azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

'My position, that owning a gun does not increase your risk of being shot'The truth is that this statement is factually incorrect, you have conceded this point yourself, what do you plan to accomplish repeating this? You are one step away from saying 'but the bible said so'....
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

you have conceded this point yourselfI knew you were stupid. Turns out you're a liar too.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

lol Ok, we'll play again...:)Do you deny that owning a gun increases your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting?Well?Nice ad hominems, i see you really enjoy disregarding your own logic and false accusations...Definitely classy and the strategies of a 'victor' lol....
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

When someone calls the cops, they are of course, calling people, which was my point earlier. A lot of people do not trust the people who take on the job of police officer. Hence my statement.The point I'm making, and you aren't refuting, is that cops are trained, but many others are better trained. Cops are trusted by some, like you, but not all. Your statement that cops are the ONLY people who are trusted and trained was nothing more than a personal feeling. Cops may often be the only ones allowed to carry a gun on campus, but many people are trust worthy and many people are trained. What reason do you offer for barring people from carrying on campus, if they are well trained and proven trustworthy? If the law permits it, will you be satisfied though unhappy?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

"A lot of people do not trust the people who take on the job of police officer. Hence my statement."Again, wrong, are you assuming their is a certain untrustworthy personality trait fundamental to be being a police officer? Every individual's character instantly becomes untrustworthy with authority?No, maybe some but authority can be abused by anyone.People don't trust people, so if you give a person a certain amount of authority above others, it is reasonable that extra trust issues would come about, you just sound like a sheep lost in the heard..."What reason do you offer for barring people from carrying on campus, if they are well trained and proven trustworthy?"The proven statistical increase they will have being shot or involved in a shooting.Your not preventing shootings, you are escalating them, this is a statistical fact!
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

are you assuming their is a certain untrustworthy personality trait fundamental to be being a police officer?I'm not assuming that, but other people do. They think police are corrupt. Shouldn't we consider their opinion before allowing cops to carry on campus?The fact that gun ownership is up while violent crime is down disproves your assertion that guns necessarily increase shootings. The fact is that not all gun owners are created equal. Where gun violence does occur, it is almost always between criminals who are not allowed to carry already. Regular citizens have been going through legal means to carry a gun while their chances of being shot have been decreasing with better crime control.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

'are you assuming their is a certain untrustworthy personality trait fundamental to be being a police officer?''I'm not assuming that, but other people do. They think police are corrupt. Shouldn't we consider their opinion before allowing cops to carry on campus?'Omg really? You're actually saying because SOME people ASSUME all police to be corrupt, after everything I just explained about people not trusting people and the police force is just full of people, then the fact that some people are just paranoid morons unable to think logically beyond their own primal instincts....This somehow brings some debate as to should guns be allowed on college campuses? Where are you!?lol I think you're losing it :/
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

You don't know a rhetorical question when you see one. Cops are people that are trained and trusted. Not everyone trusts them, but that doesn't mean they are not trustworthy.Similarly, many non-police officers (who are people just like cops) are trained and trustworthy. Just because YOU don't trust them doesn't mean they are any less qualified to carry on campus than is an officer, who is also not trusted by everyone.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Your first paragraph just proves my point...I never said I didn't trust them, you did, i think it's a stupid irrelevant argument anyway, as I have pointed out.The law decides that they are not qualified, don't get upset at me :)
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

The law decides that they are not qualified, don't get upset at meDepending on the state, the law actually allows for guns on campus. You have made it clear that you are not ok with this. You don't even like that off duty cops can carry. Some states have no legal prohibition and they don't have rampant shootouts. I have personally carried on campus without fear of legal reprisal. I already get my way. The issue is that you don't think I should. Don't get upset at me though.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Ok, so despite the statistical increase of shootings when owning a gun, you carry it around with you 'because you can' nice argument lol
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

So more arbitrary claims with no citation or links. Are you supposed to be good at this or something Jackson?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

omg another one! lol wow your butt must be hurting so bad, ouch!Do you plan to use all my lines? Maybe the people unaware think you're clever but we both know the truth :)
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Even as I shoot down yet another of your arguments, you fall back on one previously destroyed. The statistics on the correlation of carrying a gun to getting shot (or lack thereof) has much more to do with other people than with the person carrying. This is why, as I supported with actual statistics, personal concealed carry has skyrocketed while shootings have declined. The evidence is more in my favor when limited to legal gun possession, rather than criminal gun possession. But don't mind the statistics, just keep talking about them incorrectly. It has worked really well so far.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

All you have written is a bunch of opinionated conclusions, you haven't provided any links or evidence to back up the specific claims you are making. In the meantime it still increases your chances of being shot owning a gun....See I can play your stupid little game too :)
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

I'm the only one of us who provided any evidence whatsoever. I posted it earlier. I'll post it again for you, but I'm only doing your work for you this one time. I'm afraid I can't read it for you, so you still may end up unaware of it, but here it is, copied and pasted from my earlier response to 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.If you are concerned that crime isn't down, I will refer you to the FBI crime stats. That's what most sources will draw from anyway.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

What I still don't understand is after you having conceded the fact that gun ownership increases your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting, the only solution you can come up with in this situation is more guns, Wouldn't even you consider that narrow minded?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

after you having conceded the fact that gun ownership increases your chances of being shotI have done no such thing. Ownership alone does nothing. What I have done is provide evidence for a statistical correlation that contradicts your assertion of causation, while you have provided nothing. Resorting to dishonesty of the sort you are engaging in here, is pretty stupid given anyone can scroll up and see that you are lying.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Really?So we are back to square one? lolYour position is that owning a gun DOES NOT in any way increase your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting, but owning a swimming pool DOES increase your chances of drowning?And you really fail to see the same logic falls behind both arguments?Yep, you are cray :)
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Walking through Compton, California without a gun increases your chances of getting shot. So does doing drugs. Was that the whole argument?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Okay "GENIUS". If you're going to shoot a college campus and no one has a gun you're just going to kill everybody. However if three students have a gun pointed right back at you then they prevent you from shooting everyone in the building. Stupid liberals think that preventing people from having guns will stop murders and crime but if someone wants to kill people then they will find a way. Letting citizens carry firearms for their defense will help them have the ability to defend themselves.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

So your justification for increasing the risk of school kids being shot, by giving them their own firearms to carry at school, is based on the potential of a school shooting?Do you even understand statistics? Do you have any idea how much the chances of those kids potentially shooting each other outweighs the chances of them potentially protecting each other in a school shooting?How old are you lol
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Do you even understand statistics?Obviously not. This is supposed to be where you enlightenment with statistics.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

You don't understand what a statistic is? lolI think a dictionary is what will really enlighten you...
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Reference? Moreover, correlation does not demonstrate causation. Even if it is the case that owning a firearm correlates with a higher probability of being involved in a shooting, that does not necessarily mean that it is because one owns the firearm. One alternative explanation of that data, for instance, would be that those who are more likely to own a firearm are more likely to be involved in altercations either because of their circumstances or because of their emotional temperament. Further, even if there were a causative link between owning a gun and being involved in shootings that would not necessarily mean one cannot justify owning a gun themselves. The negligence or misbehavior of others does not immediately preclude rights from others.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

What do you mean?Owning a firearm increases your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting.Do you dispute this simple factor?
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

Yes, disputing your wholly unsubstantiated causal assertion was the purpose of my preceding counter-argument to which you haven't actually responded.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

An unsubstantiated claim does not make the claim incorrect.Not to sure what you are trying to get at?Do you have evidence that demonstrates owning a gun does not increase your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting?Im waiting....lmfao
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

An unsubstantiated claim does not make the claim incorrect.I never claimed otherwise.Not to sure what you are trying to get at?Try reading comprehension. My first post was pretty explicit.Do you have evidence that demonstrates owning a gun does not increase your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting?No, but I also never made that claim. I'm waiting... lmfaoYeah, on yourself...
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: No they shouldn't.

Only in America does such a concern come up ,meanwhile in most civilised countries people attend schools and colleges without the additional stress of worrying about getting ' tooled up '.....
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

You don't think they are stressed about mass shootings in France? London? Denmark? Sure they are. Because it happens there. They just see a different solution.
Debate: Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Side: Yes they should.

What religion is committing mass killings in the countries you referenced ?
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

The queen does fuck all.If she had any power or actual influence then maybe we should keep her. But do the MP's actually listen to her? No. They just nod their heads, shuffle her out of the door and get back to business.The whole tourism argument is more of a shot in the foot. If millions of people around the world come to England just to see the Queen and not any of the other tourist attractions, then it only shows how shit England is. If the Queen goes I don't think people will stop coming to England - they'd just miss that part of the bus tour. We can leave Buckinham palace as a momentum to their legacy.The royals are just a bunch of spoilt pansyboys and girls. They aren't like the past Kings, who'd be first into battle and last to retreat. Maybe they were bastards to the people, but atleast they did something. Nowadays they're cunts who fly army helicoptors to their girlfriend's house and blame it as a military exercise.Monarchy's going to go anyway. After Prince Philip who do you see as a King??
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

The queen does fuck all.Incorrect.If she had any power or actual influence then maybe we should keep her. But do the MP's actually listen to her? No. They just nod their heads, shuffle her out of the door and get back to business.She controls the military. Parliament has to ask her permission to deploy it.If millions of people around the world come to England just to see the Queen and not any of the other tourist attractions, then it only shows how shit England is.People don't go to Paris solely to see the Eiffel Tower, but removing it would certainly decrease revenue.The royals are just a bunch of spoilt pansyboys and girls.You dirty, ungrateful bastard.Nowadays they're cunts who fly army helicoptors to their girlfriend's house and blame it as a military exercise.They're their helicopters.Monarchy's going to go anyway. After Prince Philip who do you see as a King??Prince William. It's called hereditary rule.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

She controls the military. Parliament has to ask her permission to deploy it.Has she ever said no? Went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think Blair ever actually asked her permission and if he did... she wouldn't have said no.People don't go to Paris solely to see the Eiffel Tower, but removing it would certainly decrease revenue.You're comparing the queen to Paris? Wonder of the world with an old hag?You dirty, ungrateful bastard.Not a nice way to talk about Prince Harry.....They're their helicopters.Well obviously they've done nothing wrong. Why they would lie about it I really don't know.Prince William. It's called hereditary rule.I see so this spoilt pansyboy who'd rather spend his time in a strip club is going to be King of England? Fucking brilliant...
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Has she ever said no? Went to war in Iraq. OIL.AfghanistanTERRORISTS.I don't think Blair ever actually asked her permissionBlair is a devil worshipping bastard.You're comparing the queen to Paris? Wonder of the world with an old hag?What would an ungrateful son of an immigrant know about such things?Not a nice way to talk about Prince HarryThe prince is under no obligations to scum like you.I see so this spoilt pansyboy who'd rather spend his time in a strip club is going to be King of England? Fucking brilliant...Henry VIII was notoriously fond of his mistresses. As indeed was every king of England.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

"Has she ever said no? Went to war in Iraq.OIL."Well at least you are not suffering from the delusion that the war was started over WMDs or links with Al Queda."AfghanistanTERRORISTS."What about US and British terrorism that has resulted in casualities that are orders of magnitude higher than those attributed to the Islamic extremists."Blair is a devil worshipping bastard."Well i can't disagree with that."What would an ungrateful son of an immigrant know about such things?"Wow, behind the veneer of being a respectful articulate debator lies the truth i.e. that you are an elitist bigotI especially like the "ungrateful" jibe, truly amazing given the history between the UK and India."The prince is under no obligations to scum like you."Again my friend saying a person is scum because they dislike the royals is quite discourteous, the roylas are just people held up on a pedestal by some archaic (and frankly stupid) tradition, thats my opinion on the matter, am i scum also?
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

I have to take issue with this, by your logic the brutal take over of Tibet can be justified in the exactly the way.I have given up trying to justify wars. They are simply conflicts, and it is a rare thing to find one side wholly innocent, and the other wholly evil.While this argument is definitely not without substance i beleive your argument is flawed in the sense that your nation would not be so wealthy had it not colonised a resource rich sub-continent like India. Therefore, when the descendants of the people who inhabited those places that were conquered in order to grow your empire come lookiing for some from of indemnification, are they not justified?That is not, to my prejudice, correct. It is the same fallacious logic that suggests that white people should pay reparations to black people for an offence that nobody alive today has committed. If the bastion of white wealth was black slavery, it stands to reason that with the abolition of slavery would inevitably come the dissipation of white domination of resources, or at least the collapse of those industrialists who utilised slavery.This is not the case, and never was.The same for colonialism, a practice so damaging to Britain general interests that we cannot conceive as to why it was engendered, beyond blaming the interests of a wealthy elite. If, as you say, the wealth of the nation relied so heavily upon resources from India, we should expect to see an immediate collapse of all financial and industrial institution upon independence. This was not the case either. It was British naval dominance and innovation that ensured her success and prosperity, with colonialism being a convenient device for the aggrandisement of the wealthy few. I have argued before, that the vast majority of citizens in Britain during the height of the empire were practically slaves to the same wealthy few that propagated colonialism. To blame the descendants of slaves for one's own slavery at the hands of their masters is a ridiculous thing to do.however i would still contned that most of this development was done for selfish reasons.Input, output. That is the basis of all development.I think thats a matter of perspective, i think it is also dependent on what exactly the tradition is.Yes, even as I wrote the paragraph I considered genital mutilation as an exception. And everything religious, also. But I think one can take that as a given.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

i live in australia.i voted for a republic.just wanted to say i hate that filthy inbred lying murdering twisted old scab who is called the queen.her and her kind are a stain upon humanity and should be removed from the gene pool.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

i live in [A]ustralia.Revelation enough to incite a standing ovation. i voted for a republic.The accolades continue to rain down from the heavens.just wanted to say i hate that filthy inbred lying murdering twisted old scab who is called the queen.She is called the queen because She is the queen. The rest is pathetic diatribe. her and her kind are a stain upon humanity and should be removed from the gene pool.One opines that persons whose mastery of basic English grammar (capital letters, "she and her kind") is wanting should be removed.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Why do people like you exist? Other than to read tabloids?
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

"The queen does fuck all."In the same way that the President does "fuck all"."If she had any power or actual influence then maybe we should keep her."She meets witht he Prime Minister weekly and is head of the Commonwealth she also recieves state papers daily, though she may excersice her power as much as the Prime Minister she has a lifetime to do it, whereas the Prime Minister only has 4 years, then everyone hates him." But do the MP's actually listen to her? No. They just nod their heads, shuffle her out of the door and get back to business."Why would the Queen care what MP's think of her? In a few years most of them will be replaced. It should be the other way round, if the Queen likes an MP they stand to get a Lordship or other rewards."The whole tourism argument is more of a shot in the foot. If millions of people around the world come to England just to see the Queen and not any of the other tourist attractions, then it only shows how shit England is. "The rest of it is too americanised, so England could be regarded as "shit"."If the Queen goes I don't think people will stop coming to England - they'd just miss that part of the bus tour. We can leave Buckinham palace as a momentum to their legacy."What would they come to see? The Houses of Parliment? We might as well say that the Elected part of Government costs too much and leave that part out of the tour. Plus, wherever the Queen goes the media follows, she doesn't represent a foggy little island on the edge of Europe but the head of a past imperial super power.
Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: Yes.

yes the queen does nothing of significant importance that she should be payed millions of dollars and we'd be nothing but hoarders clinging to sentimental value if we kept her.