azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Unless you can actually quantify the number of lives that have been saved through gun control, yours is a non-argument and fundamentally flawed from the get-go.Unlike yours however, one CAN quantify the number of lives that have been saved by looser control.It stands to reason that, if one is presented with a mass shooter, and that mass shooter is shot and killed, or held at bay, before he can unload his magazine entirely, by someone who was present and carrying a firearm as well. The person has undoubtably prevented as many injuries/deaths, as the shooter had ammunition left. Furthermore, it stands to reason that the Earlier a person shoots and kills such a menance, the more lives are saved by it, and likewise the Later such a shooting can be done, the more lives are lost, or injuries caused.The point is not to prevent a mass shooting, such thing would be entirely impossible, the point is to MINIMIZE the amount of damage that such a mass shooting can cause. If every mass murder was killed after firing just one shot, you can quantify the number of lives saved and injuries prevented. However, if all you're relying on is the honor system to prevent mass shootings, and forbid people the option of proactively removing the threat as soon as possible, Each and Every Single One of them is going to have MASS Victims.So, which then is in actuality the real safest solution? Prevent an unknown number of "potential" mass murders, and permit the real ones that get through to cause extreme loss of life and injury? Or stop each and every one of them that actually occurs as soon as possible, as well as stop a similarly unquantifiable number (as the "gun prohibition" choice) of "potential" threats on top of that?As for kids shooting each other in fights. This is reduced through education, teaching the kinds responsibility and to not treat guns lightly or use them in personal feuds. It can be further reduced by providing alternative means for settling disputes that equally burn out the anger, such as competitions and contests, and frequently encouraging their frequent use. It can be even further reduced through strict penalties for misuse, abuse, and criminal use of the weapons, as well as confiscation on a case by case basis, rather than unilaterally and universally.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

If easily available weapons are problem, then having more of them is not obviously a solution. It's just a proof how well you have been brainwashed by weapons manufacturer's lobby.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Easily available weapons aren't the problem. Restrictive gun laws disarming the victims and leavening them vulnerable is the problem. Your argument is proof of how well you have been brain washed by the Anti-gun lobby.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

In the majority of school shootings it's the legally bought easily available Guns that have been used not the illegal ones bought off the street.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

"Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither and lose both"-Benjamin Franklin. The means by which these psychos get guns is irrelevant and trying to restrict access to guns will punish the rest of us as well and leave us more vulnerable to criminals who do purchase their weapons illegally. I'm suggesting that a good way to lessen the risk and effect of these shootings while not increasing the national murder rate as happened in Detroit, Chicago, LA, New York and DC when their hand gun ban was active is to allow citizens to be armed in the facility's most likely to be subject to attack.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

According to your "logic". Government should give away cocaine to kids because what will sort out ease of access to drugs than more easily accessible drugs?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

According to your "logic" no one does cocaine because it has been banned.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

obviously done much less than if unbanned.... isn't it ?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I always enjoy that you guys never quite have the perfect solution. Much less cocaine is used. Gun deaths are almost 0, but at least the numbers are lower. Never quite get rid of drug use, never quite get rid of gun death.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

but you still can reduce it to the level similar to civilized countries .
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I don't think you can. You actually don't have a good reason to believe that the gun control regulations are the cause.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

If we skip place like Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan then USA is the only country on the world that allows mentally ill people to have unlimited amount of army grade weapons and ammo... so yes, you have problem with easily accessible weapons.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Good point. Well, except for the fact that those people tend to account for a very small portion of gun deaths. The real problem is in how we deal with easily accessible firearms. Over here in America we don't want to address the issue of the mentally ill. It is just a gut reaction, and let's ban everything, oh, and maybe address accessibility.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

No necessary everything, just things that aren't useful for real life self defense. Things like: large capacity mags, rifles, large caliber weapons, special ammo, silencers...I'm from Czech Republic if you want to have a weapon (actual handgun). It used to be that only those who were drafted a had clean record from army could have a weapon.I'm from Czech Rep.You have to undergo 2 psychological screenings, be 25 years old, do several week training and the most important you have to prove that you need a gun. After that you will get a weapon licence. You have to chose a handgun from list of allowed ones, no special ammo, silencers, etc. allowed. You can have only one additional clip with you. If you break any rule or get drunk with weapon..etc. you loose your right to carry weapon for life.We have ten times less gun kills per 100 000 than US and even from those is 80% suicides.In the UK it's even 4x less.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

aren't useful for real life self defenseI don't understand the need to tell someone how they should defend themselves.2 psychological screenings ... 80% suicidesSo, what is wrong with the psychological screenings over there that you can't weed out the ones who will commit suicide. When we get psych screenings over here I want them to be better than yours. In the UK it's even 4x less.I am sorry, but with the length of time that gun regulation has been in place in England, any number of gun deaths over 0 is too high. Although, if it was kept to single digits I would still consider that success.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

2 psychological screenings ... 80% suicidesthose 80% are 4 people from 11 000 000. I don't think so that you will do any better.In the UK it's even 4x less....you have no gun law at all. and 35000 kill shots every year ..and you are disappointed with UK's score? :D lol
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

will do any betterSo, 80% of gun deaths happen because a twice screened person killed themselves, which implies that the screening failed. And, you don't think we can do better than that? So, what is the point of the screenings if they don't/can't work?disappointed with UK's score Yeah, why would I want to do something that doesn't work?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

we have 92% less death by gun that US. So it works, they aren't screened for suicides, that isn't a crime or threat moron. You have gun like Somalia... so stop shitting "what you would do better" when you do nothing.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

less death by gunMy favorite diversion tactic. I believe that eliminating death by gun is not really the overall goal. If the overall murder rate would be higher without guns, then the trade off of higher gun deaths is ok.they aren't screened for suicidesOh, ok, so all we need to do is ask the question "Hey, are you suicidal?" Sweet, that helps. It seems like a dumb idea to leave that question off the screening if you actually cared about people dieing.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Why are those who support gun control so obsessed with reducing the number of "GUN DEATHS" as opposed to the "OVERALL MURDER RATE"?The reason the US has more gun deaths than the UK? We have more people than you guys do, plan and simple. It's got nothing to do with gun restrictions or lack there-of.Now, please explain to me why most American gun crime occurs in areas of America where we have the strictest gun control laws in effect, and the areas in America with the lowest OVERALL CRIME rate have the Least Restrictive gun regulations. I'm still trying to spin my head around how gun control works in light of those facts.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Yes, it is. You are correct. The law to prevent gun violence in gun free areas, slows gun violence. Just as the law to prevent cocaine use, slows cocaine use.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Who said any thing about handing anything out? I'm just saying people should be allowed to have guns available to them whenever and wherever they deem it nessisary. And this doesn't apply to anyone under the legal age for ownership and carry either open or concealed of course. Maturity must still be taken into account.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

There is no selection procedure who actually can own gun, neither training is mandatory.Also .22 with 6 round mag is enough for self deference. It's light, accurate and does not penetrate walls... but that would make your true government/weapons lobby unhappy :D
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

There is a selection procedure it's called a background check what els do you want. And your right a 22. Revolver is a fantastic weapon in my opinion but some people want bigger guns a d the founders made it pretty clear that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed so tell your queen Dian Finstine to read the constitution.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

So you are allowed to ride a tank or own a nuke warheads ?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Firearms not war heads obviously pleas try to avoid creating straw men and keep your arguments within the realm of reality. And you can own a tank they are massively expensive but its legal.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

what about chemical and biological rounds for your mortar or tanks ...does it still counts as a second amendment?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

What is with you and the straw man arguments today? And no those have been outlawed by the Geneva convention so if we ever did have to fight our own government (the reason the second amendment was wrighten) we wouldn't be able to use those wouldn't need to either those are just shootable bad ideas.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Was the signing under Geneva convention pact a big problem in US? ...it limits your rights given you by second amendment..
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Not entirely war needs rules it had them back in 1777 and it should have them now. The fact is the second amendment gives us the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. And some weapons shouldn't even be used in war.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I think that it does more harm than good. In 1770 the high tech was guy on horse wit percussive rifle so it had some sense but now when potentially tyrannical government (I assume that suppose to be US gov) has things like tanks, jet, ships, submarines, missiles, nukes, bombers ...so allowing people to have rifles has no point anymore.The hypothetical conflict would be something like present USA army vs. preset NK...
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I disagree guerrilla warfare is highly effective it's the simple matter of brains over brawn you see. And the real war as every dictator knows is for the hearts and minds of the people if we convince enough people to rise up the government will be forced to back down both by internal struggle and international pressure. But we must be allowed the tools nessisary for the less glorious side of war as well.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Look at Syria, that is rifle vs. rifle. Guerrilla never worked anywhere, it's useless.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Lets see it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Afghanistan (ask Russia) it worked in France (French resistance) it worked in Russia (Russian partisans) and oh yeah it worked in America
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

you are skipping a little detail that those guerrillas were fully supported and trained by another country. Also they were not attacked by "tyrannical" government otherwise they would be bombed out in few days. Same as Saddam bombed out Kurdish.It's just a propaganda from weapons manufacturers hoping that you buy more useless weapons. Guerrilla war has to be allowed by the attackers, they have to respect human rights and respect civilians otherwise they just wipe you out.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The Russians invaded Afghanistan, we invaded Vietnam, the nazis invade France, the nazis invade Russia, the British declared martial law in the colonies. In all those instances it was the defender who used guerrilla warfare. When martial law goes down those who chose to fight against it will escape to secluded areas and form insurgent groups where I live there's a shit ton of mountains prime real estate. A d many of the people most adamant about defending gun rights are veterans, active duty solders, law enforcement officers, and even if you aren't one of these modern gun fighting lessons are easily found http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwHbIvju2c8 http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=4eSrccO4DKI
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Hiding in mountains had sense before inventing infrared targeting :D I also quite doubt yours AK47/ar15 efficiency in shooting down drone or F22... :D
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

That's why I picked the mountains drones can't see you if your in a cave. And a Barrett 50. Cal sniper rifle (legal in most states) will make quick work of drones. Besides I have no doubt a fair bit of the military will be on our side.http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C8N91O04EhE
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Hitting drone with rifle :D :D yeah... :D what about using slingshot wit hand grenades? :D :D.You will be presented as terrorist to rest of the population, nobody would be at your side. Just few hundreds of rednecks.. no big deal.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The 50. Cal is a tank killer as in it was designed to destroy fucking tanks what would it will do to a drone? Well a lot actually. You'll be presented as terrorists to the rest of the population nobody would be at your sideThat's exactly what the British thought and tried to portray the colonists as it didn't work. Mubarak's government called the protesters terrorists that didn't work we've been calling AlQuida terrorists for years now and they continue to draw recruites. The problem is one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. But what dose this have to do with abolishing "gun free zones"
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Effective range of .50 is one mile in distance .... that is max 300 meters the "up way" :D ...drone cal fly much higher..
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

You are ignoring the part about solders defecting, bringing things with them, we may have rocket launchers brought to us by solders who decide to side with us. But anyway are you basceing you entire argument on "it's useless don't bother" really? I'm shure there where a fare bit of colonists who shared that sentiment back during the revolution look I never said it would be easy but if we don't try what kind of men would we be?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

what about sending crows of ducks into jets engines ?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

That might not be such a bad idea. A little unorthodox but it could work. Of just shot its engines with a Barrett 50.cal. But like I also said many solders are constitutionalists (peace officers too look up oath keepers) we will have some shit we don't have now.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

The links are to videos demonstrating my pointy on classes I tried to link the first one directly but the site is being bitchy with me. Here are some more videos http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKM6nv-6Ds&feature=related http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=njBHyMUUWrk&feature=related http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLdGdctTM4&feature=related
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Wow... that is a very stupid connection. Cocaine is far different. Cocaine should be restricted, because you don't need to protect yourself with cocaine. Guns, on the other hand, will be obtained by criminals no matter the laws, because of the simple fact that they are criminals. They don't follow the laws. Gun laws will only restrict the victims of criminals from protecting themselves. People die now because they can't protect themselves. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in America, and they also have the most killings by guns in the United States. Is that not proof enough for you?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

I dont think aboloshing Gun Free Zones is the answer especially in places like schools as someone else has pointed out Guns in a volatile place like schools is not a good idea and if Guns are allowed it would be hard for someone to differentiate between a Shooter and someone just carrying their Gun for self defence but maybe having armed guards on the premises might work as a deterrent whilst safeguarding peole.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

But why hire more personnel when you can just arm teachers? In schools the kids won't be armed obviously you need to be 21 to carry a gun about anyway. But if we arm and train teachers that would be a financially sound way of improving student safety.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I think that would be cheaper to build a huge wall around the school... :D
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Not really the building cost of putting a huge wall around every school in America would be enormous.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

school with 30 teachers ...all of them with private "Security & close protection" training which costs about $5000/per person, plus weapons, weekly shootings, compensations for teachers, repeating training every 2 years...You can build a proper wall :D
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Ah but if the school simply makes training and practice hours mandatory for those who wish to be armed then they can go and find the best concealed carry class and range for them. And of course the cost of ammo will be low too as teacher will only be provided 2 extra mags (they should be allowed to bring more form home if they wanted to though) alternatively I'm sure your local police or sheriffs department will have no problem training the teachers and letting them use their range they will have to coordinate range days of course but that's not a problem where I live the El Paso county sheriffs office and Colorado Springs police department share a range and it works out for the two of them.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

So teacher will be the first one dies... that does not makes a big difference to me...
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Gun free zones are a reality that life needs.We need more "free zones"People are bound get offended by some things and when they do they want to go somewhere where they are not.On the internet that is much easier to do, one must simply log off, but in the real world it's harder to do. If they were completely gone, it'd be impossible to do.People who want to use their guns can use their guns in the non gun free zones, while the people who don't want to see them, can go the gun free areas. I see it as not limiting rights, but making this a better place for everyone.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

You don't have a way to prevent guns from getting in the gun free zones.Actual gun free zones are actually nice, they are called airports. A "sealed" environment where everyone is checked before they enter.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

No duh. Guns will find a way into gun free zones, just like drugs and alcohol will find a way into the hands of people who aren't allowed to have them.That doesn't mean we should just lift the law on it.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

Guns will find a way into gun free zonesOk, now I don't know what you want. What do YOU mean by a gun free zone?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

A place where you have the security of knowing they are illegal.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

But that security is worthless because guns can easily get in. What is the point if the zone won't actually be gun free?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

The security is for peace of mind.People can break into your house with locks on the door, yet you still lock those right?In locking the door you feel safer that people will not come in regardless of the fact that they can.No system is perfect, yet peace of mind should exist to defeat all of that.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I guess I just don't know what about guns scares you. Are you afraid of being shot? Hey, that's illegal. Are you afraid of being robbed at gunpoint? Hey, that's illegal. Are you afraid of being kidnapped by a gunman? Hey, that's illegal. Peace of mind is up to you.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

I guess I just don't know what about guns scares you.It's not that guns scare me. It's that guns can be scary. And people want to be in a place where they can be unafraid. Why should we deprive them of that?Are you afraid of being shot? Hey, that's illegal. Are you afraid of being robbed at gunpoint? Hey, that's illegal. Are you afraid of being kidnapped by a gunman? Hey, that's illegal. Peace of mind is up to you.Peace of mind is up to the person who wants peace, and for that reason we have the government in place to protect that peace when they can't do it themselves.It's like this. If guns were legal in school, when any fight happens, and they do, a gun could just as easily have been pulled out and used rather than fists. Why wouldn't you want to decrease the likelihood of that?It's not about my personal peace that these laws are in place, they are in place because the government is there to protect us. The government makes a rule you cannot shoot people. If you do you are prosecuted. The government makes a rule you can not do crack, if you do you are prosecuted. Why should the government not make a rule that some areas are off limits to guns, where if you bring one, you will be prosecuted?No ones trying to take your guns, why do gun lovers have to take the peace of mind from the people afraid of them?
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

No ones trying to take your guns, why do gun lovers have to take the peace of mind from the people afraid of them?Your entire argument basically ignored mine. Give me an example of a gun being used legally that other people are afraid of. Let me make it as simple as possible for you.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: No

Give me an example of a gun being used legally that other people are afraid of.Soldier and police use.I addressed all of your argument with the bolded letters, the ending was just saying how you have your rights, and the people who don't want guns around them should have theirs too.
Debate: Should we abolish
Side: Yes

I addressed all of your argument with the bolded lettersThat's why I used the word basically. Everything that bad people can do with guns is illegal in the same way having guns would be illegal in a gun free zone, but that is not enough. Somehow banning guns is the thing that will finally do it.Soldier and police useWHAT?!?! You want to have citizens not carry guns, and you consider the only ones you think should have guns as scary? That seems silly to me. This just shows your peace of mind argument is crap.