azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

The deaths of 30,000 souls to guns is equally horrendous as the countless victims of stabbings, dog attacks, reckless drivers or medical errors.Intentional shootings should not be compared to unintentional car or medical accidents because intentional shootings can be avoided very easily (by banning guns), whereas accidents can't be avoided very easily. That is precisely why they call them accidents! Nobody foresees them. Even in the case of knives and dog attacks, you are discussing things which have to be abused in order to be used as weapons. Knives are not there to stab people with. Guns however, are designed for the solitary purpose of being used as weapons.Taking reasonable steps to limit human suffering and deaths is importantSo why are you arguing with me? My ability to defend myself from unforeseen threats is important to me and my family or even a stranger such as yourself.This is another mindlessly generic pro-gun argument built on completely false (i.e. upside down) logic. You do not "defend" by attacking someone else. Weapons are there to attack other people with. They don't prevent you from taking damage or make you invincible and therefore they are not for protection or defence. They are for the sole purpose of seriously injuring others. You have literally redefined the meaning of the word "weapon" so that it means the complete opposite of what a weapon actually is.So far, all you have done is offer up the standard false equivalences and draped your argument in the American flag.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Your government banned guns? Great, how is that working? I assume all the criminals drop the guns at the border because of the profound respect for the rule of law. I've never held a crossbow or a samurai sword or strapped a bomb on my back. If a person is wielding one of those I promise I will neutralize the threat. Incidentally, firearms are weapons for killing and providing mercy. I've never killed a rabid coyote or put down a suffering deer, but it happens. Guns do not have a soul purpose to injure. In my home state I am legally entitled to shoot to kill an intruder on my property. Unarmed, begging for his life or running away. As a deterrent or warning or to incapacitate are all viable options before lethal force is used. I certainly hope that you live a long life free of any danger from criminals or wild animals or foreign soldiers. Hypothetically, if a situation occured that being armed would give you a chance can you honestly not defend yourself?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Your government banned guns? Great, how is that working?It's working great, thanks. We have about 50-60 gun homicides a year, compared to your 10,000 or so.I assume all the criminals drop the guns at the border because of the profound respect for the rule of lawNo, they most certainly do not. However, we don't try to use this fact to voluntarily sell them the same guns we are worried they might have, because that is completely fucking stupid.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

"Completely fucking stupid" may have been the last thought of a few of those 50 people who had the only chance at surviving confiscated. Shoot, may have even killed a few wastes of life and prevent more crime. I have never aimed a gun at anyone. I do not hunt but may in the future. As a deterrent and the peace of mind I have in knowing that I am more than likely a much better shot than someone out to do harm to me is very important to me. Many of my fellow countryman fought and died to defend my freedoms. All of them. I have a sneaking suspicion that the root of your anti-gun rhetoric is because your choice has been taken from you leaving you helpless. A burglar scoping your neighborhood is not worried about you. My neighborhood does not have property crime. Every other home has a gun, guaranteed. Every once in a while you here about a dead kid trying to rob a Texan. It's like a office memo to the dumb shits they put out quarterly.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Because of a proud founding group of Americans who defeated a tyrannical government and created a document by the people for the people guaranteeing certain inalienable rights.But this is just a textbook appeal to emotion. The wording you are using is purposefully preposterous because it disguises the fact that what you are actually arguing is for us to let ancient history with no relevance to modernity govern that same modernity. Words like "proud", "American", "tyrannical" and "rights" are all just examples of language which is loaded to make us think a certain way. When you are fighting a war against an occupying power then guns are unequivocally useful, but nobody is fighting a war against an occupying power. The American people are fighting a war among themselves and 30,000 people are dying every year as a result. 30,000 unnecessary, completely preventable deaths per year trumps your loaded, patriotic appeal to a war which ended hundreds of years ago.Violence is not a result of protecting the second amendmentYou are entirely misrepresenting the point. Nobody believes guns cause violence. People believe, quite rightly, that guns facilitate violence. That is the reason they were invented in the first place. You can't change someone's intent, but you can put an upper limit on the damage that intent can do.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Dismissing the heroic victory over a tyrannical world power intent on destroying a new found freedom movement because it happened a long time ago is a stretch. Timeframe is irrelevant to the millions of Americans still celebrating the sacrifice made ensuring freedom and liberty and every god darn right we have protected by laws made hundreds of years ago to specifically stay relevant for the descendants. Can I look into that crystal ball you obviously have? No? Fine. Then I will continue to have a level headed, prepared, cautious approach to a future that I can not predict. You are coming along here...guns don't cause violence. Correct. Now repeat after me...a proficiently trained armed citizen will stop violence.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

You say .......You are coming along here...guns don't cause violence........Right , so the 30, 000 gun deaths a year are caused by people like you being allowed to carry guns and your point is ?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Small correction. That crazy bunch of white haired hippy colonists who won a war against the most powerful military in the world made gun ownership a right not a privalage. By exercising my rights I can directly affect that statistic. If I leave my gun in the dresser one day and something horrible happens, then that number only goes up. On the other hand if I am armed that number could go up or down.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't you support back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?I would support that. Now gtfo.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Guns contribute to most murders in the US. Why not restrict those weapons, and then there will be less murders!
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

I mean it. These guys are just like toddlers. They throw a tantrum at the mere suggestion you might want to take away their lethal toysSo a female has no right to a firearm to protect herself from a rapist.A black man has no right to a firearm to protect himself from systematic oppression by a racist cop.A gay man has no right to a firearm to protect himself from a homophobic maniac.A liberal has no right to a firearm to protect himself from a Neo-Nazi.Liberals have no right to a firearm to protect themselves from an authoritarian government.God you people are sick.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

So a female has no right to a firearm to protect herself from a rapist.The exact same law which arms the female also arms the rapist you backwards hillbilly twit. How is it so difficult to understand that for every female you arm, you also arm five rapists? Guns are incredibly useful for rapists, but they are of very little use to most females.You are, in short, retarded.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

All I ever hear from Americans is how it is their "right" to possess dangerous weapons, without the slightest consideration for the danger it puts other people in1)You are more likely to be killed by a toddler or killed by lightning than by a Muslim...I mean a firearm.2)So the cops are systematically oppressing black people according to libs, but said black people have no right to a firearm while the "racist police" are armed like it's Armageddon? Makes sense......
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

You are more likely to be killed by a toddler or killed by lightning than by a Muslim....I mean a firearm.Do Muslims kill 30,000 people per year in the United States? No.Do toddlers kill 30,000 people per year in the United States? No.Does lightning kill 30,000 people per year in the United States? No.Do guns kill 30,000 people per year in the United States? Yes.THEREFORE, YOUR ATTEMPTED COMPARISON MUST NECESSARILY BE A LIE. GIVEN THE NUMBERS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE TRUE.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

It is a United States Constitutional right to common dense to keep and bear-arm. As this process is a common defense mentioned in writing by the United States Constitution. Due to the fact a fire-arm is personal property when simply legislated away without full payment in advance to seizer becomes crime. Never are the words how much will it cost to buy this property ever said. This means in the end the Government force trying to remove a bare-arm set by principle to common defense will be buying this one arm, brought to bear to insure liberty. This means a declared self-value unlike any advances taken by Freedom.An intellectual skilled thief is still just a common criminal in judicial imparity. The 2nd Amendment though ratified by all states has never been proven by any of said states actual holding required means of addition separation of this Union to Right.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

Yes we are selfish it comes with the liberty as a person is allowed to hold self-value. Unlike Freedom. Any cost change made when a person is given more, and then more cost, to obtain an object, this cost can be added to the price of purchasing the object from them. Even when made by legislators who are just asked to be agents on behalf of public, domestic, or foreign seeking to illegally remove one basic Common defense in a long line of such common dense.
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

never had any exp :pbut i think if u are sound enough then its all fine but if the numbers show that 30000 people die due to guns then it probably means that people are not sane enough
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Hello T,From an emotional point of view, your argument makes sense. But we don’t make laws based on emotion. We make them based on the Constitution. If you can round up 2/3 of the states, then we can make an impact. excon
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

From an emotional point of view, your argument makes sense.You have it backwards. The only point of view my argument makes sense from is one of cold logic. Why waste 30,000 lives each year that you don't need to waste?
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: No

Hello again, T:Logic, schmogic.... Waste, shmaste.. Those are NICE words. But, you cannot HAVE a discussion about guns WITHOUT mentioning the Constitution.. It's like talking about flying WITHOUT mentioning wings. In you're not gonna discuss what can be DONE about it, I ain't interested in your pity party..excon
Debate: American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals
Side: Yes

But, you cannot HAVE a discussion about guns WITHOUT mentioning the ConstitutionYou know that guns are an amendment to the constitution, right? They aren't part of the original document. Even if they were, then why should I respect you for holding belief in that piece of paper above everything else more than I do a Christian for holding it in the Bible? Let's face it: if you are going to use ancient wisdom as an argument, then their wisdom is considerably more ancient than yours. Plus, it was given to them by God and God outranks Benjamin Franklin as an arbiter of justice.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

Today's Britain is nothing more than a hollowed out shell of a former empire, once great, but weakened and almost gone.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: Britain

An empire which America never had...
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

The US was never that powerful, but the united states is still powerful and saved britain from total collapse after world war II.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: Britain

At the price of us giving up our colonies. If America had joined WWII at the same time Britain did and put in the same effor that Britain did, then it is likely that the British Empire would still be around for a lot longer afterwards.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

I am not talking about the United States saving Britain in the whole "MURIKA SAVED DA DAY FRUM DA NAZIS!" I mean the US saved Britain from total economic collapse... well actually, we didn't completely stop it but we definitely lightened the fall, unfortunately instead of recovering the UK decided to follow a more centrist path and dishonor the empire even further.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: Britain

I'm still stating that if America had fought their fair share of both the World Wars, Britain would never have been in an economic crisis.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

What are you talking about? Why is any European conflict our responsibility? You do know that we live all the way over here in North America right?Are you aware that Britain started WWI with the Germans? Are you under some delusional impression that we started these conflicts? No, we just saved you from them after Britain's colossal, embarrassing military failure. You're welcome.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: Britain

We got involved with WWI because we knew the meaing of the word "alliance" you americans clearly don't. Britain did not start WWI, Austria declared war on Serbia. Russia, Serbia's ally, declared war on Austria. Germany, Austria's ally, declared war on Russia and Serbia. France, Russia's ally, declared war on Germany and Austria. Germany attempts to invade France by invading Belgium. Britain, Belgium's ally, then declares on on Germany.Please endevour to explain how you managed to come to the conclusion that Britain started WWI with the Germans?And then please expln your claim that Britain made any military failures and that America saved Britain at all.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

It's not just my conclusion, it's history. From wikipedia, (link below)The growth of Germany and the United States eroded Britain's economic lead by the end of the 19th century. Subsequent military and economic tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily upon its empire. Fail. On to the next question,And then please expln your claim that Britain made any military failures and that America saved Britain at allWell we can start with the 1941 Lend lease act signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt which gave a total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $647 billion today) worth of supplies to the allies to fight WW2, absolutely free of charge. The U.K. received $31.4 billion in tanks and guns and planes to defend their little island, all of which they squandered. Of course, it wasn't long before the Luftwaffe was bombing the shit out of London and the U.K. was back at our doorstep begging again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-LeaseSo, we did everything we could to help you with YOUR silly war, short of dieing for you. When the Japanese made the horrible mistake of attacking a U.S. state, we fucked some shit up. See, we have no problem fighting, we're just not going to do it for some shitty little island.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: Britain

"The growth of Germany and the United States eroded Britain's economic lead by the end of the 19th century. Subsequent military and economic tensions between Britain and Germany were major causes of the First World War, during which Britain relied heavily upon its empire."There were long term causes and short term causes. The short term cause was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, while the economic tension lead to the build up of the war. It didn't cause it."Well we can start with the 1941 Lend lease act signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt which gave a total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $647 billion today) worth of supplies to the allies to fight WW2, absolutely free of charge.The U.K. received $31.4 billion in tanks and guns and planes to defend their little island, all of which they squandered. Of course, it wasn't long before the Luftwaffe was bombing the shit out of London and the U.K. was back at our doorstep begging again. "Sorry, I thought we were talking about WWI. If we're talking about WWII then it was America who made huge military failures. In the D-Day landings which many people argue was crucial to the allies victory, the American invasion of Ohama beach was nearly a failure due to the bad planning and excecution. Half of the amphibious tanks were launched too far out and sank, of the 16 that actually landed only 2 survived (The American divisions later had to borrow tanks from the British). Your American Air Force, bombed 3 miles behind the beach and missed their target, the US Army plan included equipment that had been absolete in WWI.The reason the British were more successful in both their beaches was due to their experience and armoured assault vehicles.Source"So, we did everything we could to help you with YOUR silly war, short of dieing for you. When the Japanese made the horrible mistake of attacking a U.S. state, we fucked some shit up. See, we have no problem fighting, we're just not going to do it for some shitty little island."Why have you suddenly changed to WWII? I know that the Americans did have a slight effect in WWII, but Britain could certainly have fought the war without them in WWI.Anyway, it's common knowledge that you didn't join WWII at the beginning because your economy srewed up and was going nowhere. And you still have yet to explain how either WWI or WWII were caused by Britain.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

And I am stating that it is not America's job to help Britain maintain their empire. Its like saying "Austria caused the collapse of the Chinese empire because they didn't get involved in a war (that didn't really concern them) soon enough.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: Britain

Then why do you Americans claim credit for the War?
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

We don't claim credit for the war, we claim credit for making Britain's economic collapse not as bad as it would have become (which America did) and stopping the soviets from advancing further into Europe (which America did)
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: Britain

Anyway, who said joining fighting WWI was maintaining Britain's empire? The only reason Britain joined was to protect it's ally Belgium.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

Never said joining WWI was about maintaing the British empire. However, WWI, the Treaty of Versailles (which was extremely unfair toward Germany) and the post-WWI actions of Britain and France (including the Treaty of Versailles) are what caused WWII. The second world war is what caused Britain to lose its empire and the economic collapse later on, Britain was hit hard in WWI but would have retained almost all of its empire if it wasn't for WWII.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: Britain

"Never said joining WWI was about maintaing the British empire."Yes you did, I said Britain would never have owed the USA money if the USA had fought their fair share of WWI.You then said that it wasn't America's duty to maintain Britain's Empire." However, WWI, the Treaty of Versailles (which was extremely unfair toward Germany) and the post-WWI actions of Britain and France (including the Treaty of Versailles) are what caused WWII."And who was it who used the war loans of Britain and France to get his way at the Treaty of Versailles? Your American President Woodrow Wilson."The second world war is what caused Britain to lose its empire and the economic collapse later on, Britain was hit hard in WWI but would have retained almost all of its empire if it wasn't for WWII."Britain could have easily kept the empire if they had just made all of it federal and equal. The only thing that killed the Britain Empire was the British.
Debate: America vs Britain
Side: America

Yes you did, I said Britain would never have owed the USA money if the USA had fought their fair share of WWI.You then said that it wasn't America's duty to maintain Britain's Empire.Your misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not talking about debt and Britain owing America money after WWI, I am talking about how after WWII the British Empire started going under and America softened the fall for them on the economic side of things.When I said it was not America's duty to maintain Britain's Empire I am not saying that the USA didn't do anything, I'm saying that blaming the British Empire's downfall on America for not getting involved enough and fighting their "fair share" (in a war America really had no place in and the only reason America got involved was because Woodrow Wilson was insane and corrupt) is almost like saying that is was America's job to maintain Britain's Empire. And who was it who used the war loans of Britain and France to get his way at the Treaty of Versailles? Your American President Woodrow Wilson.And who wanted heavy reparations, sanctions against Germany and a demilitarization of Germany? Britain and France.Britain could have easily kept the empire if they had just made all of it federal and equal. The only thing that killed the Britain Empire was the British.WWII was one of the major causes of Britain's economic problems, these economic problems are what caused the British to give up their empire.