azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

Those out there who claim to have experienced a supernatural phenomenon probably experienced something that confused them, they don't have a real explanation for what happened, and they immediately resort to something like a supernatural being.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

In my opinion, ghosts are not real. These ghost sightings could be caused by watching too much television thus leading to a wild imagination. I would think ghosts as illusions of the mind.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

If they were real, would we be having this debate?----------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: yes

Yes we would. There are people still convinced that we have never been in space. No moon landing, no launches, just footage made in Hollywood. Even if something is logical to most, there will be someone that believes the opposite. For example those that believe God doesn't exist.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

I dont belive ghosts are real :) - Why? - There is not 1 single , single , single shread of evidence. I do belive in Aliens, because its just inpossible for over 100.000.000 billion maybe more planets to exist , and only 1 of them to have life :D
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

This question is basically an iq test. You either understand the importance of evidence or you don't.Scientific Method
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: YES

We've found ourselves in a loop with this one. I guess we should call it 'possibly true' until proven otherwise.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

ghosts are creations of one's own mind, you can say them as hallucinations which are created by one's own mind when under pressure. tales of ghosts are mostly heard by single person. whenever a group of people are involved their is always cross cutting in narration of the events of story. all my opponents are requested to verify what i just stated.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

Ghosts are nothing more than the hope that there is something beyond death. The reason man dreamed up ghosts is so he would have the belief that when he dies, he doesn't go into a hole in the ground and rot. Of course, various churches soon replaced this idea with their different versions of "heaven", but it is hard to displace the deep-seated belief that no matter what, man will go on after death regardless of his deeds in life with conditional paradises.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

like katie said:-believers are seers it depends on what u feel bout themwell i dont believe they really existit only our imagination that makes us feel soif u believe in them u see them everywhereif not u feel all this is crap
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

Pretty sure ghosts defy the conservation of energy. Where do they get their energy?
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

Ghosts are part of the human imagination similar to magic. If 22% of all Americans believed that they experienced paranormal activity, what did the other 78% think?
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

I've never seen or felt a ghost, how can I know if they're real? I also have never seen that the earth is actually round, so I don't have certainty about it. But, does it really matters? In the end, if it is or it is not, is a triviality. But people is always trying to share with others their own beliefs, as if they were not convinced of them at all...
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

I agree with you because I've never felt a ghost either but however people have different beliefs. I believe on them, but i still have not seen them....
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

NO WAY because you watch so any movies and books that you start thinking things are there but they are just part of your imagination. Also there has been no proof as to whether they exist. When you see the photos of so called 'UFOS' they are just been edited to make a fake image and many of those people you here saying I have been abducted and I remember they cut my arm in these weird letters EYTFDYGJF. they have just done a publicity stunt which earnt them heaps of money and they cut themselves to make it more real. Its a load of ______
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

I've never seen a ghost but if they are for real I surely want to see them!!!
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

Ghosts are just fictions of people's imaginations. Most of those people are kids or lunatics, where imaginary friends are common. It's like the "monster" that you had in your closet, the one I did not believe in. It does not exist.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: GHOSTS ARE NOT REAL

Many scientists believe that ghosts are fake, but parapsychologists believe ghosts are real. Spirits are electromagnetic fields. Brain waves can make people see and hear many things. Electromagnetic waves can affect the nervous system. This can cause somebody to hallucinate. The eye can act as a TV screen. Instead of the person taking in images, they are transmitted out.Another explanation for "ghost sightings" may be that the mind is just trying to "let off a little steam." NASA has shown that the human eyeball has a resonant frequency. There are eighteen cycles a second. The eyeball starts to vibrate in response to infra-sound. This causes a serious smearing of vision. In at least two hauntings low frequency sound may to blame.People can put, fake ghosts in their pictures. By using a flashlight, a cigarette, a flash pack, and a camera, a person can create the effect of a mysterious light. Turn on the flashlight and walk toward the camera. When you are four to five feet from the camera, turn off the flashlight and light a cigarette. Have a friend set off a flash using the flash pack. Snap the shutter of the camera closed. This will result in a picture with mysterious lights in the background.In conclusion, there are many explanations for ghost sightings. Some sightings are a result of people playing tricks and others are a result of hallucinations.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

There isn't any ACTUAL proof of them, and it doesn't make sense in the first place. No facts back it up, so why should I think they are real? Are they souls or spirits or something? Well sorry to burst your bubble, but souls and spirits don't exist.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

It is only the state of mind. You are God and Devil . If you are brougt up in godly way you will never know what a ghost is?. On the otherhand superstitious beliefs inculcated in childhood days will pose as Ghost
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: No

No, haven't seen one yet.-------------------------------------------
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: GHOSTS ARE NOT REAL

Prove that ghosts are real and this debate will be closed.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

There is no good reason to believe in ghosts. No facts or evidence that is not someones personal account of events.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

I have never seen one, people often see what they want to see, people also try to rationalize what they think they see as something more than what was actually there. There is no scientific justification for the belief in or description of reality as possibly containing ghosts.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: yes

yes they r real.it happened 2 me,when i was in germany.ever u can find them in india too.if the some1 believe in god,then there r ghosts too.want 2 know more-go 2 ghost lab,www.discovery channel.com..........
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: yes

come 2 india go 2 bihar,watch a ghost and then say me.....
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

PossiblyThe minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

they are strong but they can be a human destruction lots of thing they can do
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

i dont think so but yeah, there are 'invisible' creature living with us in this world.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

Not in the sense that a dead person's spirit roams the Earth for some kind of unfinished buisiness. I do think (not believe, think) that it is possible that if something terrible happens, a negative 'vibe' of some sort could remain. Sometimes people feel uncomfertable in places where brutal murder happened, even if those people didn't know about what happened. I also don't exclude the genuinity of psychics/mediums, but I don't think they actually communicate with the deceased.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

No evidence... so why believe?
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

No evidence... so why believe?exactly my point! :) finally some one understands!
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

Actually I think all paranormal videos stating that there are ghosts in this building beware! and mediums communicating to the dead are all "scripted"...you know for entertainment just to scare people around. That's their job to earn money.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

there are ghosts in this building beware! this is just one source of entertainment to keep the gossip and stories going. i love talking about weird things, unnatural happenings, and sometimes even the school gossip and rumours. this is just another form of a rumourmediums communicating to the dead are all "scripted"...yea.. and this is one way for people who love to act to earn money and add fun to people's lives.That's their job to earn money.and we enjoy these movies and shows just as much don't we!
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

No, everything is just psychological or what i said before in my previous argument with the same topic a "hallucination". It's. not. real.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

ghost is not there .i am sure about it.all these things are just supersicious.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

Ghosts are part of the human culture as elements that help us relate to an afterlife.i vote for this.-t.abijith(2001)a child
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

all the video are just animations .they create stupid things about ghost.so,don't believe .yes i vote for this.by- buju(abijith)
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

i have all the proof to say that the ghost is not there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

I dont belive ghosts are real :) - Why? - There is not 1 single , single , single shread of evidence. I do belive in Aliens, because its just inpossible for over 100.000.000 billion maybe more planets to exist , and only 1 of them to have life
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

if that is not there why we must have a argument here????????????????????
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

i bet that they are not.if they are show me your proof???????????????????
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

god is just like a person who guide us.how can you say that ghost are god to us.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

Empty words… Light enough to float far above one’s head.I watch these words.Some, the lighter ones, soar. Others drift.All are meaningless, touching no one.Always, eventually I forget they are there… accidentally crush them in my palms… for these words are fragile, are made after all, with just the ghost of substance. These words, I once despised. Oh, how I despised!These words, once upon a time.
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

There is little to no evidence against the existence of ghosts. Alot of people believe that ghosts do not exist, simply because their existence has not been scientifically proven
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: NO

What evidence is there for the existence of spirits???????????????????????????
Debate: Are ghosts real
Side: YES

What evidence is there for the existence of spirits???????????????????????????
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Whether you are pro or anti guns it is impossible to argue their not they become less dangerous when the person handling them is experienced or trained but their still dangerous.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

based on what you said i feel that points more to people being dangerous. The gun is just a tool, and if a gun is more dangerous in the hands of an experienced person, than in the hands of an inexperienced person then the only factor they have in common is the person.Not meaning to sound sarcastic but a gun alone is 0% dangerous without anyone, experienced or otherwise, using it right?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Heavy machinery is dangerous. One has to be certified and trained to operate some construction equipment but anyone can get a gun. That just doesn't make any sense. Yes guns in and of themselves are not dangerous without the context of human use but in what world would guns exist without humans? It's like saying construction equipment isn't dangerous unless used by a human... In what world would that happen? A man with a teddy bear and a man with a gun... Which is more dangerous? The man with a gun. Deciding factor: gun. In your example the deciding factor was: human. But your context is in a world that would never exist: guns without humans. My context is more realistic: comparing a man armed with a gun to a man armed with a teddy bear. If we can cognitively and logically agree that cars are dangerous than we can agree guns are. Cars are not dangerous without operators but are still considered dangerous. If we agree that regulating car and construction equipment operation and ownership why can't we agree on regulating gun operation and ownership. A bomb or tank is not dangerous in and if themselves so should we let just anyone own and use them? No.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

I stick to the the idea that if the item was dangerous it could harm on it's own.I really believe that a man without a teddy bear is less dangerous than a man with a teddy bear. Just as a man without a gun is less dangerous than one with. Heavy construction equipment is dangerous because no one has to make it move to kill it's able to kill on it's weight alone. A spike pit is dangerous, just because touching it will do harm. Not a gun.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

The point being some things are more dangerous than others. We would not allow a civilian to own a battle tank or a nuke. Bombs are illegal. An assault rifle may be too much. And regulating cars shouldn't be easier to understand than regulating guns. In order for me to drive legally I have to take a test to get licensed, register my car, and insure my car. To own a gun legally I just go to a gun show and buy one with no questions asked even if I'm a convicted violent felon or mentally ill.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

From what you explained I still only believe that the people are dangerous not the machines, but I changed my argument. People or objects aren't dangerous. Acts are. We can't own a tank because that's government being preemptive, over the acts we could cause, not saying that anyone with a tank would just go blow down a convenience store.Cars are regulated to ensure that people will know how to act to make them as least dangerous as they can be. Obviously a vehicle seems like a dangerous objects but it won't do harm just as the person driving might not. His act of running people down would be dangerous.Finally the gun issue, how about guns aren't dangerous since alone they can't do bad, and people with gun's can be dangerous because when they make the act to fire the weapon they are performing an action that can harm.I'll reiterate because that seemed cloudy to me, the act of firing the weapon is dangerous. Not the weapon it's self, or the person with it who may or may not use it.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Of course guns are dangerous, they were designed to kill, its a weapon.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Yes guns are dangerous because they can kill people and animals.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Hmmm? Well, I suppose it's pretty dangerous to shoot yourself in the head... so, I'lll go with yes! Final answer.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

How absolutely delusional is it that 50% tried to say guns aren't dangerous. They're guns! That the point. For it against them it's the entire purpose of guns.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Guns are the most effective weapon designed today. Nothing kills better than a gun. If something did, we'd buy 5 million of those every year instead of guns.(guns are also awesome)
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Of course guns are dangerous they where designed to kill, the danger may be lessened if the person is trained but that won't change the fact that they are holding a dangerous weapon that could kill someone. They are especially dangerous when in the wrong hands of someone say... A murderer.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

guns are dangerous even though people never listen to the law there will be less
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Guns help stimulate the "easy" feeling if the person ever wanted to do something. I known guns literally don't hurt people but they attract many eyes and people want to shoot something with it. Naturally if your going to rob your local gas station would you use a knife or a gun? Typically the person would take the gun(if they could get their hands on one). It just makes the situation worse. I mean all object can be considered dangerous but if you have a gun in the selection of objects to use then most likely the gun will be chosen.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Yes, because saying guns are only dangerous unless people leave them alone (which is a really optimistic view of human nature) is like saying fire isn't dangerous as long as people don't touch them. Objects are still dangerous, whether they're used or not.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

They have the ability to kill a person if not handled with care.If guns were not dangerous would you give it to a two year old child,no! because people know that they are dangerous
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

the guns we protect so much what is used in war?, guns what is used as aself defence weapon in most cases where there is a loss of a life, so guns have the power to protect and harm
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Press trigger, kill. Dangerous enough, mainly if you don't know what you're doing with it: i.e. small child. It isn't all about intent for something to be dangerous.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

With the pull of a trigger on a gun, you can kill a human being. Therefore, guns are dangerous. I rest my case.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

It depends on who the operator is, and what pro actions they are taking. Yes guns shoot out bullets that can kill, but people with guns don't just go around shooting trees on the side of the road, this is why there are laws, making licensed gun owners keep their firearms away from the public view.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Guns will always be dangerous. The responsiblity of the person holding it is what really concludes that answer.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

yes, because it is dangerous and specially to the children, they want to use them without knowing about that things, so it is dangerous to us.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

So many people are killed by guns. Children can get their hands on a gun inside the home. The gun violence in America is atrocious. Yes, guns are dangerous.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Guns are more dangerous than a rattlesnake. Guns and violence go together.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

As a father of two small boys I've come to the sobering realization that perhaps the best gage for whether or not something is dangerous is whether or not you'd leave it alone in a room with an unsupervised 4 year old.Tall untethered furniture, like Ikea book cases and dressers, are dangerous.Cups of piping hot coffee are dangerous.Anything long and pointy is dangerous.And yes sir, guns are dangerous, too.But, it's of worth noting, if there is proper supervision present, or the dangerous item is rendered safely unusable by the 4 year old (like the gun is locked in a safety cabinet) then although they may be dangerous there is no necessity to completely remove them.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

guns are dangerous they can kill peopleaaaaa a a a a a a a a a aaa a a a a a a aa aa aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a a a a a a
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

guns dont kill people. People kill people, the guns dont float around and randomly kill people, a person has to do that.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Ah, yes, but guns give people the power to kill other people
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

So do knives and cars for that matter. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cf0MO55kMsIhttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

And Knives and Cars are also dangerous even in well trained experienced hands
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Knives can be plenty dangerous is the hands of anyone who is detergent to kill you. Cars too in fact with cars all that is required is negligence.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

Thus those things are also dangerous. Where not talking about politics, simply things that are dangerous which is significant knowledge in politics if we were talking about That as well. You even just explained how cars are dangerous even with out the intent of using them to hurt anyone.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

Okay the point I am trying to make but keep getting sidetracked is that a gun by its self with no one touching it is not dangerous a gun is not going to pull its own trigger and kill you someone has to pick it up and load it (if not loaded already) and either cock the hammer, work the slide, or charge the bolt depending on the design of the fire arm then aim it at you in order for it to present a threat to you.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

I understand what you are saying, guns by themselves aren't dangerous. They don't have a mind of their own, but guns in general are dangerous. Gun are dangerous for people, because people can use them to kill each other with, if guns never existed dangerous people wouldn't be as dangerous. If someone spills a dangerous chemical on the ground, the chemical isn't dangerous because it is only dangerous to people stupid enough to intentionally or accidentally touched it. Therefore it is not dangerous on its own right?
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

The debate is are guns dangerous not do guns make people more dangerous. If it was your point here would be valid. But the debate is are guns dangerous and the fact is guns by themselves are not dangerous
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

The debate also isnt "are guns dangerous on their own?" Either though. If something is dangerous for people to have, they are dangerous. The deadly chemical on the ground alone by itself isn't dangerous only to people who aren't weary of the chemical, but when we ask "if the chemical is dangerous to be there?" We say yes even though the doesn't have a mind of its own, because the question is general, therefore the answer needs to be general. Now if we specify "is the chemical dangerous to unweary people, or people stupid enough to touch it?" We say yes again. If we ask "is the chemical on its own a dangerous thing?" The correct answer would be no. The fact that guns are dangerous in the wrong hands is what makes guns themselves dangerous. With your logic atom bombs aren't dangerous at all because on their own they can't do anything.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: no

These are all things humans need to use in order for them to be dangerous okay. Venomous snakes are dangerous black widows and brown recluses are dangerous because they will kill you. A gun is not dangerous because a gun cannot kill you a person has to do that.
Debate: Are guns dangerous
Side: yes

You missed my point and are sidetracking from it. I was saying that unless the question "are guns dangerous?" Is specified to ask if they are dangerous on their own or not, and they are generally used to harm (whether in self defense or unjustified offense) they are generally dangerous. If the question was "are guns dangerous on there own?" Your point would be valid.