azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

A murderer, most often, kills one or two people. A rapist does not kill anybody. Why should they be tortured.As I implied all throughout this - it is not as punishment, it is to get information to save lives.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Let me ask a question: Should torturing American suspects of crimes be legal? Although I'm not sure I would support torturing anyone, it is atrocious to torture someone who may not have even done anything wrong. If someone did this to Americans, we'd all be going through the roof. Why is it different because it's people in the Middle East?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

It should be illegal, but it wont... No shit we'd be going through the roof. Did you know that the people in middle east do torturer us? Did you know they behead us? Did you know they shoot us in the head execution style? There are many things they do to us. We could do way worse things then "Waterboarding".
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

I know that there are terrorists in the Middle East, but I also know that not everyone from the Middle East is a terrorist. I'm saying that every human being deserves the right to a fair trial. Why is it okay to torture and detain a man from the Middle East without a trial? He's a human being with the same rights as an American. Not the same legal rights, but the same natural rights. It sounds like you're saying that because some people in the Middle East torture Americans, Americans should be allowed to torture ANYONE in the Middle East, even someone not proven to have had any part of torturing us. I'm talking about terrorism SUSPECTS, not CONVICTS. As I said before, I'm not sure I'm okay with torturing anyone at all, but I know that it's not okay to torture those who may be innocent. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/guantanamo-prisoner-successfully-challenges-unlawful-detention This man was tortured and isolated without a trial or even a charge. That's not okay.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Never.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7u-Wk1aU-E
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

I dont think watterboarding should be leagal in most cases. Now if a guy claims to know that there is a nuclear bomb planted in New York City yeah probably water board him. But im not sure i want to give goverment power to torture people when ever they want to.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

Waterboarding is torture. And it doesn't work all the time. It's funny that people still do it when they talk about democracy.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: yes

Would you torture if the lives of your family depended on it?
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

I believe that no one should be waterboarded. Not even to convicted mass murderers like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. How can one say they believe in the equal rights of ALL human beings if they torture a few of them, but leave the rest intact. Waterboarding, while it won't kill you, makes you believe that you're drowning. CIA agents themselves could not last for more than thirteen seconds. Waterboarding is so severe, you'll wish you were dead, a reason why there are so many suicide attempts at Guantanamo Bay. The Universal Declaration of Human rights, established over 60 years ago, reminds us all of the rights and freedoms we all are guaranteed. Article 5 states:"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."The federal government has repeatedly ignored some of the most important things in our lives that we take for granted; sanity, dignity and most importantly, our humanity. To be human in the moral sense means to be a compassionate, merciful individual who has respect for other humans. Many think that waterboarding will provide us with valuable information. Just like aggressive interrogation, the prisoner would likely provide false information, so the pain would stop. It is human nature to do so. Therefore, waterboarding is cruel, unnecessary and violates some of the most basic principles of humanity. The alleged "information" we garner from waterboarding is most likely inaccurate and will simply waste more money. It's time we stop this sick game.
Debate: Should Waterboarding Suspected Terrorists Be Legal?
Side: No

I think not because there are many times when they are not actually terrorists, and when they are, they might not even have the information we want to get from them. But if there was a time when we knew for sure someone was a terrorist and they did have information we need, I say torture all you want. In fact, if it were my decision, I wouldn't stop at water boarding.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I don't think gun free zones cause shootings, but I sure don't think they help. It's not like a would-be mass murderer is going to say, "Oh shit, they don't allow guns here. I'm going to have to pick a different place."
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

My point exactly and to add on to that I believe in some cases such as the aurora Colorado shooting and the recent mall shootings the fact that the buildings were "gun free zones" may have influenced the shooters decision. And Adam Lanza picked sandy hook and no one knew his motive for choosing an elementary school my theory is that it was the nearest "gun free zone" or for shock value/infamy maybe both.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

OK, now this is something I don't like about CreateDebate. Since my side is "Yes" and you clicked "Dispute," it set your side to "No," when that's obviously not what you want. Now the vote is 2-1 when it should be 3-0.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

It's okay I fixed it. You can switch the side you want your argument to contribut points to by clicking edit or while typing it. Just click the small blue "switch" button located above the text box bellow the orange side title at the top of the page in this case the orange "yes" or "no"
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Is there evidence that shooters target gun free zones? I would think that Adam Lanza just wanted to shoot up his old elementary school. Even if it weren't labeled gun free, that's no reason to expect that someone would be armed. And he was planning to die anyway, so it wouldn't matter all that much if someone were armed.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Well it would matter if he wanted to kill a lot of people. These shooters want to die in a way they deem "glorious" and being shot by someone who was supposed to be one of their victims before they've gotten three rounds off is probably not what most of them have in mind. And no there's no evidence it's just my theory he wanted to attack our children ware we think they are safe. It would add to his infamy.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Getting shot by an intended victim before getting three rounds off would be a worst case scenario for the shooter. Best case scenario (for the shooter), the hero misses and kills some bystanders, then the shooter kills the hero and takes his gun.On average, the hero takes a while to find the shooter and figure out how to subdue them without hurting anyone else, and the shooter makes maybe half as many kills as they otherwise would have. I don't know, I'm just guessing here.And this is only if someone is armed, which might not be the case. I don't know if the possibility of another gun out there is going to be much of a deterrent.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The best case scenario (for the shooter) is he gets to massacre freely for 30minutes then kill himself when the cops arrive. he/she is there to kill as Manet people as they can because its fun to them they don't want anyone els stealing there fun.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The best case scenario (for the shooter) is he gets to massacre freely for 30minutes then kill himself when the cops arrive. he/she is there to kill as Manet people as they can because its fun to them they don't want anyone els stealing their fun. Or they are there for revenge and don't want anyone stealing their revenge.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

they should and since most shootings are taking places at scholl they should have a securtiy gaurd armed with a small firearm there onyly job would to patrole the premisis and make sure that there is no one there should be there
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

To stop the killing with guns you you have to make it harder to get guns. I don't think more guns is going to make things more safer. Who is going to stop the good guy from going bad?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

The fact that the good guy is a good guy prevents them from doing bad. If a good guy were to do bad, they wouldn't be a good guy anymore, now would they?But why are you so focused on just gun killings? Shouldn't it be the Total kills that you're worried about? Having more guns may not decrease the percentage of "gun deaths" but is sure as hell reduces overall crime rates and overall murder rates.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

That is extremely stupid, I'm sorry but it is. Clearly, in your mind, criminals follow the law and by making it harder to get guns will force these criminals to follow these anti-gun laws just like the kind law-abiding citizens they are. Dude, seriously? Criminals will get guns no matter what. They have black markets etc. They aren't going to follow any damn gun laws. We need guns as citizens to protect ourselves from these criminals.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Check out these true story's http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html http://www.therightscoop.com/another-deadly-theater-shooting-promptly-stopped-by-armed-off-duty-police-officer/ http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

If anything, these stories say that the gun free zones need to be more strict.I'm against that, but that is becoming the case.I say we need the gun free zones just like we need the rules in place against kids doing illegal substances that are legal for adults.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The stories only talk about bad guys being stopped because good guys had guns. Who stops the bad guys if you take away the guns from the good guys?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Who's saying take the guns from the bad guys?We're saying don't let the good guys or the bad guys with guns into some areas of the world.Leave their guns on the porch, and come in for a relaxing glass of tea before going back into the harsh world where everyone wants to shoot you.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

You are saying in this area it is illegal to carry a gun. So, good guys can't have their guns. But, you don't do anything to take away the guns from the bad guys. So, bad guys can come in with guns and regular people can't stop them.where everyone wants to shoot youThis thought is just insane. Newtown was a gun free zone by your definition of gun free zone.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

You are saying in this area it is illegal to carry a gun.In gun free zones, yes. So, good guys can't have their guns.Are we in a comic book? Can we refer to them in the proper terms, the good guys, are the police. The bad guys, are the criminals.But, you don't do anything to take away the guns from the bad guys.Why on Earth would we take the guns from the police? We would prevent the criminals from getting guns but when they do inevitable, the police would stop them. There would be way less gun violence if only the police and the criminals had them, and every time a criminal showed his, was stopped.So, bad guys can come in with guns and regular people can't stop them.Civilians can't stop gunmen in the 1st place, criminal or otherwise.Newtown was a gun free zone by your definition of gun free zone.Were their police with guns in newtown?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Are we in a comic book? Can we refer to them in the proper terms, the good guys, are the police. The bad guys, are the criminals.I am sorry that you are confused. We are only talking about non law enforcement, the civilians. Your whole argument makes no sense after that.Normal civilians with guns stop criminal civilians. Please address my previous argument with this in mind."You are saying in this area it is illegal to carry a gun. So, normal civilians can't have their guns. But, you don't do anything to take away the guns from the criminal civilians. So, criminal civilians can come in with guns and regular people can't stop them."Civilians can't stop gunmen in the 1st place, criminal or otherwise.Apparently you didn't read the stories. In America it is possible.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

We are only talking about non law enforcement, the civilians.They do not need guns.Normal civilians with guns stop criminal civilians.Normal civilians with guns are known as vigilantes. They are illegal. Please address my previous argument with this in mind.There is no reason to readdress your argument because I don't believe normal citizens should be shooting anyone. They never know what the situation is that made a person fire a gun.If normal citizens are firing guns at criminal citizens then when the police come in all they see is citizens firing guns.If a normal citizen with a gun comes into a room where a 'criminal' has a gun in his hand and their are dead students on the floor, the normal citizen with the gun will shoot the 'criminal', then an investigation reveals that all the dead children had guns. It's much better to leave this up to the police.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Well, that's not fair, you are too dumb to argue with. The stories presented describe exactly what you are against and it worked.I see anti gun people seem to have their feelings that deep down they are helping because it feels right. The pro gun people provide evidence that guns help.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

"They do not need guns.'They do if the police are NOWHERE NEARBY."Normal civilians with guns are known as vigilantes. They are illegal."Really? Since when was this the case? Civilians are the sovereign power in America, not the government. And perhaps you have not heard about "private security" companies? Basically civilians with guns and uniforms, tasked with enforcing law and order on private property. Furthermore, the police force is nothing more than a private security firm hired by the government anyway. If anything is illegal, it's granting these "public security firms" special privileges normal civilians are not allowed.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

"You are saying in this area it is illegal to carry a gun."That's already the case, and yet criminals still gain access to these areas, WHILE in possession of guns, and STILL shoot people up in these areas. How does making having guns in these places illegal stop criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, from bringing guns in ANYWAY?"Are we in a comic book? Can we refer to them in the proper terms, the good guys, are the police. The bad guys, are the criminals."I guess this makes the average citizen "collateral damage."Sorry, I don't want to be collateral damage, I want to be able to defend myself from criminals who are in front of me NOW, while the Police are still MINUTES AWAY."Civilians can't stop gunmen in the 1st place, criminal or otherwise."Well, when you deny them their natural right of self defense, yes, that's true. However, any and all civilians who carry guns and exercise their right to self-defense, CAN stop Gunmen. Whether they were legally carrying or not."Were their police with guns in newtown?"Not at the place the shooter shot up. Obviously. That's why there should have been some CIVILIANS with Guns there, because the police, even though THEY were allowed to carry, were entirely absent.Whether a policeman can carry a gun or not is irrelevant if the police aren't there exactly at the when a gun is needed.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Please tell me your being sarcastic. First of all gun free means just that no guns period how can that be any stricter? Second all the stories told of instances when gun toting bystanders saved people thus proving that disarming citizens is a bad thing. And third when have those laws prohibiting kids from substances completely legal for adults ever worked? Did you even go to high school?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Please tell me your being sarcastic.I'm not, sorry.First of all gun free means just that no guns period how can that be any stricter?You mean to tell me guns free means no police either?Second all the stories told of instances when gun toting bystanders saved people thus proving that disarming citizens is a bad thing.You know who else was a gun toting bystander? The original shooter. If they did searches of people that would have prevented the criminalistic gun toting citizens from shooting people, but as I said I don't want that. when have those laws prohibiting kids from substances completely legal for adults ever worked?They lower the frequency. You must admit that.I'm usually in your favor with the gun control rules, but now you want to take the peace of mind from the people who want a gun free area. C'mon! Will you ever be satisfied?What next, a mandatory gun in every home!?!?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

"First of all gun free means just that no guns period how can that be any stricter?"If one was to make the fun free zone stricter, that would be the only option, to disarm police officers as well. Why do you support police officers being armed but not civilians? Certainly armed civilians can exist in places the police will not always frequent. Thus providing equal force to counter a killer as a police officer would."You know who else was a gun toting bystander? The original shooter. If they did searches of people that would have prevented the criminalistic gun toting citizens from shooting people, but as I said I don't want that."By definition the shooter could not have been a bystander. -.-So we've screened the murderer, he's not carrying a gun. He enters the gun-free zone, and then pulls out a sword...Or he gains access to the zone by some back-entrance not screened and pulls out his gun...Or he shoots into the gun-free zone from outside of it...Or he lives and works in this gun-free zone for many years, and, using the tools and materials available in the zone, builds himself a gun... or sword...Or, just to be a prick, he bombs the entrance to the zone, killing the screening guards, and then pulls out his gun and enters the zone...How do you solve these issues?"What next, a mandatory gun in every home!?!?"Actually that would be one of few mandates I would actually support, somewhat.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Abolish all legally created Gun Free Zones (private entities should be free to make their own rules, but highly encouraged to not forbid weapons),And THEN, establish mandatory gun responsibility and training courses in school, at a young age. Educate children that guns are not toys and are NOT to be treated lightly, and are most certainly not to be used for selfish reasons like killing someone you dislike or who treats you bad.Then provide safe competitions and contests for students to settle their beef with each other, rather than resorting to killing and bullying.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I would find that gun free zones are nothing more then wishful thinking. Concerts for example are "gun free zones". Yet, in the case of dime bag Darrel (lead guitarist of Damage Plan) was gunned down on stage in front of many fans. If everyone had been armed with guns and knives he may have thought twice about taking a hostage and the three others that died along with the guitarist would probably have survived. Nathan Gale was also shot dead by the police.http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1494653/guitarist-dimebag-darrell-slain-club-shooting.jhtml
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

They don't really help at all. Actually, they help the gunman because that eliminates the risk of the psychopath getting shot by another citizen with a concealed weapon. I read an article about a women and her parents shopping in a "Gun Free Zone," so like a law-abiding citizen, she left her gun in the car. As she was shopping with her parents, a gunman walked in and killed both of them, but the women lived. She had to live with the fact that she could have saved her parents, if she had her gun with her.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Having Armed Police Officers present reduces the amount of crime that occurs in that present location.Why? It's not because they're police officers. It's because it is an Armed Deterrent.Police Officers can not exist in all places at once. So this necessarily means that the Armed Deterrent is lacking in certain specific areas.Put guns in everyone's hands, and then you have successfully placed an Armed Deterrent anywhere and everywhere a civilian is present. What stops these Armed Civilian good guys from going bad? All the other Armed Civilians surrounding them who can shoot them the moment they turn bad.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

I'm going to speak exclusively on schools.No one is making the argument that saying that a school is a gun free zone will stop 100% of mass shootings. If someone wants to go shoot up a school, there isn't much you can do to stop that. People with access to guns are capable of killing people, after all, whatever laws are in place.But, the law isn't trying to make schools 100% safe. They are trying to make schools safer.If everyone had a gun, we still wouldn't stop mass shootings. People would still be able to kill a number of people, if they attacked a school with assault rifles and grenades. But there would also be a huge number of accidental deaths, and of shootings done in anger, in the moment. People have shot their loved wifes and husbands, their boyfriends and girlfriends of many years, the people they love most in their lives. Put them in a fight at school (like what happens hundreds of times all over the world) and give them a gun, and there'll be hundreds of deaths every day at schools.Yes, if you say that the aim of making a school a gun free zone is to stop 100% of shootings, then you can say that it has failed in this respect. But any reasonable assessment of their effectiveness will clearly show that they have saved an uncountable number of lives.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Let me start my counter argument with a quote regarding the second part of your argument "those who sacrifice liberty in the name of safety shall deserve neither and lose both"-Benjamin Franklin. We see through out history whenever gun control laws are put in place violent crime and murder in particular go up. The vast majority of our nations homicide rate aside from vehicular man slaughter and medical malpractice is justifiable homicide by civilians and police (self defense) and the majority of our nations actual murder rate come from Chicago, Detroit, Los Angels, and New York the 4 cities with the most restrictive gun control laws.