law abiding citizen with a permit to carry a concealed weapon is more likely to be shot, as the study does not account for these people. It only accounts for victims, and urban victims of gun crimes are most often criminals.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Regards swimming pools what you said was " Owning a swimming pool is statistically a far greater risk to your house hold than a gun but without the benefit of potentially saving your life " I see no mention of children in your piece .Regards swimming pool deaths they are accidental , so for balance they should be compared besides accidental gun deaths where swimming pool deaths no doubt are higher , if one takes gun deaths by accident or otherwise the difference is is huge and the toll for guns a lot higher .Your position is that simply owning a gun does not increase your risk of being shot so people who do not own guns are at the very same risk of being shot as people who do own guns ? Finally the piece from Branas and his team seems to be fairly well reasoned but you dispute it which is fine I would love to see a study which illustrates the opposing view .
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

I see no mention of children in your pieceNot in that quote. But you and I discussed the topic at length and my position was made clear.Your position is that simply owning a gun does not increase your risk of being shot so people who do not own guns are at the very same risk of being shot as people who do own guns ?My position, that owning a gun does not increase your risk of being shot implies that other factors account for people being shot while carrying a gun, such as their criminal occupation. This is my position because simply buying a gun does not mean someone else will shoot you. The Kansas rancher with a varmint gun is at no greater risk of being shot by someone than his gun-less neighbors. Not only is there no study to support an increased risk for this rancher, but there is no logical connection between him owning a rifle, and someone shooting him. If this rancher cannot be said to be at greater risk, then the owning of a gun is not the causal factor.Finally the piece from Branas and his team seems to be fairly well reasoned but you disputeNo I don't. I didn't see a piece from Branas, but rather a report about it. I am sure Branas's study does a good job of illustrating that Philadelphia shooting victims carry a gun. By measuring victims of shootings, you cannot get a picture of non-victims who carry. Which I imagine is why the study admits it's own deficiency.Consider that black people are the vast majority murder victims. That does not mean that a black guy living in the the country is more likely to be murdered by virtue of being black. Being black isn't what gets black people murdered. Carrying a gun isn't what gets gang bangers shot.