azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

what if its the shooter that gets shot first?Who'd shoot the shooter? A person who was carrying their gun in the no gun zone, that person would then be, the shooter, and the issue starts over.what are the oddsIt was just a hypothetical, but then there's the issue of one shooter, versus tons of 'heroes'. All the vigilantes trying to shoot that one shooter, and the one shooter not caring about any life just killing, while all the vigilantes are trying to kill one person, not caring who gets in their way, and not caring about the paperwork they'll have to take care of after killing any number of people to get to the shooter. Then the police finally show, and they now don't know who's the shooter and who's a vigilante.Besides you never answered my question about security in privately owned facility's.I'll address that after this, in a clarification, sorry. I've said idd rather the teachers be armed and trainedThis is a brand new element that I'm perfectly in favor of. I'd much rather trained personnel with guns that random Joes. But it would ware thin on meWould it wear thin with the first scenario, up above, that I mentioned? potentially getting shot by a hero with a gunBy that I mean, the hero with a gun is the guy trying to fire at the criminal with a gun, and misses.Or where you calling mass shooters heroes? I hope not.Xd, hell no.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Many gun owners often train extensively with their firearms the scene you described is not likely. Most gun owners are pretty damn accurate otherwise what's the point of buying the gun in the first place. Here's how it would play out gun man walks in, gunman pulls gun, Guzman shots 1 person, gunman gets lite up like the New York Christmas tree by 3 well practiced concealed carrying citizens.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

"Most security for places already have weapons. The local high school near where I live have two armed officers."So, how do you prevent the security guards from snapping and shooting the people they're intended to protect? Something like Police Brutality.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

And how will you ensure that every "gun free zone" has these measures in place? (tie in to my last question)I do not have to, the business owners would have their security that already work there trained to do so.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Okay that is if they have security of course there will be those who will think all this is unnessisary and not implement it then we are back at square one. I mean you could put government guards in there but that would be a logistical nightmare that would require you to know where every "gun free zone" in the nation is located and a massive tax hike (potential political suicide) so privet security is impossible to enforce and government security would be a complete nightmare to implement and likely result in an utter cock up. Check mate thanks for playing.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Interestingly Warrior is Anti Gay Marriage and Anti Abortion but hates the thought of Gun Restrictions being in place because that would be restricting his rights.He wants to suppress the rights of others whilst keeping his.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

This goes beyond just the constitutional right to bare arms (neither gay marriage nor abortion are mentioned in the bill or rights therefor they are not rights) its about safety. Safety that won't require more taxes of wire tapping an wont require good honest citizens to be disarmed.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Abortion and Gay marriage might not be mentioned specifically but there is mention of all people being treated equally so not treating Homosexuals and Heterosexuals equally is denying them their constitutional rights, womens right to vote is not specifically mentioned in the constitution would you take that away from them? Also you think teachers need to be armed as opposed to armed guards at schools but what about teachers who dont want to be armed? Would you take away their right to choose and insist that they are armed to make life "safer"
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

To your first question it is not a right for heterosexual couples to get married its just an excepted practice and NPR is it a right for homosexuals to bet married. Secondly if a teacher dose not want to be armed so se can defend her students then I purpose an armed security guard be hired for just her class and a portion of his salary be cut from the teachers salary since she forced the school (and subsequently the tax payers) to pay for this particular expense so she can shoulder some of the burden.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Heterosexual marriage is legally recognised, Homosexual marriage is not ergo Homosexuals are not being treated equally to Heterosexuals which is unconstitutional.You think that teachers should help pay for an armed guard if they do not want to be armed, so another persons rights you would trample over. How about we make gun owners pay the medical bills and funerals of everyone who is injured or killed when a gun is used irresponsibly or illegally?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

My reason for making the teacher pay for the guard is because the guard was hired as a direct consequence of her decision. How dose me bieing a gun owner make me directly responsible for every death by firearm? It best to avoid strawman arguments they make you look stupid. And the bill of rights says nothing about unequal treatment being unconstitutional (remember slavery was legal back when it was wrighten) the preamble dose but that's not where our rights are listed nice try though.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

The Constitution says every man should be treated equally just because that was ignored for many years doesn't mean the Hypocrisy has to continue, if it does it makes the whole thing worthless.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Why have you strayed so far from the topic of this debate???????
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

I was trying to show Warrior that his rights as Gun owner should not suoercede those of other people, according to him the only rights Americans are allowed are those that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution so Gun ownership is a yes but equal rights for others is a no.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The bill of rights is the document that lists the rights American citizens have. If its not in there it's not a right plain and simple.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

This is getting interesting but I think I've taken this debate too far off topic I will create a new one where the rights of American Citizens and ammendments to the bill and wether they are good or bad can be debated.I apologise for taking this debate so far off topic
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

You are wrong. Even if it is not listed, it is a right. Healthcare is a right and it is not listed.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

My thought exactly. Ashman stay on topic. This debate has nothing do with gay marriage and the fact that the bill of rights says nothing about it. The topic is should we abolish gun free zones
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Could you please quote and specify where in the constitution it says that all people must be treated equally? I've read it numerous times and have never found such a phrase.Furthermore, marriage is not a constitutional right, it is a legal privilege.Women's right to vote actually IS specified in the constitution, because until it was, they were not permitted such a privilege. I think you need to go back to your US history class.As for teachers needing to be armed. I posit to them this choice. Either be armed, trained, and willing to defend their students, or not be hired in the first place. They have the right to choose to accept the job, with all the conditions enumerated, or to decline and find some other job. They do not however, have a right to have that job, particularly if they disagree with the enumerated conditions.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

14th ammendment equality clause and the original constitution as written by the founders states that all men are created equally with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that was from a quick google search. I think your the one who needs to go back to class.Please point out to me where in a teachers contract it says they must be armed also new contracts could only apply to new teachers what about the ones already employed who are opposed to being armed, you cant sack them because that would be unfair dismissal.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

lol?The Original Constitution says that? What original? You mean the Articles of Confederation? I'm pretty sure they don't. And if you mean the US Constitution, you are just as equally incorrect. Don't try to lecture me on the US Constitution, I have a copy of it right right next to me on my Desk.You are absolutely ignorant if you think the Constitution said that, and proved it when you state so matter-of-factly that you used google to find this out. The Document that actually says that is "The Declaration of Independence," Which I also have a copy of on my desk.The 14th amendment furthermore also states nothing of the sort relating to equal treatment, and you would know that if you had actually read what it says. It simply states that all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens and afforded equal PROTECTION by the law and shall not have such protections abridged. That's not equal treatment.So, you still haven't answered my question. I asked specifically where in the Constitution is states that "all people must be TREATED equally."Being treated equally and being created equally, are two very different things. As is being treated equally and having equal protection under the law, and if you don't understand that, I'm afraid you might need to go back to English class.As for teachers contract, I can point to no such thing, because we were discussing a hypothetical situation, not actual reality. However, in My State, we have "right to work" protection, which means either party of the job contract can sever the contract at any time for whatever reason they desire. There's no such thing as unfair dismissal.In the hypothetical situation we are discussing, and in real life of course, all parties under contract would have provisions made into their contract stating that new policies would require a re-negotiation of the contract. So, obviously, when the school changes their policies, they offer the teachers re-negotiation under a new contract, otherwise if they disagreed with the new contract after negotiation, they would be free to leave employment.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Apologies, I see now that you're from the UK, so I can't expect you to have as capable an understanding of the US Constitution as an American Citizen should. I'm sorry for the mistake. However, my point still stands.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Accepted now you understand my reliance on the internet on some things and I apologise for my sarcastic response below.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Equal treatment under law how does that not mean not having equal rights or not being treated equally, please explain as I am obviously of a lower intellect as you
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Equal Protection, PROTECTION, under the law. Not equal treatment. That's the difference.Equal protection means that the laws are not unfavorably skewed to exclude you. What is critical to understand about the US Constitution is that it is intended to protect the natural rights inherently attributed to all people in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and property (the pursuit of happiness in attaining and using material goods and services).This then means, in the context of equal protection, that all citizens of the US will be equally protected in their ability to exercise these 3 rights and all others subsequent to them, without coercion or interference by government.And what is necessary to accomplish that, is to ensure these rights can not be taken away except through the due process of law, which accounts for many of the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights, forbidding from government power to cut around due process (rights of the accused), infringe on liberty (freedom of religion and speech), and remain subject to the Sovereign People (right to bear arms)Equal protection then means that the due process of law shall not be altered for any party, nor shall the natural liberties people enjoy be infringed. In historical context, the 14th amendment came about because certain states were intentionally making requirements to vote which the newly freed previously enslaved negro could not possibly meet, such as high taxes and literacy tests. Thus denying them of their right as a citizen to vote, without due process. The negro was guilty of nothing but being different, and yet being denied their rights, hence, equal protection of rights granted by the 14th.Equal TREATMENT on the other hand, as you seemed to imply earlier, was to be mandated for everyone to practice. Everyone must be treated the same and granted the exact same things. No one can own more property than another, groups can not be taxed at different rates, subsidies must apply to all industries and all businesses in those industries, females must be able to work all jobs men can work, bathrooms can not discriminate by gender, all people must have a driver's license, etc. stuff like that.The example you used: gay marriage (ignoring the complete misnomer there):You said it is not equal treatment to prevent gays from being married.Besides the fact that marriage is not a right in the first place and thereby not subject to equal protection, it already applies equally to all citizens:Any unmarried male is permitted to marry any unmarried female, not too closely related by blood, or outside of statutory age limits, and any unmarried female is permitted to marry any unmarried male, within those same restrictions.This does not prohibit gays from marrying at all. Any gay is perfectly legally permitted to marry any member of their opposite gender, just as equally as straight men and women are. The law makes no exceptions except statute age, blood relation, and current marital status. Blacks, whites, gays, straights, men, women, etc, they're all free to marry their opposite gender.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

It is obvious to me now that I was causing confusion with my choice of words, I meant equal rights by treatment I meant no one should be getting preferential treatment due to gender, sexuality, colour etc, I didn't mean everyone should use the same kazy and no one should be allowed to own more stuff than another, what do you think I am some kinda Commie? :)
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Democrat Liberal Socialist actually, based upon your views for gun control, gay "marital" unions, and your choice of words. As well as your complete ignorance of the US Constitution :PYes, I came to the realization that this might have been a misunderstanding as I tried to explain the differences. Yes, the US Constitution affords equal rights to every natural born, or naturalized citizen, and as such, they are treated equally under the law (or supposed to be anyway).Some laws are unfair, however, the majority of them don't explicitly infringe on the natural rights of We the People, so they're perfectly acceptable legally. Anything that is a legal benefit is not a right however, and does not apply under equal application, protection, or treatment of the law.But, perhaps we should get back to gun control now...More guns = less crime. :)
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

The more i've pondered guns I can see that would be impossible to ban Guns in America and I am not totally anti guns but I do believe there should be stricter laws on ownership/background checks or the existing ones should be made stricter or be better enforced but if people are refused a gun they should be given the reasons why and be able to appeal. This might hopefully keep legal weapons out of the hands of idiots and the dangerous and prevent school shootings at least those done by the owners of legal weapons.I think the way to get workable laws in place is if sensible gun owners helped with coming up with sensible laws instead of knee jerk opposition to anything that anyone suggests and to be honest some of the idiots speaking up in defence of guns dont help the gun owners cause, one of the best things the NRA did was cut its ties with Ted Nugent but some of the stuff he was coming out with just made him look like a loon, to an outsider you see that and think if thats the best person they could come up with for a spokesperson the rest must be really nuts.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I should certainly hope it would be possible, but I'm not going to put anything past these anti-gun proponents, because they are not going to stop if they aren't made to. To them, everything is a step towards total prohibition and confiscation of all guns. Once they have this step, because it obviously won't work, they'll demand another step, more restrictive than the last, and then another, until ultimately guns are banned entirely, gun production is relegated solely to the military, and every loose gun in the hands of a civilian that can be found is confiscated (or "bought" by the government). Because the ultimate goal here is power, and control, through government, over the people. Some of the lesser proponents might just be misguided or brainwashed into thinking it'll be good for reducing crime, but the ones with legislative power working for gun control, are in it for the control. That's all government has ever been about and will ever be since it's formation, more and more control, until it has absolute control. That is why We are explicitly granted the protection from infringement on gun possession by the second amendment. Once a nation is disarmed, it is only a matter of time before they will be ruled by a supreme dictator and an unmatchable army.The only gun control I would support would be mandatory gun training, and prohibition for felons and the clinically insane.Background checks won't help much, because no known criminal would attempt to acquire a gun legally (they would either steal someone else's legally acquired gun, or buy off a black market), and most spontaneous gun crime is committed by people who have not not committed a previous offense.Sensible laws according to whom? IMO, anything that even remotely infringes on my right to own, and carry on my person (keep and bear), any arm of military strength (militia required for a free state) is unconstitutional, and should therefore be stopped. We've already made numerous concessions to the anti-gun crowd, concessions that ought not to be made, and yet they keep requiring more and more. We know what they're trying for (to completely disarm us), IMO, it's time to refuse to compromise any further the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

There is too much gun violence in America. I wish guns were banned.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Of course not! Generally, it should ban the sale of guns to the population! Because so many cases of mass murder. The most recent occurred in Belgorod, where 10 people were killed.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

It's hard to commit a mass shooting when people shoot back. All shootings in the US occur in "gun free zones" this shows us two things 1."gun free zones" are ineffective 2. Psychos target "gun free zones" it's like a hunting ground for them.
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: Yes, we should be taxed.

I think we should be taxed in order to provide support for the government. Our money supports things such as caring for the elderly, providing public education, protecting the environment, and other basic necessities like safe food and water. Taxes help the government work effectively on solving social issues, and creating justice and economic security, so I think they are beneficial. http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: Yes, we should be taxed.

I agree because without taxation the government wouldn’t be able to pay for the necessities within a community like roads, mail, firefighters, police, schools, etc. As long as there is appropriate representation behind our tax dollars, it is necessary. Though I support less taxes, there is a need for them.
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: Yes, we should be taxed.

When we pay taxes, we are ensuring a safer environment in which we live. Our tax money goes to our society to better it, such as paving roads, building government facilities, and paying salaries of police officers and firefighters.
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: Yes, we should be taxed.

In my opinion, taxes are very necessary. The rate of taxes could be debated, but I think their existence is a "must." Metro times describes all the things taxes are used to build and support. The source says, "Taxes pay people to build pipes to carry our poop away and pay people to carry our garbage away." Taxes also pay for roads, schools, police, etc. Taxes certainly seem like a burden, but without them, I think we would finally recognize their significance. Article supporting: https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/why-taxes-are-a-good-thing/Content?oid=2174958
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: Yes, we should be taxed.

Although taxes seem pointless and most Americans believe we shouldn’t have them, they actually are necessary. Without taxes, we wouldn’t have roads to drive on, and taxes pay for major health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, social security, and defense/security. The social security system provides retirement and disability benefits. Taxes also pay for unemployment insurance, food stamps, low-income housing assistance, and programs for abused and neglected children. Taxes help people more than they hurt them, and I believe they should stay. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/how-are-federal-taxes-spent/L6kinGuUt
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: Yes, we should be taxed.

We should be taxed because that’s how we can pay our military, police, firefighters, etc. these are the people saving our lives on a daily basis. If they don’t get paid then there’s nobody to save us if something happens. Supporting evidence: https://wonderopolis.org/wonder/why-do-you-have-to-pay-taxes
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: Yes, we should be taxed.

We need to pay taxes so we can receive funding for public schools. Studies show that additional school funding improves academic performance and increases the income earned by students as adults. Paying taxes now will allow us to have a more successful future. Supporting Evidence: http://www.massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=Building-a-Strong- Economy-The-Roles-of-Education-Transportation-and-Tax-Policy.html
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: No, keep money earned.

This is a good reason to pay taxes but what you are saying is just state taxes that I am fine with paying but federal taxes are not needed in paying.
Debate: Should we be taxed to help society? Or, keep the money we earn?
Side: Yes, we should be taxed.

Taxes are a good idea because they help put roads on the map, skyscrapers in the cities, and keep a stable increase in economic growth in society. if taxed were taken away who would clean up the roads of all the potholes, who would clean up the city’s the towns after major storms, who would make the houses that families of the future need. we do get a portion of the money back anyway when you file for taxes, so you are getting money back.