azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Mean doggies

Au contraire, dogs are highly protective and far more likely to rip your gizzard out. When was the last time you heard a news story about a cat tearing out someone's throat? Unless it was a Bengal tiger, probably never.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: ofcourse I'm kidding

the reason that you rarely see a cat on the news for attacking someone is because no one wants to admit that they got their ass kicked by some puss...., eh...., cat!
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Hahaha. Although it is true that you rarely see a cat on the news for attacking someone, I think that dogs are given wrongful publicity that they don't deserve. Dogs are great pets that are greatfull for your company and know where there limits are once they are trained and they learn very quickly. Dogs aren't bad, they are just trained by bad people. But CATS are bad no matter who trains them. They are never grateful to see you and they stick their tails up in a stuck up manner. They act like rich preppy white girls.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Loving kitties

You've probably never met a cat that likes you if you think that cats don't show their affection and appreciation. And you're sorely mistake if you think cats can be trained by anyone.Of course, the problem may be that you may not 'speak' cat. You have to understand their body language. They lack the facial capability to 'smile' like dogs seem to. But once you learn their language, they indicate very clearly what and who they like. For example, a cat who loves you may do something like bring you 'gifts' such as the innards of a recent kill. A dog only brings you something if you throw it... stupid dog if you meant to get rid of that thing! LOL
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Hahaha. Possibly. But like this still doesn't say whether or not it rains cats or dogs! Hahaha. And since dogs slobber and, as far as my knowledge goes, cats do not, then it rains dogs!
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: raining animals

Older cats--those over 10--often slobber. They tend to leak from their eyes, nose, and mouth. It's pretty gross, but at least you can still pet 'em without getting it all over you... unlike a mutt.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Um. . . really? Wow. . . that's creepy. I'd be freaked out by that! hahaha! And you can pet dogs without getting slobber all over you. xD just some get over excited and jerk their head so that they can wipe it on your hand. hahaha.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

Have you even housed a cat?? Do you know what it's like? I own two cats, and happen to know VERY well that cats are loving, beautiful creatures! They are VERY trusting, and you don't seem to be a cat person, so of COURSE they don't like you! One incident with a cat, and you all say, "Oh NO! Cats are EVIL!" And if they are meeting you for the first time, OF COURSE they'll probably bite! They don't know if you are a threat to them or the household! Take a look at the link: read it! Now TELL me cats are evil creatures!!
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

That may well be your opinion, but to cat supporters, that is really not a great thing to say.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: raining animals

Doggies all the way for me! <3
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

cats all the way for me
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

listen here cats are better becuase they dont brake furniture i have 10 cats ok cats are better what now
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

wow, 10 cats...go out much?;) anywho, dogs are better, thats what's now
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

what are you talking about? cats claw your sofas up... dogs dont break furniture. you have to train them. only big dogs break furniture, but most people put big dogs outide.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

Dogs break furniture more often than a cat will scratch furniture. Yes, cats will scratch furniture, but if it does that you can get it declawed or keep it out of the room the furniture is in. With the door bell ringing, Sparky the Labrador races down the hallways, knocks over a vase, and assaults the visitor with a mouthful of "Woof!" You cannot do anything about the dog knocking something over, and unlike cats' scratching furniture, it cannot be dealt with.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Dogs rock. They are loyal, friendly, and playful. They are smart, and cute, and loving beyond belief. I have rarely met a dog I didn't like, and I've rarely met a cat I did.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: dogs are better companions

Dogs are social animals like humans, cats, though they are domestic, are not social animals. This is why cats are more independent. They don't bond to humans and understand humans as well as a dog would. Cats won't protect you either, dogs will. I'm not saying that all cats are like that, and all dogs, it varies but that's how they are genetically. Cats don't have packs like dogs. It's just evolution I suppose. Dogs are better as companions than cats. I think that's the main reason to have a pet anymore. Cats are good for hunting rodents though... I guess it depends on what you need a pet for.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

dogs are more sociable;like humans, they are or atleast were pack animals, they're loyal, smarter than cats, more responsive, loving, will fight for you, come in more of a vareity of choices and dont just come to you for food or rub against you to put their scent on you. plus, dogs would smash cats in a fight-1 dogo argetino or irish wolfhound is equivalent to forty, fifty cats maybe? (in a fight)
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

I have both but dogs a trainable, they can save people's lives, be a best friend, a guid and heroes all in one furry package they are amazing with the right care, love and traing.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

hey! I know there's alot of athiests out there, people that arent strong in their faith, or people who are just wondering about christianity! visit my debate. its called "Join the Christian Society". I hope to see you there! :)
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Dogs come in hundreds of purebred breeds and thousands of hybrids between breeds. Dogs vary from size, color, fur length, amount of attention, personality, trainability, and can be used for different things (guard dog, sleddog, police dog, etc). cats vary from color. Not all dogs need alot of attention. My friend has a st bernard, and he barely looks at it. on the other hand, i have beagles and they need alot of attention (but t hey're tiny and cute and easy to take care of). My friend has a poodle and she needs to trim it weekly. another friend has a boxer and it has never been trimmed. My friend has a lab and hardly excercises it, while another friend with the same breed of dog needs to run 17 miles every 3 days (so there are varying personalities and traits within a breed). ok- lets say you loved huskies, but you also loved a collie. so, mix breed them, and you have half husky and half collie in a single dog (you can mix traits, etc) not all dogs attack people, not all dogs drool, and not all dogs bark. So stop generalizing dogs.Cats just sit. sure, they purr if you pet them, but most of the time you get your hand clawed for rubbing them wrong. they arent affectionate to you. you cant train them. In a dogs mind: "my owner, you feed me, you love me, you care for me... You must be God"in a cats mind: "my owner, you feed me, you love me, you care for me.... I must be God"
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

dogs if you love peting takeing care of and being arond you all the time and you can use them in hunting they are smarter so D O G S
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Cats don't listen and they are so darn independent it's like you don't even have a pet.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

yeah, you get a cat and you never see it as soon as it gets in your house.you get a dog and it stays attached to you and loves being around you.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

You've obviously never owned a cat. They become just as attached to you as dogs do.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

the only reason they wait for you to come home is so that they can get food, only to look down upon with disgust.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

you probably never had a dog your not very smart a dog likes going for walks, playing and having fun a cat is usually an independent and lazy animal.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

You've probably never had an education judging from your horrible punctuation. A cat is a loving, faithful friend that will be with you until the day you die. Cats love to sleep with you if they are indoor cats, an example of their kindness. Dogs like to go for walks, but not all people do! If it's -24 C outside, it's a snowstorm and Rover's scratching the door, you have to go out there whether you like it or not. What if the dog is picky and takes close to half an hour to find a spot? Nobody likes that. Oh, and guess what? Cats love to play and have fun too! Cats fetch, cats play with flashlights, cats play with little items, cats run around, the list goes on. Something tells me you've never had a cat in your life judging from your comment, as you know as much about cats as you do meteorology.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Dogs like being scratched. They enjoy you as a master as much as you enjoy them as a pet. They are, mostly, up beat and happy to see you whenever you come home.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: ofcourse I'm kidding

I think that it actually rains Michael Jackson's baby. [;
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

as a pet owner, I support both claims. however, my cat seems to annoy me MUCH more than my dogs. my cat will come in my room at night, nock everything over, and claw it to bits. but my dogs, are AWSOME!!! we go on runs together, eat popcorn together, and watch scary movies together. I am not sayin I don't love my cat, I love her a lot,... but when put to choice? I vote for team CANINE!!!
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

dogs are awesome because they can bite really hard and cats only scratch
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

We all love an animal that can rip your flesh off and can cost your hundreds in the case of lawsuit, right?
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

dogs are to be chosen because they protect man.they are also good and kind
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Cats are just better. You really can't argue with that. Dogs aren't cute. If you put a kitten and a puppy side to side, you'll see how much cute cats are.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

cats are scary. they hate people in general. look down upon anything and everything. dogs are.. well, dogs!
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Cats

Cats are good judges of character. Ther is a reason they hate you.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

I like doggies because of those precious eyes just looking at you to pick them up and love them.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

dogs have not only contributed to man's success, but are used as therapy animals due to their never ending love and devotion. dogs have saved people so many times and are protective animals.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

well i like dogs better because they are more active and they do more things than cats do ,cats are more of the lazy and dogs are not that lazy they like to play a lot with the people.
Debate: Cats or Dogs?
Side: Dogs

Cats are monsters they kill native birds and bring rats in your house after killing them. But dogs are hero's I have seen videos of dogs saving there owners life just go on YouTube and see them yourself!Also dogs are more playful and they love there owners they play with you and lick you with means they love you
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Causing children to use guns is a crime Hello A:I don't quite understand "cause" in this context. But, no matter how you interpret it, it isn't a crime. It may not be good parenting, but that's not the question. If "cause" means allowing children, at ANY age to shoot a gun, it isn't a good idea. 3 year olds don't quite understand the permanence of death. But, I would support a law that specifies a minimum age somewhere over 3. Maybe way over 3. I was raised in the west and it wasn't unusual at all for me to shoot. When I was 7, I won a Daisy BB gun in a drawing. I plunked at tin cans. At 10, I had a .22, and plunked at NRA targets. With all that plunking, I became a crack shot, and won a Distinguished Rifle medal years later in the Navy. exconPS> Hey nomshit, or developing, or juice fuck.. Come on down! You ain´t hiding from nobody.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

I would support a law that specifies a minimum age somewhere over 3Yes, that's exactly what America needs. Pre-schoolers armed with rifles. Good call. I can see you're a smart one.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Yeah. He probably has carcasses in a woodshop or something.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

IMO the American gun culture has reached epic levels of stupidity. Anytime there's a shooting, instead of wanting to disarm the shooter, the main idea seems to be to arm everybody else.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Is it a crime to cause children to use a gun ?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

I don't really understand your question. What do you mean by "cause"? If you're asking if I think I'm at fault if I call a kid fat and he shoots me in the face, then no. If I'm murdering his friend and I catch a bullet, then sure. There's a big problem in life when we start holding other people responsible for our own decisions. I believe that children should hold diminished levels of responsibility for their decisions in comparison to adults, but that's not to say I approve of children shooting people for trivial reasons.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

I worded the title after a separate debate by the same name was closed.We do need to hold individuals responsible, individually. That's why it's a complex matter to get the guns out of the hands of shooters without taking them from law abiding gun owners. As a child, I used a gun often.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

That's why it's a complex matter to get the guns out of the hands of shooters without taking them from law abiding gun owners.No, that isn't complex at all, because if guns are banned, then gun owners cease to be law abiding. You can't use flawed laws as a defence against propositions to change those laws because that's circular reasoning.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

You can't use flawed laws as a defence against propositions to change those laws because that's circular reasoning.That's not what I did, but if I had it wouldn't be an example of circular reasoning. I was referring to getting guns out of the hands of criminals while leaving innocent people alone. Declaring those people future criminals to justify the law that will criminalize them actually is circular reasoning.A gun ban is illegal. It's against the supreme law of the land. Banning guns is therefore already criminal.You can't characterize good laws as flawed to justify flawed laws. It's not circular reasoning, but it is relying on a false premise. You said individuals should be held responsible for their actions. Now you're suggesting criminalizing individuals who have done nothing wrong. Your internal contradictions need to be addressed.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

That's not what I didThat's exactly what you did. You tried to use the phrase "law-abiding gun owners" as a reason why we can't disarm ordinary people. If we lived in a pre-industrialized society where rape was legal, but certain rapists were murdering their victims afterwards, you could use the precise same fallacy and argue, "Well, we can't very well punish all the law-abiding rapists". A gun ban is illegal.You're doing the exact same thing. Using the law as an excuse for why we can't amend the law is circular reasoning.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

You're future criminalizing law abiding citizens as cause for creating the law that would criminalize them. That's circular reasoning and it's not what I did. I wasn't even discussing gun bans when I suggested that penalizing criminals and not law abiding citizens is complex in this context. That post was in keeping with your statement that individuals should be held accountable for their own actions, not those of others. You abandoned that notion as soon as it failed to meet your wants. Of course 2A can be amended, through the amendment process. There is 0 political will for such. The result is that a gun ban is illegal and will remain so for the foreseeable future. That's logically linear and factual.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

You're future criminalizing law abiding citizensLol. What? If we make something illegal and you do it anyway, you're not a law abiding citizen. You're a criminal. That's how the law works you buffoon. That's how the law has always worked. Your ridiculous circular argument can be applied to any one of a hundred different examples to illustrate how stupid it is, including 18th century slave-owners. Oh noes! We can't make slavery illegal because that will "future criminalize law abiding citizens". Lol. Shut up.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

That proposed criminalization is holding law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of law breakers. When I pointed that out, you said they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. That's a circular argument justifying the proposed law. Those people ARE law abiding citizens. You can't point to future criminalization as a defense for the proposed law. This is very obvious. Get off this fallacy so we can proceed.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

That proposed criminalization is holding law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of law breakers.You are ignoring the responses to your illegible arguments and repeating the same illegible arguments. This is irrational and it demonstrates that when your beliefs are refuted, you will simply try to push them through with brute force. A person who does something which is against the law is not a law abiding citizen. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained to you, but apparently at least three. If I outlaw slavery, you are no longer a law abiding citizen if you have slaves in your shed. Understand?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Gun ownership is not against the law. Gun owners aren't criminals. Your gun ban is not in effect. It never will be.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

As a child, I used a gun often.Yes, you seem the type. And let me guess: you kept a wide range of animal carcasses in your woodshed, correct?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

No I ate them. Wtf? .
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

This one is a simple mathematical equation.The more guns there are in circulation the higher the instances of willful and accidental shootings, many of which will result in death. Responsible parents will know that it is dangerous to let children play with matches and criminally negligent to permit them to have access to firearms.Those who have guns and young children in their homes should unload their weapons and keep them under lock and key, the children that is.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

I played with matches quite a bit too. .
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Well, being allowed to play with matches as a child would be commensurate with the irresponsible parenthood we would expect from a brain damaged diseased whore who still hasn't figured out who your da is. ''Now son, there's a box of matches, go and play with those on the Freeway''.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Below what age is a person a child. ?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Well, you obviously haven't reached that stage in you mental development, and I doubt you ever will.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

I asked for an age, not a stage. Oh I see, you can't be a supreme person because you weren't even allowed to handle matches until you were legal to vote.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Lol all this attention because I said racial supremacists are the least supreme examples of their race, and you (for some reason) took it personally. Norwich thought I was limping him with racial supremacists for no other reason than he is the least supreme kind of person.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

You're way off on a tangent, lets not entangle topics, I have sufficient difficulty dealing with debate subjects separately.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

You're talking about whores and matches, but you think I'm off topic?Make a list of the things you have sufficient difficulty with.(This will keep him off my back for days)
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Not allowing children to play with matches is a safety issue in the same vein as keeping them away from firearms.As your input on this forum is adversely affected as a consequence of your mental faculties being severely impaired by the venereal disease you contracted from your whore mother at birth reference to her profession is wholly applicable.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Children should be given matches and guns and showed how to use them. Children are allowed to hunt alone in all 50 states.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

It is a crime to enslave child soldiers. That's an absolute fact. You wonder why I have closed debates? Because it is to prevent snowflakes from spreading lies. Sucks for them.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

When my daughter is old enough, while still a child, I will certainly cause her to use a gun.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

When my daughter is old enough, while still a child, I will certainly cause her to use a gun.Which will statistically increase her chances of committing suicide by 300 percent.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Which will statistically increase her chances of committing suicide by 300 percent.So will coming out as a transexual, but you support it with a massive woody. What?
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

So will coming out as a transexual, but you support it with a massive woodyNumber one, don't pull fake statistics out of your ass pipe.Number two, don't tell me what I do or don't support.
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

Your 300% is a fake statistic. It's actually higher. .
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

Your 300% is a fake statistic.Wrong.Gun access triples suicide risk.https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-violence-statistics/
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Um, no it's not

A 300 percent increase of a miniscule number is still a miniscule number
Debate: Causing children to use guns is a crime
Side: Yeah

A 300 percent increase of a miniscule number is still a miniscule numberWait a second. Are you telling us that you would intentionally increase your daughter's chance of killing herself by 300 percent? Wow. I'm truly thankful I don't have you as a father.Also you, several hours ago:-The vast majority of gun deaths are suicidesYou change your beliefs like the wind changes direction it seems. You're a truly insincere and -- given what you are prepared to do to your own daughter --- dangerous individual.